Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 223

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill M207 — Safe Care Act, 2019

J. Thornthwaite

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Genny Verge and B.C. athletes at Special Olympics

N. Simons

Northern Lights Festival in Fort Nelson

D. Davies

SUCCESS Foundation and fundraising gala

A. Kang

Murray Kubian

D. Clovechok

Memorial event for Hari Sharma

R. Chouhan

Sexual assault prevention and services

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Ride-sharing services and driver licensing

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Thornthwaite

Permit for landfill site in Campbell River watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Ride-sharing services and driver licensing

J. Johal

Hon. C. Trevena

S. Cadieux

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

D. Clovechok

E. Foster

R. Leonard

N. Simons

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

S. Furstenau

On the amendment

S. Furstenau

A. Weaver

A. Olsen

On the main motion

M. Morris

T. Stone

P. Milobar

R. Coleman

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

M. Bernier

D. Davies

S. Bond

T. Shypitka

D. Clovechok

C. Oakes

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I know that hon. members will be wondering why there’s a bison flying

out on the flagpole in front of the Legislature today. The flag of Manitoba

is flying because joining us in the gallery today is the Hon. Brian

Pallister, Premier of Manitoba. Premier Pallister is here on vacation, a

fact-finding mission about what to do when the good weather arrives in

Winnipeg. He’s here with his wife, Esther. I look forward to meeting with

the Premier shortly.

Before I take my seat, I want to thank the people of Manitoba for

being there when we were going through devastating floods last year.

Manitoba has extreme experience in this regard and was quick to come to our

aid, as we would reciprocate, should the need arise. To have friends across

the country, whether it be in Manitoba, whether it be on the east coast, is

what really brings us together as a nation. We fight about the Jets and the

Canucks, we fight about the Blue Bombers and the Lions, but we agree on so

many things.

I want all of the members of the House to please welcome warmly the

Premier of Manitoba, Brian Pallister. [Applause.]

Just to continue, as you can see, someone taller than the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey is now in the House.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome a former member of this

place, the former member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who has joined us here

today, on this side of the House. The weather is greater on this side of the

House. Would the members please make Kathy Corrigan very, very

welcome.

J. Tegart: I’m so pleased to have two visitors in the precinct from my riding

today. Jim and Donna Walch are longtime residents of the village of Clinton.

Over the years, they’ve volunteered on most committees, which makes Clinton

a great place to live. Of course, you will see them all dressed up at the

Clinton May ball, the longest-running ball in Canada. Please help me welcome

Jim and Donna to the House.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests in the House today to support me and this

side when we introduce the Safe Care Act. They are Jo-Anne Landolt, Linda

Proctor and Marina Landolt. They’re here. Would the House please make them

welcome.

J. Rice: I have two guests here today. Samuel Schooner is the chair of the

Central Coast regional district, and Courtney Kirk is our CAO for the

Central Coast regional district. They’re both from the Nuxalk territory in

the Bella Coola Valley. I would like the House to please make them feel

welcome.

N. Simons: Today I have a number of guests in the House. Yesterday I introduced

my constituency assistant, Michelle Morton. Today her husband and son

decided to come as well. Sean and Peter are also here today, and I ask the

House to make them welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Before we continue any further, I’d like to introduce a group from the

Sunshine Coast who are here to witness the presentation of a petition a

little bit later on, on the highway situation on the Sunshine Coast. I would

like to introduce Robin Merriott, Jonalyn Siemens, Maureen Bryce, John

Henderson and Lori Pratt, the chair of the Sunshine Coast regional district

and chair of the Halfmoon Bay area. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them.

R. Leonard: I have, also, a number of guests visiting today: longtime resident,

former teacher — and I’ve known him for an awfully long time — Dave Talbot,

who has a brilliant daughter who serves in our government, and his partner,

Charlotte Ericson. I hope that the House will make them feel very welcome

today.

I also have two other folks who have wet their feet in the advocacy

world, and they’re here today to witness the presentation of a petition and

the fruits of their labour. Could you please welcome Bruce Gibbons and

Nicole Poirier.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome — somewhere in the

precinct today, down for meetings — the chair of the Peace River regional

district, Brad Sperling, and the vice-chair of the regional district, Dan

Rose. Would the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ve got some guests in the gallery today. One of them is…. Many of

you will have heard of her and known of her because your CAs contact her all

the time, and that’s my executive assistant, Edena Brown. Many of you have

come and told me what a wonderful job she does. Here is your opportunity to

show your appreciation to Edena.

With Edena today are a couple of her guests, Drs. Greg and Linda

Kealey. Greg is a historian of the working class in Canada and former

vice-president of the University of New Brunswick, where he is professor

emeritus of history. In 2017, he was appointed a member of the Order of

Canada, and the Minister of Education just informed me he read your book

when he was going to school. So that’s a good thing. Linda is also a fellow

of the Royal Historical Society and a scholar with a national and

international reputation.

Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

E. Foster: I have a guest in the House who is a longtime friend, Tom Williamson,

who taught in the Vernon school district for almost 40 years as a teacher, a

coach and a mentor for young people, especially supportive of the trades. In

his retirement, Tom decided to throw his hat in the ring and is now a

trustee for, as my colleague from Surrey used to say, the best school

district in all of B.C. — the Vernon school district, school district No.

22. Please make Tom welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by some good friends from Shuswap —

community of Anglemont. They’re semi-residents of Victoria — have been

spending the winters in Victoria for about 30 plus years. Would the House

please welcome Don and Sheila Riley.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m really pleased that we’re joined in the House today by a

constituent of mine, a friend of mine and the executive director of the

government caucus, Roseanne Moran. Roseanne has committed a lifetime to

social justice issues, and she comes by that through lineage. Her mother,

Bridget Moran, was a lifetime social justice advocate, a social worker and

an accomplished author.

Bridget was a lifetime resident of Prince George, mostly, and wrote a

number of books about B.C. history, including on social justice issues. In

addition to being recognized with an honorary doctorate from UNBC, she also

has a fabulous statue that was commissioned of her by the city of Prince

George in 2003 that you can go visit at 3rd and Quebec.

What I really appreciate is that…. Bridget passed away about 20 years

ago, but there is now a documentary that has just come out talking about her

life called Blacklisted , a Prince George icon, which talks about

her history, fighting for the rights of vulnerable people. I know she made

her daughter very proud.

Welcome to Roseanne, and go and watch the documentary on

Bridget.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Kang: I know she has been introduced already, but I would be remiss to not

introduce my predecessor of beautiful Burnaby–Deer Lake, Kathy Corrigan. She

has been a great friend to me, a mentor and someone who has inspired me to

serve. Who I am today here as a politician is mainly due to Kathy Corrigan.

Once again, I would like everyone to join me in giving her a very big, warm

welcome.

J. Sturdy: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming one of my constituents, Jen

Ford, up in the gallery today. Jen is a two-term councillor for the resort

municipality of Whistler, vice-chair for the Squamish-Lillooet regional

district as well as chair for the Sea to Sky Regional Hospital

District.

Jen is the portfolio lead for social services and regional cooperation

as well as one of the potential commissioners for what we hope to be very

soon a newly formed regional transit service in the Sea to Sky. She’s here

to attend the Regional District Chair and CAO Forum. Please join me in

welcoming her and her colleagues from around the province to the House

today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2019.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Environmental Management

Amendment Act, 2019. This bill proposes a series of amendments to the

Environmental Management Act to enhance the process of how contaminated

sites are identified in this province.

The bill also proposes amendments to strengthen investigative

powers of the conservation officer service. The bill aims to strengthen

the site identification process in B.C. in three tangible

ways.

Site identification is streamlined by eliminating unnecessary

requirements and improving clarity. This will reduce overall

administrative burden and ensure timely investigation of contaminated

sites.

Site investigation will be automatic where a prescribed industrial

or commercial activity has occurred on a site and if a person, owner or

operator of a site is undergoing bankruptcy, shutting down operations or

seeking redevelopment.

In circumstances of owners or operators undergoing bankruptcy,

individuals will be required to identify sites. This will increase the

likelihood that contamination is addressed by the responsible person and

not by the public.

The bill will also strengthen the investigative authority of

B.C.’s conservation officer service by incorporating Criminal Code of

Canada provisions into the Environmental Management Act. While

conservation officers can use Criminal Code provisions to investigate

serious environmental offences under federal environmental legislation,

they cannot do so under provincial legislation.

An expanded range of tools for conservation officers will result

in more effective and efficient investigations and greater protection

for the environment.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M207 — SAFE CARE ACT, 2019

J. Thornthwaite presented a bill intituled Safe Care Act,

J. Thornthwaite: I move a bill intituled Safe Care Act, 2019, of which notice has

been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first

time.

I’m pleased to stand in this House to reintroduce the Safe Care

Act. I first brought this bill forward on February 28, 2018.

Unfortunately, since then, almost 20 youth have died from drug

overdoses.

This legislation allows for the apprehension of vulnerable

children and youth whose situation places them or others at an

unacceptable level of risk and allows for their subsequent safe

placement in a service that will respond to their trauma and high risk

of harm — children in need of support and assistance in order to deal

with issues of mental health, substance use, sexual exploitation or

partner violence.

[1:50 p.m.]

Of course, the most effective way to help youth is through the

provision of voluntary services such as detox, residential treatment

recovery programs and mental health services, but sometimes voluntary

services are not enough. A youth who has been on a binge, drug use for

several days and who has just received Narcan and is in a state of

drug-craving and possible hypoxia has significantly impaired judgment

and is not capable of informed consent. If we all agree that addiction

is a disorder of the mind and that youths’ brains are still growing and

under construction, then they are not in the right mind to make a choice

to stop using.

In many cases, youth are discharged within hours of an overdose.

The advantage of the Safe Care Act is not only to protect the youth from

immediate harm or another overdose but to help their brains become

rewired and back to normal and to get them the necessary help in the

required amount of time that they need for treatment and recovery — not

discharge.

Not only should parents be immediately notified upon their child’s

admission to hospital, the most responsible thing to do is to keep them

safe, and the Safe Care Act will help with that. Doesn’t it seem prudent

for government to give it a try, given that what we are currently doing

is obviously not working? I once again ask that government immediately

bring the Safe Care Act to debate in the House for the sake of our youth

and for the sake of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Safe Care Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GENNY VERGE AND B.C. ATHLETES

AT SPECIAL

OLYMPICS

N. Simons: I’d like to congratulate gold medal swimmer Genny Verge and her

teammates. Early this month she and her team joined over 7,500 athletes

from 200 nations across the globe in Abu Dhabi for the 2019 Special

Olympics World Games, the largest sporting event anywhere in the world

in 2019.

Genny is a resident of the Sunshine Coast and is an accomplished

athlete and swimmer. She has also been a Special Olympics athlete for

over eight years and joined because of the inclusive, warm welcome she

received. I got some of this information about Genny from Mike Oswald,

also a Special O athlete, who wrote an

article for the Coast

Reporter .

Special Olympics B.C. provides sport, recreation, training and

opportunities for fun competition to athletes with diverse intellectual

abilities on the Sunshine Coast and all over British Columbia. The

Sunshine Coast has over 60 athletes participating in 13

programs.

All of us as MLAs know how important Special O supporters are —

from athletes, coaches, families, siblings to the organizers and all of

the volunteers. Genny trains with the support of head coach Cathy Verge,

Chinook coach Rob Hyde, and former coach Catherine Duncombe, day in and

day out on everything from freestyle and diving to breath control and

underwater kicking. Congratulations are due to all the Special Olympics

Team Canada athletes and the incredible coaches and mission

staff.

Besides Genny, the athletes from B.C. were Patrick Reid from

Victoria; Linda Renner from Prince George; April Armstrong from Burnaby;

Malcolm Borsoi from Surrey; Sheryl Jakubowski from Fort St. John;

Arianna Phillips from Nanaimo; Kyle Grummet from West Kelowna; Erin Thom

from Cranbrook; John Canning from Surrey, who recently moved to

Penticton; and Kelsey Wyse from Kelowna.

I’m thrilled to congratulate Genny in winning gold in both her

races in the 2019 games.

To any Special Olympics athlete that wishes to follow in her

footsteps, Genny has this advice: “Have confidence in yourself. Don’t

give up. You can do what you set your mind to. Embrace the

moment.”

NORTHERN LIGHTS FESTIVAL

IN FORT

NELSON

D. Davies: While I was back in the riding over spring break, my family and I

attended the inaugural Fort Nelson Northern Lights Festival. This event

aims to attract visitors from all around the world to participate in

fun, local activities and enjoy multiple musicians throughout the

community. These include some big names, like the Sheepdogs, Lion Bear

Fox, Leeroy Stagger, William Prince and Gord Bamford, just to mention a

few.

[1:55 p.m.]

One of the main events of the festival was the Canadian Open

dogsled races, which had sledders from around the world and their dogs

race right through the community. With the warm weather, it was a very

interesting sight, first of all, to see the dogs go through town, but

maybe more impressive was having the town’s crews putting snow on the

streets instead of removing it. If you come from a northern community,

you know that’s a sight you don’t see.

I want to congratulate the winner of the race, a Fort Nelson

local, Buddy Streeper. Congratulations.

Another major attraction was the First Nations hand game

tournament, which was awesome. This is something I’ve never witnessed,

this traditional Dene game, and the energy from both the game as well as

the crowd was incredibly powerful.

Of course, anybody who’s ever been to Fort Nelson…. It’s always a

great experience to check out their museum. I’ve been up there a few

times before and visited the museum, but there’s always something new to

learn and to see in that museum, especially the incredible classic and

antique car collection that they have.

The festival’s efforts also mean that Fort Nelson can claim to be

the home of Canada’s tallest snowman, which clocked in at a little over

100 feet. Although they were trying to get the Guinness Book of World

Records for the tallest snowman, they just barely missed it. So next

year’s goal, I guess.

Finally, there were many opportunities to view the incredible

northern lights, which put on a brilliant display on numerous

evenings.

It was truly a wonderful opportunity to see this community pull

together for this festival, especially at a time when positive news is

needed in that community. It was great for the community. It was an

incredible experience for everyone that attended, and I know one thing

for sure. I’m looking forward to attending the second annual Northern

Lights Festival.

SUCCESS FOUNDATION

AND FUNDRAISING

GALA

A. Kang: It gives me great pleasure to recognize the wonderful work of

SUCCESS Foundation and its 2019 Bridge to SUCCESS Gala. SUCCESS is one

of the largest social service agencies in B.C. It provides a wide

spectrum of programs for people both young and old in our

communities.

In 1973, its vision to contribute to the community began with a

mission to assist new Canadians of Chinese descent to overcome language

and cultural barriers. Today SUCCESS has established itself to become a

multicultural and multiservice agency that supports people of all ages

and all cultural backgrounds.

Proceeds of this year’s fundraising gala go to supporting the

multicultural early childhood development, MECD, program for immigrant

families with children from zero to six years old. Here, children learn

the values of racial harmony and cultural empathy, and caregivers are

taught healthy parenting styles as they settle in Canada.

The tireless efforts of hardworking staff and volunteers at

SUCCESS reflect British Columbia’s shared values and help secure the

benefits of diversity and inclusion for generations to come.

I especially want to recognize the three fantastic co-chairs of

the gala: Dr. Timothy Hsia, Ms. Cheryl Kwok and Ms. Modi Liu. Many

thanks to Mr. Brandon Hui for his dedication as chair of the SUCCESS

Foundation. I also want to acknowledge Mr. Johnny Fong and Mr. Sing Yeo

as passionate SUCCESS Foundation patrons.

Last but not least, I want to acknowledge the valuable work of CEO

Queenie Choo and chair Terry Yung for their commitment to SUCCESS and

support as it continues its legacy enriching the lives of countless

people in our province.

MURRAY KUBIAN

D. Clovechok: I’m very pleased to rise in this House today to recognize an

individual in my riding who is retiring from serving in the Windermere

fire department in his community for the past 36 years as a volunteer

firefighter.

Like so many of us who live there, Murray Kubian and his family

visited the valley and fell in love with it. They eventually moved,

recognizing what a great place it is to raise a family.

Thirty-eight years ago, in December of 1981, a small group of men,

including Murray, started discussing the need for a fire department in

the Windermere area. Over the next two years, they met regularly at the

Windermere school to build their case to get the regional district of

East Kootenay to establish a fire department in Windermere, and they

were successful.

Murray is a quiet and very humble guy, and they don’t come any

more solid or any more reliable. When you need him, he’s there. He

rarely missed a fire practice in 36 years or a call in that time as

well. Murray has probably done every job in the fire department,

including being captain for several years. But he really enjoyed and

excelled at being the pump operator.

He won’t tell you himself, but the fire chief, Jim Miller, will

tell you that Murray is easily the best pump operator the fire

department has ever had, and he’s going to be sorely missed.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’d like you to join here with me today in thanking Murray Kubian

for his vision, his leadership, his dedication and his volunteer service

to his community. I’d also like to take this opportunity to wish him and

his wife a long, happy and healthy retirement and a great dinner tonight

back in Invermere.

Thank you, Murray, for all the years of service, and thank you to

all the firefighters in the Columbia River–Revelstoke.

MEMORIAL EVENT FOR HARI SHARMA

R. Chouhan: On March 17, the Founding Punjabi Literary Association organized a

memorial to pay tribute to Dr. Sharma at the national heritage Canada

Khalsa Diwan Society Gurdwara in Abbotsford. About 100 people attended

this memorial. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers and myself had the

honour to speak at the meeting.

Professor Sharma passed away on March 16, 2010, after a lengthy

battle with cancer. As an academic and community leader, he led many

organizations for social justice in Canada and abroad. Having engaged in

many anti-racist struggles in the 1970s, he played a key role in the

formation of the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism, which proved to be

an extremely effective instrument against the tide of racism in B.C. at

that time. He also played a very important role in starting the Canadian

Farmworkers Union.

In 1989, Hari mobilized the South Asian community to form the

Komagata Maru Historical Society to commemorate the 75th anniversary of

the Komagata Maru incident. His leadership also led to the

development of SANSAD, the South Asian Network for Secularism and

Democracy, in the quest for peace and democracy based on secularism,

human rights and social justice. Besides being an excellent political

organizer, my friend and mentor, Dr. Sharma was a gifted writer and a

talented photographer.

I would like to thank Prof. Gurvinder Dhaliwal and his

organization, the Founding Punjabi Literary Association, for organizing

this meeting in Abbotsford.

Mr. Speaker: Once having had Dr. Sharma as a profes­sor, I can tell you

he was a wonderful person and a brilliant professor.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

PREVENTION AND

SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: Did you know that one in five young women will experience an

attempted or completed rape while in university, that sexual assaults

are most commonly perpetrated by someone they know and trust and that

most occur in social situations that people do not consider

dangerous?

Sexual assault resistant programs like Flip the Script have been

shown to reduce rapes by up to 50 to 65 percent on post-secondary

campuses. Although the North Shore Women’s Centre has a licence to offer

this program, it is not yet funded. This program should be available at

all post-secondary campuses.

But we know that university is too late. Many boys have already

learned what they can get away with by high school, and that is why we

need earlier programs in middle school or even elementary school on what

consent actually means.

We need better education for those who come in contact with sexual

assault victims, including police, lawyers and judges. I still hear

stories from victims who have been violently raped, and the police are

still asking: “What were you wearing?” Plus, the broad wording of

Canada’s rape-shield law allows lawyers to get around the rules in the

courtroom and to bring up the sexual history of the victim.

I met with a therapist who said that at least 50 percent of the

underlying reasons that women were coming in for therapy were uncovered

sexual assaults that happened sometimes decades earlier. This is a

hidden cost of sexual assault that no one is talking about.

We need to expand the community-based victim services that

directly serve women and act as advocates in the legal service even if

the victim chooses not to report. Imagine that — if the victim chooses

to report. Rarely do those under 25 even bother. Why would they? They

are routinely revictimized by the health and legal systems that are

supposed to be there to protect them. Advocates call this the second

rape.

The Ending Violence Association of B.C. has submitted 16 urgent

issues that must be addressed by government to help victims of sexual

assault, and not all of them require money. Right now only 64

community-based victim services are funded. They estimate we need 40

more.

[2:05 p.m.]

There is urgent need for hospital-based services. Only nine

currently exist in B.C. If a woman is raped in the North Shore and she

arrives at Lions Gate Hospital, she’s told to go to Vancouver General

Hospital at her own expense.

It is time that our educational, health and judicial systems put a

greater emphasis on services and prevention of sexual assault. I will

continue to work with advocates and survivors to improve what we can do

for them and their families.

Oral Questions

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

AND DRIVER

LICENSING

A. Wilkinson: Well, we’ve seen that consumers in British Columbia are very keen

to move ahead with ride-sharing, and we have a government that is very

keen to resist it. Consumers want access to true ride-sharing services.

In fact, our own select standing committee went through this on behalf

of this House and came to the conclusion that it’s time to put in proper

full-on, unrestricted, unmanipulated ride-sharing. Instead, yesterday

what we got was an excuse from the Minister of

Transportation.

The question comes, of course: when consumers want it, when

business groups want it, when the select standing committee representing

this House wants it, why is the Minister of Transportation still

blocking ride-sharing in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I do find it sad to hear this from the Leader of the Opposition,

who was part of a government that stalled on ride-hailing. They had all

the opportunity that they could — five years — to do something, and

nothing happened.

I’m really pleased that our government has brought legislation to

this House, which has passed, that will bring ride-hailing to B.C. this

year. We know that people are eager for new options. They want modern

transportation services. They want to get around, and the action that we

are taking will make sure that happens.

I, too, have heard from hundreds and hundreds of British

Columbians who want ride-hailing, app-based ride-hailing. They will have

it in B.C. this year thanks to this government.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Minister of Transportation tried to give us a complete,

compelling answer, but she forgot to leave out that the version of

ride-sharing she’s talking about is manipulated, contrived,

government-operated, half-baked and won’t work.

The obvious question is: why did she stand up yesterday, in the

face of consumer pressure, and say: “Oh no, the drivers will have to

have a class 4 licence”? Why on earth is she insisting on a class 4

licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: People, when they get into a vehicle, whether it is a taxi or an

app-based vehicle, want to know that they are safe. The opposition said

that when they were in government…. This is a basis that they have

to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: When the opposition was on this side of the House, when the

opposition was in government, they said that they wanted safety. In

fact, as recently as last year, the opposition leader said, and I have

to say, that the issue is how you make sure there’s a safe

environment.

We have to make sure that there is a safe environment. If the

Leader of the Opposition doesn’t want to see a safe environment for the

drivers, the passengers, the pedestrians and other vehicles on the road,

I certainly do. So do all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: On this minister’s assessment, we’re going to have hunky-dory,

first-class, top-quality, state-of-the-art, world-class ride-sharing

this year but….

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Wilkinson: We can see how proud the government is of its half-baked 140 cars,

restricted zones, ride-controlled, price-controlled, volume-controlled,

“all in the hands of the taxi industry” Mickey Mouse version of

pseudo-ride-hailing.

This minister has no basis whatsoever for saying there should be a

class 4 licence, and she knows it. If she thinks we need safer vehicles

for ride-sharing, the next thing she’s going to say is the passengers

have to wear helmets and five-point seatbelts.

Can the minister explain why British Columbia is so special when

this isn’t required in 50 states in the U.S.? It’s not required in 28

countries in Europe, but somehow it’s required in British Columbia. What

makes her British Columbia so special that this licence is necessary? Or

maybe she’s just on the first pathway, the first step, towards helmets

and five-point seatbelts.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure if the member of the opposition actually read the

report that was tabled yesterday. If he did, he would’ve noticed a

couple of things, a couple of important things I’d like to point out.

One is that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: …it was not unanimous in the recommendations about whether class 4

or class 5. We have chosen to go with class 4. In the report, it cited

the seniors advocate, many communities and the Vancouver police

department all saying we need to keep a class 4.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: The members opposite also don’t realize that in Alberta there’s a

class 4 and that in New York City there is a class 4 equivalent. I think

if the opposition wants to lower the safety standards for the people of

B.C., they should explain why.

J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday the minister had the gall to tell this House it would be

absolutely foolish for her to comment before considering the committee

report. That’s what she said. But mere minutes later, outside the House,

she’s doing a press release. She made it really clear that her mind is

already made up. This whole process has been a sham.

Markella does not buy the excuses. She writes: “It’s not only

about convenience. It’s about my safety. How many times have I walked

home at night or waited up to 45 minutes to find a cab? It’s absolutely

ridiculous.” That’s the safety issue here.

Now that Uber and Lyft say that they will not come because of this

minister’s barriers, will the minister please reconsider this rigged

process?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. She is a passionate advocate

for this. It’s very unfortunate that as a passionate advocate, she

wasn’t able to persuade her own government for five years to play…. We

are on schedule. We actually introduced legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: We brought in legislation last year that will enable ride-hailing.

This is going to be in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. C. Trevena: They are very frustrated, because they had an opportunity. They

had five years to do it. They did nothing. We are doing it. Ride-hailing

is going to be in B.C. by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: Member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: No one believes the minister. Tony writes, this constituent of

mine…. He wrote to me yesterday: “Needing a class 4 licence is beyond

ridiculous. Uber and Lyft are working great in other parts of the world.

Big Brother government needs to end, please.” And Raha writes: “As a

young female living in Vancouver, the lack of ride-sharing is a huge

safety concern for me.”

This is the safety issue. Why is the minister blocking Tony and

Raha from getting true ride-sharing in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are concerned about safety. That is why we are maintaining the

class 4 licence. We are looking at flexible business models, and we’re

going to ensure that ride-hailing is brought in this year, unlike the

previous government that stalled on this, kept the wheels spinning for

five years.

PERMIT FOR LANDFILL SITE IN

CAMPBELL RIVER

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: Imagine how a community feels when the government issues a permit

for a contaminated landfill within its drinking watershed, nestled

between two bodies of water, one of which is connected to the town’s

drinking water. Unfortunately, this tale is actually becoming too

familiar — first Shawnigan Lake and now Campbell River.

Both have many of the same elements: fractured bedrock, duelling

experts and a community group raising red flags. As was the case in

Shawnigan Lake, experts hired by the community paint a very different

and much less rosy picture of the potential threats posed to drinking

water from a quarry turned into a landfill that will be allowed to

accept demolition waste, construction waste, land-clearing waste and

contaminated soil.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. Given that this

site is within Campbell River’s drinking watershed, and given its

proximity to McIvor Lake, what additional precautions have been taken to

ensure that there is no risk whatsoever to the town’s water

supply?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I

also want to acknowledge….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: Sorry, the House Leader. I correct myself. The House Leader of the

Third Party. Perhaps I should just stick to “the hon.

member.”

Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for the question.

I also want to acknowledge the member’s countless hours over many years

advocating for safe community watersheds. It’s important. She has done a

good job, and she continues to stand up for clean, safe drinking water.

I know and she knows that there is virtually nothing more important to

communities and individuals than to be assured that their drinking water

supply is safe.

I know, Member, that people in the region have a lot of questions

and concerns about the operational certificate. I have met with them. I

have met with the Campbell River Environmental Committee. Staff in the

ministry have met with them many times. I would remind the member and

every member of this House that ultimately, this is a decision that is

made by a statutory decision–maker.

There have been a number of technical reviews that went into the

operational certificate notice. We are now in a public comment period, a

30-day public comment period, and we want to make sure that everyone in

the region — elected officials, citizens and organized groups — have a

chance to make their voices heard, to put evidence before the

decision-maker again about any science that they have or any concerns

they have about the conditions and the certificate to protect water. I

urge people to use that 30-day period. I assure everyone that those

comments will be taken into consideration.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the comments of the minister. However, there already

is evidence that is in conflict and that has been presented. Let’s look

at some of the conflicting reports.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste states

that “the landfill base shall be a minimum of 1.5 metres above

groundwater at all times.” The proponent’s QP, GHD, have given the green

light, but according to the Waterline hydrology review: “Insufficient

water-level data has been collected by GHD to demonstrate that

groundwater levels will remain 1.5 metres below the base of the

landfill. In fact, groundwater levels measured April 6, 2017, and

September 2015 likely do not meet the environment landfill

criteria.”

Waterline hydrogeology was hired by the city of Campbell River,

and their review raises many more worrying issues about this landfill,

not just a lack of data but concerns about a potential contaminant

pathway to McIvor Lake and concerns that GHD has “repeatedly

mischaracterized the hydrogeology of the site.”

My question is for the Minister of Environment. Given the

parallels with what happened in Shawnigan Lake and the lengthy and

costly legal battles that have ensued, and given that this permit is

likely creating the same conflict between the Ministry of Environment

and Campbell River, wouldn’t a precautionary approach that takes into

account all of the relevant evidence be prudent?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member for the question. I think the

member knows — and I certainly hope every member of this House and the

public knows — that our government believes that it is every British

Columbian’s right to have clean, safe drinking water. I know ministry

staff are aware of our government’s view — both because it’s been

communicated and because of a number of measures that we’ve taken,

whether it is dealing with agricultural waste in shallow aquifers or

organic matter disposal or a new environmental assessment act — that we

take this matter seriously.

Again, it is not my job to hear evidence. It’s the job of the

statutory decision–maker. In the public comment period, which extends to

April 27, there is an opportunity, again, for people to come forward

with evidence, with their concerns, with concerns that what was put

before the statutory decision–maker was not given due consideration.

Technical reviews have been completed, but I can assure the member the

final decision has not been made. When it is made, it will take all the

new evidence into account.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

AND DRIVER

LICENSING

J. Johal: It took 42 days for the Transportation Minister to read the Hara

taxi report — 42 days — but yesterday, mere minutes after the report was

tabled, the minister dismissed it. You’ve got to kind of ask yourself:

did she take a speedreading course? It’d be funny if it wasn’t so

pathetic.

Companies like Uber and Lyft can’t operate in this province

because of these NDP hurdles. Will the minister just admit that the fix

is in and that there’ll be no ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft

in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we have had reports. We’ve had two reports from select

standing committees to this House, which have been very important for

our moving forward on app-based ride-hailing. On that side of the

House…. The member was not a member of government when that side of the

House was in government, but they did have five years to move on this.

They did nothing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The minister can say whatever she wants. This is all about keeping

Uber and Lyft out and pleasing the taxi lobby and that lipstick on a pig

called Kater. During the hearing, we asked a senior Lyft executive about

the ability to operate in B.C. with a class 4 licence. He told the

committee: “We’ve never entered a market with all those restrictions in

place.” Failure to accept the committee’s recommendations means no true

ride-sharing. It’s just that simple.

Will the minister accept the recommendations or continue to block

market-based ride-sharing?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I have said a number of times this afternoon, we are taking a

flexible approach to this…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: …except where it comes to safety. I don’t think anybody would want

their child to get into a car where they didn’t know it was safe,

whether it was a taxi or whether it was an Uber or a Lyft or any other

app-based ride-hail. We are going to make sure that safety comes

first.

S. Cadieux: Well, Minister, every day in this province, parents put their

children in the cars of strangers to go on field trips, and they don’t

require a class 4 licence. Somehow those children remain

safe.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

S. Cadieux: The minister tasked our committee specifically to look at the

question of drivers’ licences. So after additional months of committee

work and listening to all of the experts and all of the testimony, the

majority of members on the committee determined that a class 5 licence

was more than adequate and was necessary if we wanted to see true

ride-sharing in British Columbia. Yet before we finished lunch

yesterday, the minister made it clear that her mind had been made up,

and the fix was in before she even got the report. Apparently, the

exercise was a complete sham yet again.

What was the point of the committee? What was the point,

Minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: I really don’t understand what the opposition’s problem is with

trying to find that we have a safe jurisdiction. If the member was on

the committee, she would have heard that the Vancouver police department

wanted to see a class 4….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you are out of order.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. C. Trevena: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the member was on the

committee.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t know what’s so funny about that.

She would have heard that the Vancouver police department, the

city of Victoria, the seniors advocate, the Cowichan Valley regional

district, experts from UBC, among many others — among many others — said

that safety had to come first, that we should be keeping a class 4

licence.

Safety does come first for me. I want to make sure that people who

pay to get into a vehicle — who are not getting into a school trip

vehicle where the parents have signed a waiver but are paying to get

into a vehicle — that those people are as safe as they possibly can

be.

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

S. Cadieux: I guess if we just sign a waiver, it’s okay.

Alyssa is a Burnaby resident who attends Douglas College in New

Westminster, and she’s also affected by muscular dystrophy. She’s been

forced to wait for a cab outside in the cold for nearly an hour —

waiting for a taxi that never showed up. In the words of her sister,

this put Alyssa’s life on the line, and it happens day after day.

British Columbians like Alyssa and others who use Uber and Lyft all over

the world, when they travel, want Uber and Lyft, but these companies

aren’t coming, under the minister’s plan.

The Premier promised ride-sharing by Christmas of 2017, then again

by Christmas of 2018. But let’s see. What is the minister going to do to

avoid breaking the Premier’s promise this year?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is a bit rich from somebody who was in the cabinet when they

were in government, who had years to get to ride-hailing.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the former Transportation Minister has just heckled, yes, we

are in government now, and we are doing something. We’re going to make

sure that there is app-based ride-hailing in B.C. by the end of the

year.

[2:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This has turned absolutely farcical. The minister tasked the

committee, which I’ve been a member of twice now, this last time with a

very specific question — four specific questions. One of them was to

check on which class of licence, class 4 or class 5, should be used. She

didn’t say: “I’m going to only rely on the VPD.” If she was, why did she

bother asking us to look into that specific question?

The committee looked into it. In fact, the committee asked for

extra information from ICBC on a pesky little thing like crash rates

between class 4 and class 5 driver’s licence holders. There’s not a

discernible difference.

Maybe the minister could look into that herself, because

yesterday…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: …the minister said: “I have tasked the special committee twice to

have recommendations, and it would be absolutely foolish of me to say

anything before I see the recommendations. I look forward to it. People

have worked very hard on this report. People have committed time to it.

I will read the recommendations.” Yet minutes later, she apparently had

already read through it and dismissed it. This is a complete

joke.

Will the minister stop pretending this is anything but a sham and

a complete waste of time because she has already decided to block

ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Uber from B.C.?

Hon. C. Trevena: I actually am very excited about the movement we’ve got on

ride-hailing. I think it is going to be very interesting as it moves

into British Columbia, as it has been in other jurisdictions. Luckily,

we’ve been able to learn from other jurisdictions. As has been cited in

the past, we’ve learned lessons. We are coming in at ride-share 2.0. We

are moving ahead with it.

One of the lessons that we have learnt is that safety has to come

first. We have the equivalent…. The members opposite say we’re never

going to get ride-hailing companies in with a class 4 licence. In

Alberta, Uber operates. In New York, where there is….

I know the member opposite has spoken about how he loved to get in

his Uber in New York. Well, in New York, not only do they have the

highest licence standard. They’ve got caps on numbers because they’re

dealing with congestion. They’ve really straightened up on their

licensing.

If I might….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, proceed.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll wait for his supplemental.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s always interesting when New York gets used as an example. I

guess the government is going to change all of our laws to mimic New

York. They’re one of the largest economies out there. It’s much larger

than the economy of British Columbia as a stand-alone. But let’s keep

using New York.

Here’s the real….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: I would have expected the Premier would want to use Washington

state as more of an example, or Seattle.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: Here is the reality. It was this Premier who gave his word to the

promise that it was going to be December of 2017. It was this Premier

who gave his word it was going to be December of 2018. It’s this Premier

who said December of 2019 or some time before then. Yet we know that by

clinging to class 4, it’s going to take four to five months at a minimum

for even one new class 4 driver to be able to drive for a company like

Uber and Lyft. It doesn’t add up.

Even the committee members from the government side agree that the

review scheduled for 2022 would be pointless, because there’s not going

to be meaningful ride-hailing in 2019. That’s why the review should move

to 2023.

[2:35 p.m.]

Maybe the minister didn’t get to reading that part of the report.

Maybe the minister just jumped straight ahead to the class 4

recommendation, because the 2023 recommendation was four or five

recommendations ahead of that.

We have seen one broken promise after another from this Premier.

The people are tired of it. They’re tired of his broken promises when it

comes to ride-hailing.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the question.

P. Milobar: It will not be in 2019. When will the Premier own up to the fact

we are not going to see meaningful ride-hailing in 2019, and when will

we actually see it in this province?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m always, always grateful for an opportunity to respond to

someone from Kamloops, but I was really hoping for the member for

Kamloops South, because we collect these quotes. People forget that we

record the proceedings in this place. People forget that. They forget

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Horgan: It wasn’t that long ago….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s not going to work, man. I’m going to read them

out.

The member for Kamloops South, who had…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …this file on his desk for five years did not advance the ball an

inch. But this is what he used to say.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: “We have rules.” He said: “We have rules; we have laws in this

province.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess everything’s hunky-dory. I guess everything’s hunky-dory

if they don’t want to hear the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I know it’s wacky, but why don’t you just listen up a bit. You

might remember. “We have rules in this province.” Then he finished: “If

Uber wants to operate in this province, they’re going to have to operate

under the same rules as taxi operators currently abide by.”

I don’t know. It seems inconceivable that the whole front bench

over there forgot the position that they had adopted for half a decade.

But let me remind you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Before I take my seat, I want to thank the member for the

opportunity to stand.

The Leader of the Opposition, as recently as last year, said: “We

have to make sure that whoever is carrying passengers in British

Columbia is appropriately licensed, appropriately trained and skilled

and appropriately insured.”

I believe, we believe and I’m sure you believe in your heart of

hearts that the public’s safety is paramount. That’s what we’re doing on

this side of the House. Get on board, Members. Get on board.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Clovechok: I’ll let things calm down for a second.

Mr. Speaker: This is a good idea.

D. Clovechok: I’d like to stand today to present two petitions. The first petition….

Both are to the hon. Minister of Health. This is a petition from the little

village of Fairmont Hot Springs, of 111 people. The petition is directed at

very concerned citizens’ access to timely and effective medical care. The

petition to the minister insists on the delivery of quality, appropriate,

cost-effective and timely health services in rural areas, ensuring that

people are at the heart of the decision-making when it comes to

interprovincial health care agreements.

The second petition is from the seniors at the Invermere seniors

centre. It has 572 signatures on it. It has to do, directly, with

transborder health care, telehealth services, rural hospitals being given

better access to diagnostic tools and that the regional hospital in the

Kootenays be given the capabilities to service the growth that the region is

experiencing.

E. Foster: I have a petition here, signed by over 1,000 people in my area. It’s

accompanied with a number of letters written by mayors, chairs and MLAs from

across the province. The committee is asking the Legislature to declare

February 1 every year as RCMP appreciation day.

[2:40 p.m.]

I will turn in the petition, and I will get the letters to the

appropriate minister.

R. Leonard: I rise to present a petition from a local group called the Merville

Water Guardians. Water is life. Neighbours in a rural area were concerned

about the impact of a new well for commercial water bottling on their

below-ground water source. This has grown into a global concern over the

management of this life-sustaining resource.

About 1,150 petitioners here, on top of on-line signatures of over

1,300, are respectfully requesting that the hon. House immediately stop

approval of groundwater licences under the Water Sustainability Act for the

bottling and commercial sale of groundwater from our aquifers.

N. Simons: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of 6,400 signatories,

calling for a completion of the bypass on the Sunshine Coast and other

efforts to ensure that the current highway meets the safety standards that

are necessary. I’m proud to present this petition on behalf of the residents

of the Sunshine Coast.

J. Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: I just wanted to mention that John Henderson is up in the crowd, and I

know he’s here. He’s met with a number of people on both sides of the House,

looking for that highway on the Sunshine Coast. I just wanted to make sure

that the House made him welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 10. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates on the Ministry

of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, those who don’t have House duty, maybe you would like to

leave.

S. Furstenau: I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 10, the Income

Tax Amendment Act. I started yesterday afternoon, and I’d like to recap

some of my comments and then continue.

This bill aims to bring the NDP’s liquefied natural gas framework

into force. It details the publicly funded handouts that are being

offered to industry in exchange for the expansion of natural gas

development in this province. It trades tax breaks for the construction

of the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the

history of Canada.

My caucus colleagues and I have been clear. We will never support

an expansion of taxpayer-funded giveaways to help support the fossil

fuel industry. We will not help the B.C. NDP implement an LNG regime,

and we will not be complicit in our silence. We will use our votes and

our voices to say no, because this is the wrong decision and the wrong

direction for our province in 2019.

[2:45 p.m.]

We will not — not now, not ever — vote to advance major fossil

fuel expansion, and we will continue to work to instead advance strong

climate policy for this province. Because communities are already facing

significant impacts from climate change. Whether it’s wildfires, floods,

droughts, species extinction or crop failures, B.C.’s communities are at

the front line of this fight.

By pursuing LNG, we are tying our communities to an industry that

is contributing to these challenges while failing to invest in a

sustainable low-carbon future. The world’s leading climate scientists

have warned us time and time again that if global emissions do not start

to dramatically decline in the next few years, many millions of people,

including British Columbians, will be at severe risk.

Ecosystems, plants and animals are facing widespread extinction.

The future of humanity, as we know, hangs in the balance. We only have

until 2030 to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees, beyond

which, even half a degree will significantly worsen the climate change

impacts and drag hundreds of millions of people into poverty.

This is not new information. Scientists have been raising concerns

about what their data has shown for decades. What is new, however, is

how urgent and dire the scientific warnings have become. In recent

years, the consequences of rising CO 2 and temperatures have

been painfully clear. We are on target to see ocean surface acidity into

a realm for which we have no known comparison in the history of the

earth.

Coral beds that have been around for millions of years will go

extinct. In Canada, overall precipitation will increase, but it will

come in fewer, more extreme events, interspersed between longer periods

of drought. There will be an increased risk of flooding, and then there

will be wildfires, as we have already seen summer after summer in

British Columbia.

Think for a moment about the massive crop failures, economic

collapse and millions of climate refugees desperate for safer homes. Our

growing consumption levels are unsustainable on an earth with finite

resources, and the limit is clearly in view. The amount of carbon

dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the last

650,000 years. And it is still rising very quickly because of decisions

like the one before us today.

Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have

made it painfully clear that we have only a few short years to steer

away from catastrophic climate change by dramatically reducing our

greenhouse gas emissions, starting now. Yet in the face of all of that,

the vast majority of members in this House are selling out to score a

fossil fuel project that plans to drastically increase our emissions

from 2023 through to the year 2060.

LNG Canada, a project set to become the single biggest point

source of emissions in our country’s history, will pollute until after

your children have retired. It will pollute the province your

grandchildren are born into. Choosing to take action on climate change

is a luxury that is expiring. Soon the realities of climate change will

come flooding in through our front doors. We must not squander this

opportunity.

This legislation, Bill 10, steers B.C. in a direction that we

don’t need or want to go. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can

write a new story for our province. We have such enormous potential in

B.C. to be a leader in clean energy — geothermal, wind, solar, wave, on

top of our already established and stable hydro energy. We have

everything we need to rise to this challenge, if government truly sets

us in the direction of a sustainable future.

Sweden, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Scotland, Germany, Uruguay and

Denmark are all showing leadership by shifting to renewables. Tanzania

is launching a massive tree-planting effort and has a national climate

change strategy built on the acknowledgment that all countries have a

role to play and they, too, will do their part.

[2:50 p.m.]

Nearly 50 countries around the world have committed to being 100

percent renewable by 2035, including many countries that are most

impacted by climate change due to droughts, floods and rising seas — the

Philippines, Kenya, Ethiopia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala — 100

percent renewable by 2035, right around the same time that LNG Canada

will be ramping up fracking across northern B.C.

What are the implications of jurisdictions setting these ambitious

goals? Cleaner air and safer water, for a start. While we reshape our

energy, we can reshape our communities in ways that help us live better.

Transportation that incorporates more multimodal ways of getting around.

Economies that focus on local food, local manufacturing and local

benefits staying inside our communities.

Consider the temporary jobs for the LNG industry, people having to

be far away from their homes, their families, their communities. We

should be focused on creating an economy that keeps families together

and keeps communities and well-being at the centre of all of our

decision-making. The money that’s been promised by these fossil fuel

corporations, $20 billion over 40 years? That will pale in comparison to

the true cost of climate change, the emergency funding government will

have to funnel into communities that are underwater or up in flames or

unable to produce food.

Ensuring that every British Columbian has the conditions to live a

healthy, fulfilling life in a flourishing, supportive environment should

be the government’s most important responsibility. Our job is to make

people know that they are safe.

I don’t know if any of you were at the students’ climate strike

ten days ago, but over a million and a half children around the world,

and over 1,000 on the lawns of this Legislature, were telling us that

they do not feel safe. What a mark of our failure that children are

telling us that they do not feel safe because of the decisions that we

are making. I saw dozens of children at the strike with hand-painted

signs that said: “The seas are rising, and so are we.”

The change in the tide is coming. Young people are standing up,

demanding a new story for our world. They were joined, I noticed, at the

climate strike by their grandparents and their parents. Our youth and

elders joined by a clear vision of what is right, too young and too old

to feel enslaved by the rules that we have invented for ourselves. They

know the story that has guided the last 100 years in this province is

failing us.

The story of separation and accumulation, above all else, has

driven us to maximize individual production and personal self-interest.

It demands continued consumption and economic growth and ignores the

fact that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. It is a

recipe for despair, but adults have been fully steeped in it. We absorb

it and act like it is the only way. If you don’t believe that we are all

separate — separate from each other, separate from nature, that more for

me is less for you…. It drives competition, a failing urge to control

and dominate.

To paraphrase the writer Charles Eisenstein, we need a new story

that recognizes interdependence, a belief that my well-being is directly

related to your well-being, to the well-being of the river, the forest,

the salmon, and to the well-being of children — an understanding and

acceptance that what we do to the world, we do to ourselves. Even if we

can physically survive after the last orca or the last caribou or the

last steelhead has gone extinct, when life around us withers and dies,

what kind of life have we left for ourselves?

Why is it that people with more than their fair share of money and

power still feel depressed and empty? Deep down we all know what is

actually important. It is love, it is connection, it is family, it is

community, and it is life. But despite this wisdom, we make the most

important decisions in our province from a place of indifference,

separation, degradation and desperation.

[2:55 p.m.]

I can see that our confidence in this system is falling apart. It

is eroding from the inside. I know it doesn’t feel good. It doesn’t feel

good to protect caribou at the same time that you’re seeing the

destruction of their habitat. It doesn’t feel good to work towards

reconciliation at the same time that Indigenous newborns are separated

from their mothers. It doesn’t feel good to advance climate action at

the same time as voting to support the biggest point source of

greenhouse gas emissions in the history of this nation.

I know it’s not easy. You feel powerless to the larger powers.

Never mind the fact that most people think that we are the larger

powers. You feel caught in a system that leaves you no choice, tied to a

vote that is truly not your own.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A more beautiful world is

possible. We get glimpses of it every now and then in love, in nature,

when we are with our children — experiences that make us feel alive,

that remind us that a brighter future is actually within reach. These

feelings don’t have to be scarce. They can guide how we

govern.

It looks hopeless, as we near the end stages of the old story. But

it is also an opportunity for us to write a new story. Our new story can

be enriched with the lessons that we’ve learned from the past. We can

have a revolution for life, for a province that is prosperous and

healthy, for a province that is safe for our children and for their

grandchildren.

Voting to support Bill 10 is not just voting for more money, the

story that we’ve been told over and over again. It is also voting for

all of the additional hard decisions associated with expanding major

fossil fuel extraction in a climate change future. It is voting to push

our province to the brink. I, for one, along with my colleagues, will

vote against Bill 10. I choose to stand with the children and the elders

who believe in a brighter future instead. It’s not too late for every

member in this room to stand with us.

We can go all in on CleanBC, implementing first phase of policies,

fully and urgently, while we detail where the remaining 25 percent

emissions reductions would come from, a task made much easier without

LNG Canada in the equation. We can set ambitious goals for our province,

joining the other leaders around the world who have committed to being

powered by 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.

We can export our expertise and experience and help other

jurisdictions follow suit. We can be leaders, rather than the laggards

who will be looking out from B.C. and looking out from Canada at the

rest of the world reaching their climate goals while we double down on

the energy of the 20th century and a fossil fuel industry that needs

taxpayer support in order to survive.

We can support British Columbians as they find a sustainable job

that is right for them and their communities. We can learn from local

and traditional knowledge.

We will continue to work on the many initiatives that matter to

us: protecting salmon and protecting the watersheds that they depend on;

bringing a new vision forward for forests for B.C.; continuing to track

the progress and changes to environmental assessment and professional

reliance that begin to restore trust in government decision-making;

pushing for better policies and initiatives that will address the

humanitarian crisis of the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in

government care; working to bring forward the possibilities that abound

in CleanBC and to truly transform B.C., changing everything from how we

build buildings to how we get around our communities and around the

province.

With that, I would like to move an amendment:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting all

the words after “that” and substituting therefore the

following:

“Bill (No. 10) not be read a second time now but that the subject

matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services.”]

On the amendment.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I am moving this amendment because I believe it is essential that

we exhaust every opportunity to hear from the communities and the people

across our province on this issue. I think it is important that everyone

understands the choices that we are making, and that in passing this

legislation, we are choosing to pursue a taxpayer-supported expansion of

the fossil fuel industry instead of pursuing a new vision for our

province. If the student protests of a couple weeks ago are any

indication, there is much this government needs to hear.

I’m going to speak for a few minutes to the amendment, and I’m

going to reflect on something a little bit different than what I’ve been

talking about so far. I’m going to reflect on the Westminster

parliamentary system.

I spent many years studying medieval history, and it was during

the Middle Ages that the origins of our system came from — the system

that we work in right now, the traditions that we work within. Today the

Lieutenant-Governor occupies a largely ceremonial role most of the time.

But the foundations of parliament came from a desire to put a check on

the absolute powers of the King or the Queen.

The idea was that parliamentarians would represent the interests

of the people and that, while in the beginning stages of the Westminster

parliamentary system “people” may have been rather narrowly defined at

the time as male landowners, the foundations of parliamentary democracy

have within them both an extraordinary opportunity and an enormous

burden of responsibility. The opportunity is for representation of the

views, the wishes, the perspectives and the well-being of constituents

within the halls of parliament, a true reflection of representative

democracy. The burden is that we all have to do our best to balance the

differing views, wishes and perspectives of our constituents while

keeping the well-being of all citizens at the forefront of our

minds.

I would argue that the parliamentary democracy in our province and

our country has become distorted by partisan, party-oriented politics.

How does this translate? It means that MLAs not only have to consider

the differing views, wishes and perspectives of constituents as well as

the well-being of all citizens; they also have to put the interest of

their political party into their deliberations.

In Canada and in B.C., this has increasingly translated into a

concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister or the

Premier — the exact opposite of what parliamentary democracy was

originally created to do, which is to put the power into the hands of

every member of parliament. This leaves MLAs and MPs in a position where

they need to vote with their parties even if they don’t agree with the

position being put forward.

Now, let’s look at what’s happening in Britain right now. I

checked right before question period. MPs are voting on a variety of

options for a path forward from the quagmire that they are in because of

Brexit. They’re choosing from eight options, including having another

referendum.

How is it that they’ve gotten to this place? Well, the Prime

Minister kept bringing forward her plans for Brexit, and the parliament

and the parliamentarians within her own party and outside of her party

disagreed with her and disagreed with the plan that she put forward and

said: “No, we’re here to represent our constituents and the well-being

of this entire country. We are not going to vote with you just because

you’re the Prime Minister.”

They have demonstrated the way that a Westminster parliamentary

system is supposed to work, in that every member of the parliament has

exactly the same power as every other member. Whether you’re the Premier

or the backbencher in the opposition or the backbencher in the

government party or one of a three-member caucus, your vote is exactly

1/87 of the votes in this House.

[3:05 p.m.]

I say to each of the 83 MLAs in the other two parties: understand

that you as an MLA have the same amount of power in this chamber as

every other member, and you have every right to exercise your vote and

your power exactly the way you want to do it. You should exercise that

vote and that power in a manner that reflects the many views, the

opinions and the perspectives of your constituents, while also putting

the well-being of all citizens and all future citizens at the centre of

your decision-making.

I’ve made an extensive case for the need for us to choose a

direction for our province that leads us to a clean, prosperous,

healthy, safe future — a future that we can be proud to leave as a

legacy for future generations.

I’ve made the case to recognize that adding the single biggest

point source emitter of greenhouse gases in the country’s history in

2019 makes no sense. We will be remembered for this moment. We will be

looked back on in this moment, and it will be recognized that we made a

choice that does not serve the well-being of every citizen of this

province, and it certainly does not serve the well-being of every future

citizen of this province.

It’s 2019. The science is clear. There’s no debate. We need to

dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions starting now, not

dramatically increase them by giving government funds, taxpayer support,

to an industry that only survives if it is subsidized.

It feels like we’re in a topsy-turvy world right now. It feels

hard to believe that we’re even debating this. It feels like an enormous

burden that we are trying to explain this to young people around B.C.

and around this world that we are making this decision knowing what we

know.

I am putting forward this amendment to refer this bill to

committee, and I am making the case for every MLA to recognize that you

can exercise your responsibility. You can exercise your power. You can

choose to do what you know is the right thing.

Eighty-five percent of Canadians want to see their governments

take action on climate change. That is an overwhelming majority of

Canadians who are asking us as the elected representatives to do what

they know needs to be done. We must act quickly. We must take this

threat seriously.

I put this amendment forward. This is an opportunity for everyone

in this House, everyone in this chamber to say, “I can do the right

thing,” because we know that the right thing is not to increase our

emissions at this time.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in support of the amendment brought forward by my

colleague from Cowichan Valley, the amendment to send Bill 10 to the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for further

review and deliberations.

Let me see if I can articulate in the words of the Minister of

Agriculture exactly why this is important to do so. The Minister of

Agriculture, back in April 6, 2016, said this — and this was in

reference to the B.C. Liberals at the time: “They’re creating reckless

legislation, which, in my mind, as someone who has always been an

environmentalist, is absolutely reckless, irresponsible and

disappointing. They’re creating this reckless legislation. They’re

sweetening the deal as much as they possibly can, treating LNG like a

loss-leader in a department store.”

Oh, how those words ring so very true right now. Those words ring

so very true, but no, it is not with reference to the B.C. Liberals. It

is with reference to this government of which the Minister of

Agriculture is a member.

[3:10 p.m.]

We go to others who have spoken forth. We go to the

Mini­ster of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who has come

up with some remarkable zingers while she was in opposition. “It’s just

utterly ridiculous and irresponsible and reprehensible to sell out

British Columbians for the next 25 years, not just for this industry but

potentially others as well,” she says.

“People in my part of the world” — that would be Nelson — “view

the environment and long-term environmental sustainable planning as one

of the top priorities that any government should be considering, and

that is not reflected in Bill 30,” at the time. “What is reflected,

rather, is a desperate, desperate grasp at any deal put in front of them

because promises were made in an election.”

Now, as I articulated yesterday, in further deliberations at

second reading, and in support of both my reasoned amendment and my

colleague from Saanich North and the Islands’ attempted amendment — an

unsuccessful one — to hoist this, what is before us now is an amendment

to send this to committee.

To send this to committee is important for a couple of reasons.

We’ve heard a lot about the so-called benefits of LNG. We’ve heard about

$23 billion of investment. And we’ve been told to “trust us. We know

that’s true. But we’re not going to share that publicly because we’ve

signed an agreement with a company.”

The government is not willing to put before this Legislature the

detailed agreement that we are supposed to be supporting. We know that

by going to committee, and only if this were to be sent to committee,

would we be able to reflect and further quiz, as a Legislature, the

government and proponents about the details of the plan. It’s an

eminently reasonable suggestion. We’ve waited for so long, yet now we’re

being rushed, in two days, to try to deliver what Christy Clark

couldn’t. In essence, that’s the stick.

Here’s what happened. After the last election, I’m sure LNG Canada

was a little antsy because the Liberals left and they were the champions

of LNG. Unicorns, tooth fairies — all in your backyard. Maseratis for

each and all of us. A $100 billion prosperity fund — that was the

Liberal dream. When that election happened, LNG Canada was probably a

little hurting.

Here’s what I’m pretty certain happened. A bunch of executives

walked into the newly formed NDP government office and said this: “We’re

going to leave unless you do this, this, this — that and this and this.”

The NDP government’s response was: “Okay, let’s just do it. Let’s not

reflect upon what the numbers are that you’re suggesting. We’ll believe

it at face value.”

Here now we have before us a motion to send this to committee to

allow, for the first time, this Legislature to probe the proponent, to

probe government as to the numbers and the rhetoric that’s thrown out

there, to probe to see to what extent those numbers are actually

grounded in evidence.

To the credit of the B.C. Liberals, we actually had that

opportunity with the Petronas agreement. As I recalled yesterday, time

after time, MLA after MLA hurled abuse and vitriol at the B.C. Liberals.

These were NDP MLAs doing that, because they didn’t like what they saw

in the Petronas agreement. Yet here before us, the B.C. NDP take that

corporate welfare to a whole new level.

The blog post that I’ll be writing later today describes it as

this: this is corporate welfare on steroids — on steroids. We’ve already

given $6 billion in deep-well royalty credits to the natural gas

producers. We already know that this is an industry for which there’s a

glut of natural gas globally, where Iran has 20 times all of Canada’s

supply, where Russia has 20 times all of Canada’s supply, where

Australia already has LNG fields that are not being developed because

the market is not there for them. We know that the U.S. has three times

the shale gas of Canada alone. We know that Louisiana already has clean

compression, electric compressions.

[3:15 p.m.]

We know that this government doesn’t really like that because they

want to refer to LNG Canada as the cleanest in the world and exempt them

from the carbon tax increases above $30. They’ll redefine what “clean”

is and forget about the fact that there are electric compressions

elsewhere.

Most importantly, what this committee needs to reflect upon is not

just the so-called benefits but the actual costs. What is the cost of

the decertification of southern Europe? What is the cost of 80 percent

of species on this planet being committed to extinction by the end of

this century?

These are the questions that MLAs in government need to look at

and ask themselves. They can put their faces in their paper. They can

stay away from the chamber. We don’t even have quorum here on the

government side in the chamber because they’re afraid to hear the truth.

We have quorum in total; we don’t have it on the government’s side in

terms of the number of people. We do have quorum. I’m not calling

quorum, hon. Speaker. It’s there.

Frankly, we don’t have the government MLAs here that are supposed

to deliver us the quorum because they’re afraid to actually have to

listen to the cold, hard truth about what they’re going to

support.

Eighty percent species extinction this century globally because of

global warming. Commitment to a six-metre sea level rise because of

global warming. Vector-borne diseases moving northward because of global

warming. Forest fires like we’ve never seen before because of global

warming. Drought, famine because of global warming. Frankly, the end of

western civilization because of global warming.

Yet here in this chamber, we think it’s a balancing act. We need a

couple of jobs, a hundred jobs, and we need to subsidize a multinational

fossil fuel company that has no interest in British Columbia but is

interested in filling the coffers of the shareholders in the Bahamas,

the Cayman Islands, perhaps in the Netherlands. Yet this is being done

for the goodness of the people of British Columbia.

Nobody talks about the cost. Nobody is talking about the cost. And

let us be very clear: this is what B.C. NDP MLAs will be voting for

today. They will be voting for putting this province on the pathway to

join the biggest subsidizers of the fossil fuel industry in the world

and to put us on a path from climate leaders to become climate laggers —

a very serious accusation.

You do not tell British Columbians that you must cut your

emissions by 98 percent by 2050. Every British Columbian must cut their

emissions by 98 percent by 2050 to meet our target. “But, LNG Canada,

you’re good, because we are going to let you add four megatonnes.” And

then they’re going to add another two trains later this decade. This is

what we’re doing.

All of the good hard work of every British Columbian in this

province is for naught. It’s for naught because this government…. These

NDP MLAs stood in the last election and had the gall — yes, the gall —

to look British Columbians in the face and say: “We are

environmentalists. We care about your future. We care about the climate.

We care about the children’s future.”

Yes, I am invoking the children’s future because that is the very

reason why I got into this building in the first place. I could not

stand by in 2013 after witnessing the now Finance Minister, who was the

former leader of this party, run the Axe the Tax campaign in 2009, a

cynical, cynical campaign to undermine efforts to move us forward to cut

emissions. I could not stand by and watch what happened in

It was tough running as a B.C. Green. It was tough, because the

NDP sent in their hundreds of union workers to door-knock in Oak Bay

because they didn’t want a beachhead. They switched — the famous

weathervane switch — on Kinder Morgan because they were about

environmental support. They’re going around meeting with environmental

groups, saying: “We’re here for you.” But when actual legislation is

before us, the true colours of the B.C. NDP are revealed.

They are not interested in the well-being of future generations.

They are interested in the well-being of their friends, their union

workers and, frankly, their re-election. I say to the NDP MLAs who vote

for this, shame on you. Don’t you, for one second, ever come to me and

say you are supporting climate change action in this

province.

[3:20 p.m.]

This vote today — this singular vote today — will undermine all of

the good efforts contained in CleanBC. We will add four megatonnes of

emissions, the single biggest point source of emissions in Canadian

history, to British Columbia’s emissions trajectory. We will add a 15

percent increase in emissions because of a four-train LNG facility.

Don’t get me wrong. The pretence and the half-truths being told to the

B.C. public about this being only a two-train facility are nothing more

than idle rhetoric, because we know the environmental assessment process

has already approved four trains for LNG Canada, and that’s eight

megatonnes of emissions.

Any NDP MLA who stands up and votes for this…. There will be a day

of reckoning, not only by the electorate but also by history. Historical

books will be written, and this time will feature big and large in the

history books, this time in British Columbia where we had a choice to

make. We have two paths and two roads. One road is the road that we’ve

tried so very hard to get the NDP to get behind, and they have in some

sense — the road to recognize that innovation in the 21st century is the

foundation of a vibrant, resilient, strong economy for that 21st

century. That is where our strength is at. We build on our strategic

strengths. We don’t chase the weaknesses of others.

It is only through sending this to committee that we will be able

to explore this in further detail, which is why this amendment must be

supported by the B.C. NDP and, hopefully, some B.C. Liberal members. I

know there’s discomfort over there as well.

We’re not asking much here. My colleague from Cowichan Valley is

simply asking that we as legislators do our due diligence. We have a

duty and responsibility to future generations to ensure we reflect upon

the true costs of what’s coming before us. Not just the idle rhetoric

that is untested with no foundations and no evidence that somehow this

is $23 billion. Not because the Premier gets to stand up and say: “I got

to do what Christy Clark couldn’t.” Those are not reasons.

History will not be kind to this government. This government will

be short-lived, and history will judge it accordingly. They’ll judge it

as betraying an entire generation.

What we saw today in question period is really a microcosm of the

bigger issue. We saw in question period haggling back and forth across

the aisle. “We didn’t do ride-hailing. You didn’t do ride-hailing.

You’re bad. We’re bad. Oh, make fun of you. You make fun of

us.”

The reality is none of the people in this place did anything about

ride-hailing. It’s only because of the B.C. Green caucus that we got to

where we are and the countless hours we put in to drive this government

to insist upon standing committees meeting, to insist upon bringing in

regulations that will allow ride-hailing, to insist upon the

introduction of an amendment that my colleague brought forward in the

fall. If that amendment had not passed, we wouldn’t even be here

talking. We know that both major ride-hailing companies would have

walked if it were not for that amendment passing.

We continue to work hard with this government to try to advance

good public policy, but here we throw up our hands. We throw up our

hands in disbelief at the cognitive dissonance embodied by the NDP right

now as they stand up and claim to be there for the

environment.

They claim and have the gall to talk about the future generations.

To see NDP MLAs clamouring over each other to get stuck in a photo shoot

with the young children demonstrating here on the steps is enough to

make you want to throw up. It honestly is. It is sickening to the core —

the hypocrisy of the B.C. NDP MLAs standing with those children pleading

for decision-makers, pleading for them to look out for their interests.

We have a global movement of youth calling upon our leaders to stand up

and actually put their interests in the decision-making, because they’re

not here to be able to vote. They’re not part of our decision-making

process, yet they live the consequences of the decisions we

make.

None of us in this room — not a single one of us in this room —

will have to live the consequence of the decision we’re making today.

That consequence will manifest itself on the future generations, and God

help them with the world we are leaving behind because of our

irresponsible and utterly reckless approach to energy policy.

[3:25 p.m.]

I had hope for this government. I had a hope, when I saw CleanBC,

that this government actually got it. But what I see now is they are no

different. I would pull out a coin and flip it, but that would be

considered a prop. What I would say by that is we have one coin in this

House. We have one coin with two sides, and they’re exactly the same on

both sides.

Ironically, the B.C. NDP take the Liberal giveaway to a whole new

level. I might add some additional colour to that and suggest we have a

fiscally irresponsible version of the same LNG cheerleaders over here,

because they’ve taken the level of corporate welfare to a whole new

level.

That, again, coming back to this motion, is precisely why it is so

critical that we send this bill to committee — to ensure that the

Legislature, all of us, can actually reflect upon the decision we’re

making. Has there ever once in the history of this Legislature been an

expert climate scientist pulled in front of a committee and told: “Tell

us. What are the ramifications of our decision on future generations?” I

safely say no. How many times have you pulled in an economist and said:

“How much would our GDP change three years from now?” I’d say a

lot.

How often, in decision-making that happens here, do we think

about: “Will I get re-elected because of this?” An awful lot. In fact, I

feel it’s fairly safe to say that most people in this place, sadly, are

more interested in their re-election than they are in actually putting

in place good public policy that will ensure that future generations

inherit the quality of the environment that we were blessed to inherit

from our forefathers.

Here today we are at this pivotal moment. It’s a moment that I ask

each and every MLA to reflect upon, as my colleague from Cowichan Valley

so beautifully articulated. Why are we here? What is a Westminster

parliamentary democracy? What is our role as MLAs? Is it to dutifully

stand like sheep because our Whip tells us we must vote this way? I’ve

sat here for six years now and probably seen people vote against the

party two times. Three times, maybe. One of them was when my colleagues

and I shared a difference of opinion on a vote. No other

time.

Why do we elect 41 NDP MLAs? Why bother? We should only elect

three of them. They all say the same thing. They all do the same thing.

They all stand like sheep and sing out…. I mean, we don’t see any kind

of negative rhetoric coming about this bill, even though, again, I could

go on with my 20 pages of quotes here. I could read more quotes, but I’m

not going to because we’ve got the point. The point is hypocrisy like

we’ve never seen before.

This government should be ashamed of itself. Those NDP MLAs who

vote for this should be ashamed of themselves.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member opposite says I should be heckled. No, I think that

that’s unfair. This is a very, very serious point that’s being raised.

I’m appealing to you as well. Why are you not standing up? Why are you,

the member from Delta North, not thinking…? You’re a farmer.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, no….

A. Weaver: Through the Chair. Thank you. I understand.

Why are we not having the agriculture community…? The Minister of

Agriculture, of all people — I’ve already read a quote — would stand up

and argue in an election campaign: “No, no, no. You’ve got to vote NDP,

because we’re there for the environment.” The Minister of

Transportation, same thing.

I don’t know how many times on the campaign trail I had to listen

to the vote-split narrative. “Oh, I’d love to vote Green, but I’m voting

NDP. You know what? They’re good for the environment too.” Well, today

is that day of reckoning. Show us. Show us what your real, true colours

are. Are your true colours that you are a progressive party, one that

cares about the future generations? Or, really, are you no different

from the B.C. Liberals, just the other side of the same coin? How do you

want to be remembered?

I’ll leave it with this: how do you want to be remembered in

history? Do you want history books to pick up and turn the page and see

the NDP member from this jurisdiction or that…? I know in which

jurisdictions you’re feeling it from your constituents, because I’m

getting copies of every single email going out. I know there are some

MLAs who are hearing it from their constituents. I know that those same

MLAs, if they actually voted their conscience, would stand up and

support their constituents and vote with this motion to send it to a

standing committee, because we know that that’s what their constituents

want.

Not all. I suspect the member for Peace River North is on pretty

safe ground. There seems to be cognitive dissonance out there in terms

of the fact that we’re talking about forest fires, we’re talking about

the caribou preservation, and we’re not putting the dots together. Why

do you think we’re having forest fires, for goodness’ sake?

[3:30 p.m.]

In 2004, I wrote a paper with Nathan Gillett and Mike Flannigan.

It was the first time we were able to detect that forest fires were

already increasing because of global warming. We knew that in 2004, for

heaven’s sake — 14 years ago. What’s the government’s response? “Oh, we

need more money to fight fires.” No, you’ve got the wrong response. What

you should be doing is recognizing that climate change is a very, very

real threat.

Fighting fires is no good. You must prevent fires in the first

place. But we don’t think that way in this place. We’re too narrowly

focused on re-election, short-term decisions, and we’re too narrowly

focused on: what’s in it for me, and how do I get a quick win? Nobody,

other than these three here, is thinking about the long-term

consequences of decisions here on future generations. That is a

shame.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

With that, I hope NDP MLAs and Liberal MLAs do some soul-searching

here as they think about this amendment and ask whether it is really

that big a deal to send this to committee, to allow the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services to actually reflect upon

it. Call in some expert testimony. Make a recommendation as to whether

or not this is actually, in the triple-bottom-line sense, good for

British Columbians, because I suggest to you that it’s not.

I suggest to you that it’s hard to have a vibrant economy on a

dead planet. I would suggest to you that we are putting ourselves right

on that pathway, and rather than recognizing the opportunity, we are

doing the very best we can to put us on this pathway to extinction. Is

that what we want here?

I know it’s a big reach from one LNG facility to extinction. I

recognize that. But what is important is to recognize that Canada is a

signatory to the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord says that the global

leaders, of which Canada is a signatory — our Minister of Environment

was very proud to fly off to Paris and have photo ops — are going to

take steps to commit warming to substantially below 2 degrees. Forget 1½

degrees. That’s long toast. But substantially below 2

degrees.

What does that mean, as I said yesterday? The direct translation

of that policy statement is that there can be no new investment in

fossil fuel infrastructures effective immediately, because you don’t

build a two-to-four-train LNG facility to tear it down in five years. We

have a legislated target of 80 percent greenhouse gas reductions by

2050, and we want to add four megatonnes, which will go to eight when

you get four trains, by 2030.

That’s a 15 percent increase on all B.C. emissions, yet we have a

legislated target to take us to 80 percent reductions. That means every

British Columbian must reduce their emissions 98 percent. I’m pretty

close to zero emissions as it is. But I challenge you to find every

other person in the province to go to 98 percent emissions. It’s going

be tough, and we’re making it tougher.

Let us look upon this upcoming vote. Let us look upon this

upcoming vote, and let’s think about this with sombre reflection. A vote

to not send this to committee is nothing short of a betrayal of future

generations, nothing short of a betrayal to the voters of British

Columbia and nothing short of a betrayal to the fiscal well-being of

this province as we put another corporate subsidy on steroids to a

fading fossil fuel industry that would not otherwise go on here in

British Columbia, while at the same time, and this is what is so sad

about it, missing out on those incredible opportunities for innovation

in the north — incredible opportunities that we could have.

I don’t know how many times we’ve brought forward ideas for the

north. Thank goodness we’re actually getting broadband redundancy in

Prince George now. We waited for the B.C. Liberals to do that for years.

We’re finally getting investment in broadband redundancy. We should be

getting the tech sector together with the resource sector. We should be

building on our forest sector. We shouldn’t be giving away our

resources. We should be thinking about all of this through the lens of

climate change adaptation and mitigation, because that is the defining

issue of our time, that many of you will be judged, and you will be

judged negatively.

With that, I ask and I plead with the members of this house. Vote

in support of this amendment. You’re only sending it to committee for

further deliberation. Thank you for your time.

[3:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I think that it’s important to acknowledge that my colleague from

Oak Bay–Gordon Head comes to this place with more time spent with

spreadsheets showing, painting, a picture, than perhaps all of us and

maybe all legislators in this country combined. The numbers have been

showing a picture for my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head that has

created the sense of urgency that you see here today, the desire for us

to take just a few more months of time to take a look at this, to

perhaps maybe review some of the things that my colleague and, in fact,

his former colleagues and maybe some of his current colleagues, but

former colleagues in this field of climate change.

What we’re asking for here today is but a brief pause, a brief

moment to take a breath in this place, to not rush headlong into

insanity but to maybe pause just for a few moments to take a look at

some of the numbers that my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has been

trying to make sense of. He’s been trying to tell the people of this

province, the people of this country, the people of this world exactly

what we have and what we’re being faced with.

It’s tough to sit in this place. It’s tough to hear this message.

This is not a happy message. This is not a message that you deliver with

a big cake and say: “Congratulations. You are about to make a decision

that is going to take us one step closer to an extinction narrative that

nobody wants to hear anything about.” But that’s the decision. There are

all sorts of really feebly crafted and, in fact, very dangerous

narratives that are being spun out in order to distract from this. I

hear some of them.

I hear bits and pieces of them, that this is a more complex

decision than the one that, in fact, we have to make today. I want to

assure the members of this House that the complexity has been

manufactured by humans. It’s not really that complex. There are not

really labour issues that we need to deal with in this. There is not

really a jobs narrative that we need to deal with in this. There’s not

really a vote-counting or an urban-rural divide split narrative that we

need to be dealing with. That is a construct. It’s a construct of

political science. It’s not even science. It’s a pseudoscience.

Political scientists have created those constructs.

The only conversation that we should be having here today is one

about making a decision or not making a decision about sending us one

step closer to less biodiversity, a more dangerous world. We heard in

question period here today big, big words being talked about in this

place about safety. “We need to make sure that we’re safe. All British

Columbians need to know that they’re safe.”

Where is that conversation in the context of climate change? It’s

nowhere to be found. We don’t care if our children and our grandchildren

are safe. That is being spun under the rug in the discussion around

labour. That’s being spun under the discussion on the jobs narrative,

which became very, very popular under the former government.

It grew in popularity. It grew in popularity around the former

federal government. It’s the one that I heard Donald Trump talking about

this morning on the news. Jobs, jobs, jobs. What good are jobs going to

do in a world that you can’t live on? You can’t eat money. You can’t eat

jobs, and you can’t grow food in a world that has hostile growing

conditions.

[3:40 p.m.]

I want to do a little bit of correcting the record. Yesterday in

one of my speeches in the response to the amendment that I moved

yesterday, I attributed a quote that I heard to some chiefs from the

Nicola Valley. In fact, the quote that I heard came from a Democrat

presidential candidate, or maybe a future presidential candidate for the

Democrats, Pete Buttigieg.

Now, Pete Buttigieg is 37 years old. He’s a millennial and will be

the first millennial to run for president. He’s the eight-year mayor of

South Bend, Indiana. He’s gay, came out during his mayoral re-election.

It shouldn’t be an interesting fact, but the reason why it is an

interesting fact is because he’s a Democratic mayor in a red state, in

an industrial Midwest town in the middle of Trump country — in fact, in

Mike Pence’s state, the Vice-President.

He’s a pretty serious dude, for sure. He’s a pretty cool guy. I

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Some of the things that

Pete was talking about — maybe President Buttigieg one day — were pretty

in line with the kinds of things that we’re talking about

today.

He was asked a question by Stephen Colbert. “You know, you’re a

young man, Pete. Why would you run now? Why not wait for a little bit of

salt and pepper” — till you looked a little bit like the member for

Saanich North and the Islands? “Just wait a few years, and maybe you’ll

look a little bit more tired and have a little bit more cynicism in

you.”

He said: “You know what? Look, the reality here is that I have

more experience than the current president, and it’s my generation

that’s going to be on the business end of climate change. It’s my

generation that’s going to be on the business end of climate change, so

why shouldn’t I be here at this time? It’s not about how old you are.

It’s about what the office needs at the moment and what you bring to the

table.” That’s the same challenge that I think we are faced with

here.

He also pointed out that economically, the millennials are the

first generation that are going to make less than their parents’

generation did. Now, what does that say about their parents’ generation?

I think it says a lot less about millennials than it does, say, about

the parents and the grandparents.

What it says is that there has been a pretty devastating

philosophical approach here, just cleaving to short-term decision-making

— the kinds of discussions that have been going on and are still going

on in this place, despite the fact we don’t want to think about it. We

don’t want to actually agree that that’s what has been going on. He

finishes that little bit by saying that no one has more at stake right

now than the young people, so why not elect the young people.

Why did I go through that? I go through that because he says in

this…. He gets asked a question at the very end of the interview.

Colbert references President Trump, and he says that President Trump is

about to call a national emergency right now about the border

wall.

He says: “Pete, what would you consider a national emergency?” And

Pete Buttigieg says this: “What I consider a national emergency is the

two incidents that happened 18 months apart in my town. One was for a

1,000-year flood, and the other was for what we were told was a 500-year

flood, which means either I have preposterous statistical luck, or we

have a problem with climate change that’s not just happening on the

North Pole. It’s happening in communities like mine. That’s an

emergency.”

[3:45 p.m.]

So why would I confuse that with chiefs from the Nicola, you might

ask? It’s because we were standing on the side of their river, and they

talked about the preposterous statistical luck that they have, where

they also experienced back-to-back, multigenerational floods in

consecutive years, devastating their community, shutting their community

off. In order to get from the Lower Nicola Band to Merritt took five

hours because they had to drive all the way around. It’s a five-minute

drive, for those of you that know the geography. This devastated their

community for weeks.

The reason I got confused was because within the space of a week,

I’d watched this video and I’d met with chiefs, and they basically told

me the same thing. One was in South Bend, Indiana. The other was in

rural British Columbia.

Those of us who are defending rural British Columbia, the

defenders of rural British Columbia need to open their eyes to the fact

that this is happening in our own backyard in rural British Columbia. We

think that we need to deliver the people of rural British Columbia jobs

— a jobs narrative. What we need to deliver the people of rural British

Columbia is the same level of safety that is being purported by this

government through their decision on ride-hailing and the defence that

we heard earlier today in question period.

I’m glad that I was able to correct the record on that, and I’m

sorry to the Chief of the Nicola. I’m sure that he may not mind me

mixing up him with a presidential candidate. But nonetheless, I want to

point out that what we are hearing here is we’re hearing from chiefs who

have done an incredible job of leadership and another incredible leader

down in the United States, a young man who’s running for president at

37. I’ve not seen anyone in this province with the kind of leadership

qualities that I see in many of the chiefs, as they do more with less in

their communities.

I think that it’s important, as we look at the amendment that we

have in front of us, to ensure that we have the opportunity to be

thoughtful in our processes here. I’ve been quite happy with the

processes that are undertaken in the committees, where multiple parties

can get together and have this conversation, ask the questions, bring

the experts in and ask them to provide us advice. It’s still up to

government to heed the advice. They may or they may not, but at least we

can say that we’ve done the work. At least we can look the children in

the eyes and say: “Yes, we’ve done the work.”

There’s another aspect of this which I really want to highlight;

that is, somehow we have allowed the oil and gas industry here to hijack

the word “industry.” The two have become synonymous. They are not

synonymous. The reason I know they’re not synonymous is because I have

industry in my riding that’s not oil and gas and that does brilliant

work. In fact, I’ve been going on a tour of the businesses in my riding

— in Keating Business Park, in the Sidney–North Saanich industrial

park.

The combination of those two business parks generates about $1

billion. Again, I want to emphasize the “b” in “billion” because we hear

that we need to do that from the oil and gas industry, to emphasize what

kind of impact they’re having. But there’s $1 billion worth of economic

activity that is being generated out of two business parks in my riding.

We’ve got high tech. We’ve got medium tech. We’ve got low tech. We’ve

got clean tech. We’ve got every kind of company that you can think

of.

We’ve got companies that are making stuff out of plastics. Yes, I

understand that that starts as a fossil fuel. We’ve got companies that

are making innovations in MRI machines.

Absolutely, my riding isn’t the only one that has industry. Thank

you to the member for Cowichan Valley for reminding me of Pacific Energy

Stoves and Live Edge, industries in the riding of Cowichan Valley. We

look at the ridings across this province, and I’m sure that we can have

a discussion about the incredible businesses that are generating revenue

there.

[3:50 p.m.]

I want to do everything I can. If we are going to fracture

conversations here — good word, “fracture” — then let’s fracture the

connection that’s been made between industry and oil and gas so that the

two are just synonymous. Meaning that we can actually have a

conversation about industry in this province and it not be only in the

context of oil and gas, because there’s a level of an absurdity

there.

We’ve got manufacturing companies, design companies. We have

critically important job creators, innovators, investors, entrepreneurs.

These are people that create jobs, that are creating jobs in this

province right now, that are making the difficult decisions about

whether they feed themselves or create the next opportunity for their

employees to eat. We know that, as entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs make

decisions that sacrifice their own well-being often in order to be able

to support the families that they have hired.

What’s so frustrating about this? In addition to…. Not only have

we allowed the oil and gas industry to hijack this word “industry,” but

those industries on the Saanich Peninsula have been asking the

government, for the last decade, to help them out. So it doesn’t matter

what brand of government has been in place. They have ignored those

industries.

When I was on municipal council, district of Central Saanich,

those businesses came to us, and they said: “We need help from the

provincial government in better transportation services, transit, to

connect where people live to where people work. We need more affordable

housing in the area, and we need to be able to attain housing. If they

can’t attain housing, then we need to be able to get them transported

out to here, and we need access to better skilled labour.”

Now, what’s fascinating about this is that all levels of

government — it doesn’t matter whether it would be the former B.C.

Liberals or the current B.C. NDP — have talked about better transit,

have talked about better housing and have talked about increasing

investments in skilled labour. Yet for years, a decade, those businesses

on the Saanich Peninsula have been asking for the government’s support

to get access to those three things, and the pleadings of those

companies have fallen on deaf ears. Why, after a decade, are they still

asking for the same thing, the same three messages?

I did a podcast with a friend of mine, John Jurisic. He’s been

leading that charge. We talked about how frustrating it has been that

the same message be delivered over and over and over again and nobody do

anything about it.

Instead, what are we doing? Instead, we’re up, chasing LNG

companies, chasing gas down well holes, chasing them all over the

province in order to be able to land the big unicorn in this province.

We’ve got people who have invested in this province today asking for the

support of their provincial government, asking for access to the

resources that they need to be able to not just get by but to thrive, to

hire more people, to create more prosperity in this province.

We’ve got this jobs government and anti-jobs government narrative

that’s been going on, us versus them, black versus white, good versus

evil — the ongoing long-standing narrative of humanity, good versus

evil, in this place, split by this aisle that goes right down this

place.

Not once have they had anybody come out and offer a solution to

help them make their companies more prosperous. Not only have they been

ignored, but it goes a step further than that. They’ve had further

obstacles put in their way. They were hit with the employer health

tax.

“You know what? Thank you for doing what you’ve been doing. Thank

you for helping us out. Now, by the way, guess what. We are going to do

a giant tax shift. We’re going to take the MSP,” which nobody wants to

pay and needs to be gone…. It’s a regressive, crazy-making tax on

people. Wouldn’t call it a tax, because the last government didn’t do

taxes. They did other things. But nonetheless, it was a tax. “We’re

going to take that, and we’re going to shift it right onto businesses,

because it’s a great place to hide this tax. We’re going to call it

employer health tax. By the way, you need to remain competitive by

assuming that tax.”

That’s what they got. That’s the thanks that they got.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: That’s fine, but that’s the thanks that they got. It’s worse than

that, though, Member, my friend. It’s different than that.

[3:55 p.m.]

It goes further than that, because not only did they get hit with

the employer health tax, but they were hit with increased corporate

taxes. That happened. They were not given the break on the PST that the

LNG golden child was given. “Oh, don’t worry about it. You just don’t

pay PST. Everyone else: you compete with this PST.” LNG golden child,

big unicorn — no PST.

Carbon tax. “You don’t like that. Don’t worry about it. It’s all

good. We’ve got you covered. No worries. Electricity, hydro — no

worries. You know what? You can play a bunch of mathematical games and

stuff. That’s fine too. We’ll let that slide.”

The companies in my riding, not quite so lucky. They’re covering

on all of that. You know what makes me really just uncomfortable about

this whole thing? That LNG Canada not only had the gall to give that

list to British Columbia, but they said: “We also want a break on

tariffs of aluminum and steel from the federal government or else we’re

not going to come. We’ll throw a little fit over here in the corner if

you don’t give it to us.”

At a time when tariffs on steel and aluminum were being slapped

all over the place and the Prime Minister of this country was in Dofasco

or Stelco out in Hamilton with the steelworkers all around him, getting

pats on the back, saying, “I’m standing up for you,” they were talking

about letting LNG Canada off the hook for aluminum and steel

tariffs.

Those companies that are manufacturing state-of-the-art products

in my riding are telling me: “You know what? Those steel and aluminum

tariffs are a real burden on us right now.” Maybe not even in the way

you think, but because aluminum and steel from Asia is not coming on the

boat to the United States, it’s costing us more to get it, because we

have to have special shipping to get it here. It’s hurting them in a

bunch of different ways.

Not only do we give them that whole tax break, the $6 billion of

corporate welfare that we gave them to build housing and transit and to

train more skilled labourers, we’re also saying to them: “You’re going

to have to compete in a marketplace where you don’t get the kind of

steel and aluminum breaks that the golden boy gets.” I almost want to do

like a Ric Flair — whoo! — but anyway…. Well, I just did.

Compete away in a marketplace that’s tough and that we continue to

make tougher. We’re not going to help you out. We’re not going to do

what you want us to do. But we are going to celebrate you. We are. We’re

going to celebrate you. We’re going to celebrate the Viking heirs of the

world. When we need you, we’ll do a ribbon cutting there. But really,

we’re going to just allow this LNG, this massive project, to be built by

the partners in Asia and floated in chunks here.

Every single time they come to the table and say, “Give us more;

give us more; give us more,” we say: “We give you more; we give you

more; we give you more.” The people who’ve invested in this province are

looking at it and going: “What the…?” You fill in the blank.

I’m going to end with this. There’s a lot of misinformation about

what the B.C. Green caucus is — anti this, anti that, against this,

against that. It is misdirection. It’s misinformation, and it’s wrong,

because we are for the economy.

I think I just demonstrated that we are for a strong, vibrant

economy. We are also for a sane economy; a resilient, sustainable,

diversified economy and a modern agile, flexible economy, not one that

goes all in on grandpa’s technology. My late grandpa, may he rest in

peace.

[4:00 p.m.]

We are for social justice. Some will say: “You don’t support

labour. You don’t support social justice issues. You’re Greens. You

can’t support those because there’s another party that already does

that.”

Well, I want to tell the people of British Columbia and the people

in this room that yes, we do. Yes, we do believe in social justice

issues in this province. Yes, we do believe in protecting workers and

making sure that we look after our people and that we do it with love.

And we do it with compassion and that we’re empathetic. That is who we

are.

And yes, we are for healthy ecosystems, which is just absolutely

insane to even be saying those words out loud. We like clean air. We

really like clean water. We like plants and animals, and we like other

humans. We like biodiversity. We take great pleasure in walking through

healthy forests and standing on beaches that are not covered in plastic.

We like those things, and we support them.

We are a pretty balanced, thoughtful group here. This is not

insanity that you’re seeing coming out of us. We’re not throwing a fit

here for some small reason. We are making statements here. We’re asking,

through this amendment, to ensure that there is a thoughtful process in

this and not that we just usher this thing through, that we don’t just

accept the 18-page, or whatever it is, PowerPoint presentation — the

pitch that sold us this — and that we actually take some time and think

about it.

As a wise Indigenous proverb said: we didn’t inherit the earth

from our parents. That’s right. We are borrowing it from our children

and our grandchildren.

I want to come back to our children and our grandchildren. I want

to come back to those kids that were standing on the front steps. I want

to just say this. It’s not right that the children, our children, are

being turned into activists by the decisions that we make in this room.

They should be in school learning or in nature learning. My daughter

often learns in nature, not in a classroom. They should be feeling that

their learning matters.

As I made a comment in my previous statement, it’s a pretty sad

state when our youth are, like: “Ah, whatever.” I mean, I skipped school

for a lot of reasons. Well, a couple rea