Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 6, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 53

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Future of mining in B.C.

D. Barnett

D. Routley

Child care

J. Routledge

L. Throness

Protecting B.C.’s steelhead

R. Sultan

B. Ma

Fairness in the rental market

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Sullivan

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 12 — Family Day

L. Larson

A. Kang

E. Foster

R. Kahlon

S. Bond

R. Leonard

T. Shypitka

J. Brar

P. Milobar

M. Elmore

J. Sturdy

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2017

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FUTURE OF MINING IN B.C.

D. Barnett: British Columbia is leading the way in economic growth in Canada

because we have a diverse economy. A major part of our winning formula

is the mining industry in British Columbia. It started with the gold

rush over 100 years ago and hasn’t stopped since.

We in the Cariboo know this very well because dozens of small

towns and mining camps evolved into the region that we live in today.

Our mining industry evolved too. British Columbia is now known as a

global centre for mineral exploration and development. There are some

700 exploration companies located in British Columbia.

One reason we are a global centre is because our province is rich

in high-quality mineral resources. B.C. is Canada’s largest producer of

copper, the largest exporter of metallurgical coal, and it is the only

producer of molybdenum. For those of you who are wondering about

molybdenum, think of your stainless steel sink in the kitchen and you’ll

know how important the mining industry is to British Columbia and the

world.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Our reputation on the global stage is well earned, because British

Columbia is a stable place to do business, and we have a highly trained

workforce. B.C. is strategically located as the gateway to the Pacific,

and we are well positioned to serve Asian markets. That makes us

extremely competitive around the globe.

Without question, fluctuating commodity prices always possess a

challenge to the mining industry. Mining is a cyclical business. Miners

know this fact better than most. That is why a great deal of effort is

made to ensure that operations are sustainable over the long term to

account for price fluctuations.

These efforts are paying off. Under the former Liberal government,

there were seven new mines permitted in British Columbia, including

Mount Milligan, Copper Mountain, New Afton, Red Chris, Brucejack,

Silvertip and Barkerville Gold’s Bonanza Ledge.

In the past few years, gross revenues from the B.C. mining

industry rose from $7.7 billion to $8.7 billion in 2016. Metallurgical

coal commanded the lion’s share of B.C. mining revenues at about 40

percent, followed by copper at 25 percent, zinc at 12 percent, gold at 9

percent, silver at 8 percent, lead at about 5 percent and molybdenum at

about 1 percent.

This means the mining industry in our province also contributes to

the well-being of all British Columbians. In 2016, the B.C. mining

industry made total payments to government and government agencies in

the order of $650 million. That’s a substantial increase from $476

million in 2015.

There are almost 10,000 British Columbians who work directly in

the mining industry, but when you consider the fact that the mining

industry is the largest customer for the transportation sector, you can

appreciate just how many indirect jobs are supported by

mining.

Overall, 2017 has been a good year for the mining industry.

Commodity prices are stabilizing, mines are reopening and investment is

returning. However, wildfires this summer certainly had an effect and

proved quite disruptive to the mining industry, as much as it did to the

forest industry and the tourist industry in my region.

[10:10 a.m.]

In this debate, I would be interested to know what the NDP and

Green parties are doing to support the mining industry in British

Columbia. Under the B.C. Liberal government, we introduced the phasing

out of provincial sales tax on electricity used by industry, something

supported in the September budget update. This was a very simple budget

initiative that was widely welcomed by the mining industry when it was

first introduced by the B.C. Liberal budget last February.

I would like to know: will the NDP and the Green Party consider

mining as a part of their new emergency economy task force? There are

many technological and environmental advances being adopted by the B.C.

mining industry that are considered leading edge. I would like to know

what incentives the NDP and the Green Party are willing to offer the

B.C. mining industry going forward.

D. Routley: When we work in this House, we’re reminded of the history of the

province. It’s exhibited in a physical and natural way here. For those

people who haven’t seen the inside of their House, on the main dome’s

interior panels are painted the four core industries of British Columbia

— historical, at least for the newcomer period of time since newcomers

have come to this land.

One of those four industries — fishing, agriculture, forestry — is

mining, one of the four core industries of this province in its history.

It began in the mid-1800s with coal mines right here on Vancouver Island

and the placer goldmines in the Cariboo in the gold rush time. This has

been an important element of British Columbia’s founding and purpose and

development for a very long time.

We’re one of the most important producers of copper, gold, silver,

lead, zinc, molybdenum, coal and other industrial minerals. The gross

revenues for the B.C. mining industry were $8.7 billion in 2016. Total

payments to government were in the order of $650 million. Currently

there are more than 1,100 businesses in British Columbia that supply

services and supplies to the mining operations of the province. We

continue to be in a province where resource extraction, in a responsible

way, is so important to our economy — natural resource development and

mining being critical to that.

We are committed, the B.C. NDP government, to revitalizing and

strengthening the traditional industries of this province, like mining,

but there’s a critical link — not just from the industrial economy but

also to the new, emerging economy — between our minerals and that

economy. With so many products and so many processes being developed

that require the rare and abundant supply of minerals that we find in

British Columbia, one of the core problems — probably the first problem

when you examine any activity on the land base; I just identified it as

a problem, but in fact, it’s an opportunity — is the relationship with

First Nations.

First Nations in British Columbia are largely living and relying

upon unceded lands, which we have occupied and extracted resources from,

for generations. This is one of the core commitments of the B.C. NDP

government: that we will adopt the principles of the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples. Every one of the ministers has this as

the primary and first goal and object of their ministry.

These are very important issues. We’re very committed to that.

We’re committed to working with all of these stakeholders to avoid the

boom-and-bust nature of the industry and cushion the impacts on

communities, also minimizing the impacts on the environment.

In my remaining time, I’d like to make a parallel. When I worked

for my stepfather as a contractor building houses, any contractor that

was responsible — that disposed of drywall responsibly, that handled

products responsibly — was at a distinct disadvantage to those who

cheated. This is very true of natural resource industries, particularly

mining.

When we see that large donors to the previous government, donors

who can never do this again, donated large amounts of money, and then

the people see the result of that.... When the largest mining tragedy or

disaster in British Columbia winds up being a bill for the people to

clean up of $40 million….

[10:15 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is the non-partisan portion of the morning’s

debate.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

I think British Columbians make a direct connection between that.

I make a direct connection between the disadvantage that a responsible

contractor is put at by irresponsible contractors.

Finally, British Columbia has a government that will balance the

interests of community, economy and the environment, that will act in

conjunction with First Nations and all local governments, all forces in

this province, to provide responsible development of our resources to

capitalize on our province’s great wealth — and to make that wealth

fairly distributed to communities through the use of British Columbia

labour and the encouragement of British Columbia apprentices.

In this way, not only do these minerals and this mining contribute

to the new economy and sustainability but also to the sustainability and

health of a thriving community. That, I think, is the basic expectation

that British Columbians have of us.

D. Barnett: Studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Canadian Association of

Mining Equipment and Services for Export found that for every direct

mining position at a mine site, at least two indirect jobs are

supported. Currently there are more than 1,100 businesses in British

Columbia that provide supplies or services to mining operations in this

province. In other words, the mining industry is a very important part

of B.C.’s diversified economy. In my region, it is a major employer and

supports many families, families who support communities.

It upsets me to hear my colleague across the floor talk about good

mining companies and bad mining companies. There are the strictest rules

and regulations of any province in British Columbia, and the main

component that I hear so little about…. I hear about mining companies. I

hear about money.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Minister.

D. Barnett: I hear about this. Come and live where I live. Come and live with

people who look for hope and look for build-up, and don’t talk about

things that you’re not too sure about.

I am wondering why the NDP and the Green Party are continuously

picking on people and communities and not trying to lift them up. I live

in a region that has many, many problems, but certainly not with their

employers. So I’m wondering why the NDP party and the Green Party are

not making more effort to pay attention to people.

Under the B.C. Liberal government, our provincial budget provided

the Ministry of Energy and Mines a budget increase of $18 million over

three years for mines permitting and oversight. We did this in addition

to the $4.85 million budget uplift in 2015. These are important

investments.

The B.C. Liberal government increased the Ministry of Energy and

Mines budget to establish the major mines permitting office to improve

the coordination of major mine permits. We added staff to conduct more

inspections and permit reviews and maintain improved turnabout times for

notice of work permits.

There are now some 23 mines under review in British Columbia

through the environmental assessment office or major mines permitting

office. The new major mines permitting office is improving the

coordination of authorizations for major mining projects in B.C. This

provides enhanced services to mining proponents for a fee, something the

industry is prepared to pay for as long as a better process is provided.

As a result, the turnabout time for notice of work permits is now under

50 days.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast seeks leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of friends and

community stalwarts from the Sunshine Coast who are in the gallery today.

They spend a lot of their energy and a lot of their time helping me to help

protect the public interest. I’d like to welcome Gayle Neilson and Lynn

Forrest to the gallery.

[10:20 a.m.]

Private Members’ Statements

CHILD CARE

J. Routledge: The government of British Columbia is committed to the

introduction of a system of universally accessible, affordable quality

child care. It could be the most socially transformational,

comprehensive program introduced to our province since medicare became

law in the 1960s. As a member of the child care working group, I am so

proud to be part of this historic initiative.

Just as Canadians were facing a health care crisis that was

finally addressed in the 1960s, British Columbian families are facing a

child care crisis today. Here are just some of the stories that put a

human face on the problem. Tiffany and her husband live in a condo in my

constituency. She just gave birth to their second child. By her

calculation, when she returns to work after maternity leave, she will

clear $30 on every paycheque once she has paid for two infant and

toddler child care spaces.

Brad sent an email to me, as his MLA. He describes himself as a

well-paid tech professional. His wife is a lawyer. He tells me that they

have chosen not to have children. Why? Because they live in Metro

Vancouver. They know about the long wait-list for child care spaces,

they believe the chance of finding quality child care is slim, and they

don’t want to take the risk.

I also met a woman who lives in Richmond and works in a nail salon

on Hastings Street. She and her husband care for their toddler in

shifts. He works what amounts to a 12-hour day shift, because of her

long commute. She takes over for the night shift so he can go to his

job. They hardly ever see each other.

While I was door-knocking during the election, I was struck by the

number of young mothers who came to their doors with their babies in

their arms and told me about being professionals with big mortgages and

student debt. They shared the agony of being on wait-lists for child

care and not knowing what they were going to do when their maternity

leave was up. Some of them were in tears telling me their story. I

recall meeting a woman on social assistance who wasn’t happy about it

but calculated that if she went out and got a job, she would have even

less money to support her children.

My point is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re rich or poor,

single or part of a supportive family, everyone is affected by the lack

of quality, affordable child care. The average cost of child care in

Metro Vancouver is close to $50 a day. Compare that with Quebec where

the average cost is $10 a day. One local family has calculated that by

the time their youngest child is in kindergarten, they will have paid

$100,000 for child care.

In Metro Vancouver, there are only about 18.5 child care spaces

for every 100 children under the age of 12. That’s below the national

average. No wonder the waiting lists are so long. I know of one child

care provider in Burnaby that has 142 spaces and a waiting list of 734.

Another has 82 spaces and a waiting list of 431. I know of one mother

who’s been on 14 waiting lists since she was four months pregnant, and

providers are telling her that a space isn’t likely to come up for

another two years.

Let me put it bluntly. The child care system in this province is

fundamentally broken, and tinkering with such a broken system is not

good enough. The people of B.C. want a system of accessible, affordable,

quality child care. The people of B.C. voted for a system of accessible,

affordable, quality child care, and that is what this government is

preparing to give them.

It’s going to be a made-in-B.C. child care program that meets the

needs of British Columbians. Yes, it will be a huge undertaking, but

this government is up to the task. We should be reassured by the fact

that many other jurisdictions have come before us and been successful —

countries like Iceland, Slovenia, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Even closer to home, parents in Quebec have enjoyed universal child care

since 1997. Their program has been around long enough to know what works

and what we would do differently.

[10:25 a.m.]

The bottom line is that publicly funded child care more than pays

for itself. Let me explain. Quebec’s program was extremely popular from

the beginning. The utilization of child care shot up instantly, and the

labour force participation of women also increased sharply and

steadily.

Last year 85 percent of women between 20 and 44 were in the labour

force in Quebec — well above the national average. That means more women

working. That means more women getting raises and promotions. That means

more women paying more in income and payroll taxes and having more money

in their pockets to spend. That means they’re paying more in consumption

taxes, like PST and GST. It means more profits for industry, which leads

to more corporate taxes. More mothers in the labour force means the

government is paying less to support lower-income families.

Widely available early childhood education in Quebec has meant

fewer children at risk, and that has relieved the pressure on a range of

social services. In short, studies by more than one eminent economist

have produced evidence that government coffers in Quebec are richer by

almost $900 million annually as a result of the additional revenue and

savings that derive from universal child care.

In conclusion, some of the members opposite might be tempted to

question whether or not British Columbia can afford universally

accessible, affordable, quality child care. I say we can’t afford not to

introduce it.

L. Throness: Last week I questioned the Minister of Children and Family

Development during the estimates debate about the multi-year action

plan, which is a 15-page strategic plan fashioned by the former

government for the ministry that forecasts ministry activities through

to 2020. I found out that the new minister, in her budget update in

September, adopted the former government’s budget unchanged with respect

to her ministry, and she adopted the multi-year action plan without any

changes, which was the action plan of the former government.

One of the elements of the multi-year action plan through to 2020

was to “continue to fund the creation of up to 13,000 new licensed child

care spaces by 2020 to improve child care availability.” I asked the

minister, in estimates, if she had any new ideas to add to the

multi-year action plan, any changes she wanted to make. She had nothing

to offer.

So far, in practice, the new government has adopted the former

government’s agenda in its entirety. They promised $10-a-day daycare,

but there wasn’t a penny extra for it in the budget update in September.

Instead, they’ve ratified and confirmed B.C. Liberal budgets and

priorities, B.C. Liberal policy and even B.C. Liberal policy

documents.

I was frankly amazed that after 16 years on this side of the

House, after years of harsh criticism of the former ministry and the

minister, the new government had nothing to say and nothing to add, no

new ideas. Instead, they just adopted holus-bolus what the former

government had to offer. So I had an idea for the minister, which I want

to share with you, as an addition to the multi-year action

plan.

It’s a child care idea. That idea is to mount an aggressive

recruiting campaign to find more foster parents to care for the 7,000

children for whom the government now holds legal responsibility, because

we’re losing foster parents at an alarming rate. In the performance

management report of the ministry, which ended in March 2016, well over

a year ago, the ministry lost in that one year 24 percent of foster

parents under the age of 64. These younger foster parents are the future

of fostering. Those over 64 are still doing it, and they’re doing a

wonderful job, but they’re going to retire soon.

In that year, 2015-2016, 654 younger foster parents quit. Foster

care is our most important and most effective way to provide the best

possible care for children once they’ve been removed from the family

home. Why did they quit? We don’t know, and we need to find out, because

if children can’t live in foster homes, we have to depend on contracted

residential care.

But a contract worker paid a salary to look after children in a

group home is not nearly as good for those children as a benevolent,

loving foster home which closely resembles a normal, healthy family.

Besides that, it costs five times as much to do it. Get these figures.

It costs $23,000 per person, per year to support a child in a foster

home. It costs an average of $103,000 per year to keep that same child

in contracted residential care — five times more.

[10:30 a.m.]

There are about 7,000 children in the care of the government. In

the last year of record, MCFD paid about $133 million for contracted

care and $222 million to foster children. Contracted care amounted to

about 60 percent of the cost of foster care yet only accounted for 11

percent of the days of residential care. And the use of foster care is

declining. The use of contracted care must therefore be increasing. This

trend cannot continue. If we had no foster parents at all, contracted

care alone would cost over $700 million every year.

I want to challenge the new government and the new minister to add

something new to the strategic direction of the ministry, to take some

of that budget which is now devoted to contracted care and mount an

aggressive recruitment campaign to fund more foster parents and to use

some of that funding to raise the rates for foster parents, who haven’t

had an increase since 2009.

I want to underscore the seriousness of this situation. Fostering

is a difficult job. It’s hard to find people willing to undergo the

sacrifices necessary to take in a child who may have been raised in very

difficult circumstances and make that child part of your family, as if

it’s your own child. But if we don’t find more foster parents, we will

not be providing the most loving and emotionally healthy care for

children, and we simply won’t be able to afford the

alternative.

I would encourage the Minister of Children and Families to take up

this challenge today.

J. Routledge: I’d like to thank the member for his thoughtful comments about the

importance of the foster care program, although I would also like to

point out that in the context of child care, it is coming at what is a

deep crisis in quite a different, less-comprehensive way than what we

are proposing. In fact, a comprehensive, universal, accessible,

affordable child care program that is available to all parents means

that we are supporting families in a way that strengthens families,

which are the root of our system.

What I’m talking about is an investment in the future. There is a

growing body of evidence across disciplines that the first six years of

a child’s life have a major impact on their personality, their brain and

their future prospects, and 90 percent of brain development happens in

those years. So investing in early childhood learning and child care is

vital. It keeps kids healthy emotionally, physically and

mentally.

Quality child care helps kids succeed in school and succeed in

life, and it helps their families succeed. It’s an investment that helps

reduce poverty and involvement in the criminal justice system later in

life.

Now, do I want a provincial child care program? Well, what I’d

rather have is a national program. That would be even better. But just

as the province of Saskatchewan, under the leadership of Tommy Douglas,

led the way to a national health care program in the 1960s, British

Columbia, under the leadership of John Horgan, can be part of leading

the way on child care.

Universal, quality, publicly funded health care defined us as

Canadians in the 20th century. Universal, quality, affordable child care

can define us in the 21st century. It can be our legacy. I invite the

members opposite to join us in making it happen. It can be your legacy,

too.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please be reminded that we only refer to members by the

name of their constituency.

PROTECTING B.C.’ s

STEELHEAD

R. Sultan: I’d like to inform the House that we are ominously close to the

extinction of an iconic B.C. fish famous around the world. I refer to

the steelhead of the Fraser River. These are large, up to 30 pounds;

muscular, swimming up through rapids that salmon themselves are not

strong enough to swim through; and somewhat quirky seagoing wild trout,

much prized by anglers. If we lose them, history will not be kind to

us.

Juvenile steelhead thrive in our fast, clean, fresh waters. Adults

roam the Pacific and return from time to time to spawn.

Catch-and-release, rod-and-reel fishing attracts anglers from all over

the world. But today wild steelhead are fighting for survival in

southern British Columbia.

[10:35 a.m.]

Steelhead monitoring only began in 1978. We count them one by one,

believe it or not, in the water, wearing a snorkel and a wetsuit. I

participated in one such adventurous swim of the Coquihalla, organized

by our Minister of Environment.

The Thompson and Chilcotin watersheds have been home to our

largest southern population. In 1989, returning Thompson River steelhead

numbered over 7,000, and Chilko River steelhead, as many as 5,000. But

today only a handful return to spawn — a mere 430 on the Thompson in

2016, and on the Chilko, only 134 last year. This year’s outlook is even

worse — about 165 for the Thompson and only 50 for the Chilcotin.

Extinction of the gene pool looms on our watch.

Provincial biologists watch and count, but these fish are a

travel here from Ottawa, Fisheries staff have to travel more than 1/10

of the way around the world, and it appears that few of them actually

do.

Steelhead are in trouble for several reasons beyond absentee

management. Mother Nature plays a hand.

Our member for Fraser-Nicola lobbied for removal of a huge barrier

that fell into the Coquihalla, and with the guidance of North

Vancouver’s Shaun Hollingsworth, it is being removed.

Global warming. A blob of warm water circulating around the

Pacific has disrupted the ecosystem.

Habitat destruction. In the past, our government assisted such

groups as B.C. Wildlife Federation, the B.C. Federation of Drift

Fishers, the B.C. Federation of Fly Fishers and the Steelhead Society of

B.C. to collect donations from forestry companies and others and used

that money to bolt artificial debris to the bottom of such streams as

the fast-flowing Silver Creek outside Hope.

Hatchery fish befuddlement. Volunteers on the North Shore raise

steelhead, which are released at the mouth of the Seymour, but most

don’t get as far as Point Atkinson. Being raised in the comfort of the

hatchery doesn’t seem to give them the instincts to survive in the wild,

and the seals eat them for breakfast.

In my view, the most irresponsible factor currently destroying

this species is regulatory, coming out of Ottawa. It is the commercial

salmon fishing bycatch. On October 24, DFO opened commercial gill-net

fishing for Fraser River chum salmon. Low-value chum are the only

species still abundant enough to sustain a commercial fishery on the

Fraser. It’s small and dominated by First Nations.

This chum gillnet harvest coincides with the Thompson and Chilko

rivers migratory steelhead return. Experts estimate that as many as 50

percent of the Thompson- and Chilcotin-bound steelhead are intercepted

as bycatch in the commercial net fishing.

DFO is well aware of the plight of the steelhead but continues to

approve and support the commercial net fishery of chum salmon. It has

been a problem talked about for years. The feds came up with a solution:

the so-called Jesus box. If you catch a steelhead, you’re asked to put

it into a cooled wooden box, the Jesus box, where it will miraculously

come back to life. It is said that most of the steelhead were

resuscitated right onto the dinner table.

So what should we do? Three things: (1) adequate funding for a

science-based recovery program; (2) enhanced river guardian programs

with First Nations, particularly engaging those in river mouth

gillnetting; (3) suspend the gillnetting of any species when our few

remaining steelhead are running and switch to kinder options, such as

the fish wheel and seining.

B. Ma: I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the member for

West Vancouver–Capilano on this very important topic.

I’d like to begin by asking a question: is a steelhead a salmon or

a trout? At one time considered a trout species, steelhead have been

discovered by biologists to be more closely related to the Pacific

salmon than other trout. A steelhead that doesn’t decide to go into the

ocean and instead sticks around in fresh water, however, is known as a

rainbow trout.

[10:40 a.m.]

If you’re more than a little confused, don’t worry. You’re not the

only one. In fact, this confusion is part of the reason why it is the

only one of the six Pacific salmon species that falls primarily under

provincial jurisdiction, because it was once considered a freshwater

trout.

Steelheads are part of the beautiful, complex, dynamic ecosystem

that makes B.C. such an incredible place to live, contributing to the

biodiversity that sustains life on this planet. It is of utmost

importance to our economy, driving sport-fishing and serving as an

important food source for First Nations and other people.

Unfortunately, humans have had a devastating effect on many of our

wildlife species, and the steelhead is absolutely no exception. While

species do become endangered or extinct through the natural ebb and flow

of nature, human activity — in particular, development or resource

extraction activities that result in the loss of habitat for wildlife

and plant life — has had an accelerating effect in many ways that have

had unpredictable and devastating consequences.

The loss of one species can result in the loss of many more or the

overproliferation of another. We can attempt to compensate for these

losses with further human intervention, but the results, unfortunately,

have been also unpredictable.

The bottom line is that our activities have toppled the delicate

balancing act that has been managed by Mother Earth for, arguably,

billions of years. Still, we must do our best to manage the consequences

of our actions, and this is why governments must work carefully to

manage activities that impact species like steelheads.

Many steelhead populations have suffered significant declines in

recent decades, with some now approaching extinction, as the hon. member

for West Vancouver–Capilano has already said. Or they are otherwise very

reliant on ongoing hatchery production, which — again as the member for

West Vancouver–Capilano has identified — is not always as successful as

we would like.

The once-famed Thompson and Chilcotin river steelhead are in a

state of extreme conservation concern. Our current spawning population

forecast for these stocks is now 215, the lowest on record, and at risk

of a complete wipe-out.

One of my constituents, Squamish Nation member Barry Cordocedo,

has been working on the issue of fish habitat rehabilitation for his

entire adult life. As an employee of the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Barry worked in the Fisheries and Oceans enforcement branch

before moving on to becoming a Fisheries and Oceans community adviser

where he interacted with Indigenous and non Indigenous communities to

facilitate salmon recovery plans.

Barry is now retired, but he continues to advocate for the

rehabilitation of fish habitat and fish populations. In particular, he

has been pushing for increased funding for this work through the federal

community economic development program. Barry emphasizes that salmon

habitat and population recovery programs are important not only to the

fish species but also as a part of our work towards reconciliation with

First Nations.

Barry says that federal community economic development programs

aimed at protecting and rehabilitating fish populations can also be used

by First Nations to bring jobs to families, develop skills and capacity

within their people and empower young Indigenous peoples to take control

of their lives, connect with their land and bring economic prosperity to

their communities.

We must preserve our biodiversity. Biodiversity is the key not

only to preserving environments and wildlife in B.C. but, indeed,

preservation of life across the planet. The loss of even one species

because of humans has a devastating effect that cannot be

measured.

Thank you to the member West Vancouver–Capilano for bringing up

this extremely important topic.

R. Sultan: I thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for her helpful

remarks.

On our side of the House, we have not been inactive on this file.

We have for a number for years had the steelhead caucus, which I’ve been

privileged to chair, along with the member for Fraser-Nicola. Other

members of the caucus include the members for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky,

North Vancouver–Seymour, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Cariboo North,

Richmond-Steveston, Delta South, Kamloops–North Thompson,

Richmond-Queensborough and others.

[10:45 a.m.]

We have endeavoured to raise the profile of this example of why

life is wonderful here in British Columbia and why it must be preserved.

But it is frustrating, because it tends to get lost in the larger salmon

picture, and there are questions about what we can actually do about it,

or are we helpless?

Well, what we can’t control is the blob. Maybe our friends on the

Green Party side will come up with some brilliant mathematical solution

to the blob, but for now, it is what it is, and it’s quite harmful.

There’s not much we can do about the unknown, and there are great

mysteries about what the steelhead might be up to once they get into the

Pacific.

The good news is that DFO — we congratulate the federal government

for its investment — is building, on the way, in North Vancouver in the

riding, I believe, of North Vancouver–Lonsdale, the research vessel

Franklin , which is an amazingly large and very

sophisticated vessel, to do fisheries research in the deep ocean.

Hopefully, they’ll get some answers to what’s happening out

there.

But we can control quite a bit. We can, in fact, invest in science

and knowledge. We can improve the habitat, as I’ve described. We can

control the hatch openings, as I have pointed out. And we can control

the fishing methods and encourage the use of friendlier seining and fish

wheel approaches. We can take action.

Therefore, I today ask that famous British Columbian Margaret to

order her son the Prime Minister to save the steelhead.

FAIRNESS IN THE RENTAL MARKET

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, members will be not surprised that I’m speaking about

renters, tenants, landlords and housing, since I think the first speech

I ever gave in this House nine years ago was on that very topic, and I

sure have given a few since then — because tenants have been running on

a treadmill. My constituents tell me — and they use metaphors like “just

barely keeping their head above water” — that they’re carrying a weight,

a burden on their backs that seems to keep getting heavier and that

they’re not sure if they can do it.

I’m speaking about a challenge of both affordability and fairness

in, some would call it, the rental market. Some would say housing. Some

would just say your ability to live with a roof over your head. It’s a

challenge, particularly if you’re a renter.

In my constituency, 80 percent rent. Across the province, it’s

about 40, 45 percent. In much of Metro Vancouver, metro Victoria and,

indeed, in some of the smaller centres as well, we’re seeing vacancy

rates of 0.5 percent.

What’s that like if you’re a renter? Well, if you’re searching for

housing, it means that 99.5 percent, if the vacancy rate is 0.5 percent,

of the housing is closed to you. You can knock on all those doors, and

almost every single one that you’re ever going to find is not available

to you. Then, when you add on to that vacancy issue the challenge of

affordability, it can be even less than that.

Rents have shot through the roof over the last many years in this

province. We can just do the annual allowable rent increase over the

last 15 years, and that could be a 50 percent rent increase over that

time, if not more. Now, of course, many renters see the rents increase

in between occupancy of suites, of thousands of dollars.

A constituent of mine was telling me the other day the suite next

to theirs is renting for $1,000 more than the suite they’re in. They pay

their rent every month, but that suite became vacant, and the landlord

can now charge whatever they choose because the vacancy rate is so low.

They know people have to have a roof over their head, so will scrimp,

save, will grab loans, will take whatever they can get to find a place

to live.

We have not seen an increase in supply of housing in the last many

years, and that’s created this vacancy crisis. It’s also led to a

challenge of predatory behaviour, of greed. That’s where I think the

government finally is starting to take action, and we should have seen

action years ago, to deal with some of the predatory behaviour happening

in the rental market, happening between landlords and

tenants.

[10:50 a.m.]

I know my friends on the other side used to describe their housing

action as the best plan in North America, that everything was turning up

daisies and roses and that those who complained about housing challenges

of affordability and rental housing, I think, as the Housing Minister

said, “like to wake up and whine.” That was simply what it was when

people were complaining about the housing crisis in B.C.

But when a huge number of my population of constituents are one

paycheque away from homelessness, and when we’ve seen homelessness more

than double to some of the highest rates in B.C.’s history, we do have a

crisis, and I think we need to acknowledge it. It’s been fed by

renovictions; by the use of the geographic area increase clause; by the

fixed-term tenancy, which I know we’re debating now, so I won’t speak on

that one.

We have challenges because there’s no place for people to go, so

abuse of the law can continue apace because there’s always somebody to

fill the supply. If you’re a bad landlord, if you break the rules, even

if people know that, they’ll still be forced to essentially move into

your home because they have no choices of where else to live.

What do we do about it? As many of us have been calling for years,

we need to actually take leadership on this on a government level. We

need to move to amend and change and open up the Residential Tenancy Act

so that we can go after some of those things that landlords have used to

abuse the law to evict or to face increased, massive rent increases like

the geographic area increase, like the fixed term, like renovictions,

like the annual allowable rent numbers.

We need to look at those issues, reach out to the landlord

community as well, and find a way to make them fairer so that tenants

aren’t being abused by the few predatory landlords and that landlords

continue to rent out those suites and be able to do their

business.

That’s an important point. I think some will say it’s all about

the renters. I also look at the challenge of being a landlord, and I

think one of the things that we need to reflect on is when you have a

supply problem, the lack of affordable supply, you also need to look at

why.

There are people in this community and communities across B.C. who

have taken their properties off the market because they had a bad issue

with a tenant. A tenant has destroyed the suite, skipped out on rent.

Then they went to the residential tenancy branch for help and couldn’t

get anywhere, couldn’t get compensation, couldn’t find a way to find

fairness. That also needs to be addressed. I know it wasn’t addressed in

the last number of years. Landlords need help too. I know our government

is committed to working with landlords as well as tenants to find a way

to increase the supply of housing but also to make it fairer so that

people cannot be abused.

What else do we need to do? We need to actually use the

administrative penalty provisions in the law to go after those that

break the law. Unfortunately, the approach to landlords and tenants who

have broken the law over the last many number of years has been: “Oh

well, if you ever get caught, if they actually ever rule against

you....” It’s basically: “Well, just give the money back.” It would be

like saying: “We caught a bank robber. And hey, if you give the money

back, well, okay, fine. No muss, no foul. Go on your way.”

That’s been the approach of the former government, and I hope we

find a way to be stronger in our enforcement of the rules. You know, I

have constituents who can show me the number of times that they’ve had

the law enforced. They find a way to actually get the law enforced and

get some money back, but the actual cost to them of the landlord

breaking the law is way higher than what they ever get back. In fact,

that costs us all, too, because a landlord would have been abusing the

residential tenancy branch system, something we all pay for through our

taxes, just to try and gouge the system to get more rent. That’s not

fair. That’s a lack of fairness that I think leads to that feeling of

being pushed under water and never getting a chance to get

ahead.

S. Sullivan: I do thank the hon. member for Vancouver–West End for his

presentation and also for his advocacy for these many years. As a renter

myself, I appreciate it.

Also, I want to appreciate that he does express some recognition

that this is a difficult issue and that sometimes when you try to

directly help renters, you can sometimes hurt them, and it’s because of

this counterintuitive issue of markets and how they work. It’s very

important to have a good understanding of the markets.

[10:55 a.m.]

British Columbia and the Lower Mainland are successful and

attractive places, and there are great pressures on housing and rental

markets, as we are all aware. I know when I was mayor of Vancouver 12

years ago, I did consider the price of housing as outrageous at the time

and as a growing threat. I tried to do something through a program

called EcoDensity, and we tried to raise the supply of housing — not

entirely successfully, as we can tell by the prices that we’re

experiencing right now. But I hope that more effort on supply will help

the situation.

This is an issue that really does take three levels of government.

We do have the local municipal governments, of course, the front lines.

They allocate the relevant zoning for densification and affordable

housing. The provincial government legislates the rental tenancy act.

The federal government holds so many levers on taxation and mortgaging.

These levels of government must work together to fully deal with the

housing and rental crises.

When I was mayor, I worked with the federal government to make

taxation changes in order to incentivize people to rent their units and

to build rental housing. There are a lot of problems with taxation and

the federal policy that I learned about that have still have not been

addressed. I believe that we need to work together to lobby the federal

government to do some important things that would help the

situation.

We do have this fine line. The tenants have to be protected from

predatory landlords, and tenants should also recognize that they’re

going to have a place to live and how much that will cost. It’s a very

simple idea, but we will also have to ensure that landlords remain

incentivized to rent properties. As the hon. member shared, there are

landlords who have had bad experiences and have taken their property off

the market. The landlords are opening their homes to strangers. It is

notably for their financial benefit, but it’s still a great deal to take

on.

The fine line that government must walk is protecting the tenants

while still encouraging landlords to provide properties for the market.

Now LandlordBC currently states there are 3,300 landlord and property

management members in B.C. That includes people who have purpose-built

rentals, secondary suites and investment properties.

I know that the election promise of 114,000 affordable units would

be a wonderful addition. I know that there is a price tag that is in the

billions of dollars — tens of billions, in fact — and I hope that there

will be efforts made in that direction.

We must continue to ensure that British Columbians view owning

rental property and adding to the market as a worthy investment. The

biggest challenge to our rental market is a lack of supply, and the

Finance Minister would seemed to agree with me. Her comments on the

radio on November 1 state that the government views supply as a top

issue in the housing crisis, and I would like to commend the minister

for that comment.

The Premier, too, has stated that housing supply is top of mind,

so I’m sure they have considered the unintended consequences that any

legislation or actions may have on lessening or restricting the supply

of rental housing. Just as we need to ensure that landlords are

protected from predatory tenants, as well — and as my hon. colleague

across the way, the leader of the Green Party put it — closing the

fixed-term loophole took away….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to my colleague, my neighbour, for his remarks. I think

we both agree that administrative penalties and fairness for landlords

and tenants need to be found.

I would submit that the fact that until now, an administrative

penalty — a fine against somebody who has broken the law — has only been

issued once in B.C. history, possibly twice, probably does not

demonstrate that there have only been two offences against landlords or

tenants in all of these years.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think it would show that, in fact, the government up till now

has not been serious about protecting tenants and landlords from

breaking the law but has merely created a story to tell about how we

have this possibility to act. But when you never do, of course, the

story is that you’re not actually serious about the law that you’ve

created in the first place. I’d say that’s got to change.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m encouraged that the new government has invested $7 million in

the residential tenancy branch so that we can actually create a

compliance team, an enforcement arm of the residential tenancy branch,

so that when people break the law, the law can actually be enforced. I

think it’s kind of novel. It shouldn’t be, but apparently it is in this

province, that you have a law but you can never enforce it. Now we’re

actually enforcing the law, and this is somehow a great step forward.

But it is, because for 16 years we have not had that possibility, and

now we do.

I think what that means is that LandlordBC, who I talked to, also

agree that this is the right step. They have had it up to here with

landlords who break the rules who aren’t their members, who give

landlords a bad name. There are many folks who are not their members

who, unfortunately, do that. When you have no supply of housing, they

can do it, because their supply is always being filled with new renters

who have no other place to go.

Obviously, building more supply and faster approvals are necessary

at municipal levels, but also we need to look at other forms of housing.

Folks may forget it, but Canada is a signatory to the right for housing.

We’ve said, notionally anyways, at the federal level about 40 years ago,

that we all agree that Canadians, folks here in Canada, have a right to

housing. We should work to act on that, I believe.

That also means investing in things like co-op housing, where you

can have middle- and lower-income folks in the same place — places like

Performing Arts Lodge in my constituency, where you have folks who have

market units and folks that have subsidized units living in the same

place.

We know that not everybody comes to life with the same amount of

money or the same success. I’m happy to keep working on this.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’d like to call Motion 12 on the order paper.

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

proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 12 — FAMILY DAY

L. Larson:

[Be it resolved that this House continues to support B.C. Family Day

on the second Monday of February.]

B.C. Family Day, on the second Monday in February, is actually

being celebrated by the people of British Columbia as it was meant to

be. British Columbians, in large numbers, utilize the B.C. day to take

their families to any number of great places and enjoy some time

together.

There has been some criticism that B.C. Family Day doesn’t align

with other February holidays celebrated in the U.S. and other

jurisdictions in Canada. There is a real disadvantage to the residents

of B.C. to celebrate family days on the same day as those other

jurisdictions.

One of the tourism industries that B.C. is famous for is skiing.

There are three ski destinations in my riding of Boundary-Similkameen:

Big White near Kelowna, Apex near Penticton and Mount Baldy in Oliver.

Already, at Big White, the third week in February is full of holidayers

from other jurisdictions, mostly from Ontario and the U.S. Airlines are

more expensive and, to some destinations, already full. Resorts are also

more expensive and full. This is the equivalent to the July holiday

weekend but in winter instead. On the B.C. holiday day, Big White has

seen lift passes go from 800 to nearly 2,000 for that day since the

inception of B.C. Family Day.

[11:05 a.m.]

Apex ski resort is a 30-minute drive from Penticton and an

incredibly popular local ski area. It has 75 marked runs, a World Cup

mogul course and a training venue for slalom and GS racing. On the third

Monday in February, it is crowded with American visitors. On the B.C.

holiday weekend, it is a go-to place for local outdoor enthusiasts and

their families.

Mount Baldy is very much a local family ski hill that is under new

management. Last year visits by enthusiastic skiers climbed

significantly. Local property owners saw an increase in property values

for the first time in many years. Events are held almost every week

during the ski season, and the local schools participate in programs for

young skiers.

The proximity of all three of these ski hills to the U.S. border

is reflected when President’s Day is celebrated on the third Monday in

February. There is no room for local skiers, as all accommodation is

booked by visitors a year in advance of their holiday.

The B.C. ski industry is a clean industry that is economically

diverse and creates jobs. It is the number one driver of the tourism

economy in our winter months. It creates jobs for over 12,000 direct

employees and their families and generates an estimated $2 billion of

economic activity. B.C. Family Day, on the second Monday in February,

generates $10 million in economic activity for that day alone. It allows

employers to retain a greater number of staff in the winter, which in

turn creates more year-round employment and balances the summer and

winter tourism economy. B.C. ski areas continue to support B.C. Family

Day with special 50-percent-off lift tickets.

A true family day obviously can be interpreted and enjoyed many

different ways. Getting across the country to visit relatives for a day

or two is important for some families, but flights are often delayed due

to weather and also sold out, so no changes can be made. Time zone

changes also take adjustment both ways, and small children are not great

travellers. Contrast that with a family having a real weekend together

without the pressures of long-distance travel. Perhaps it’s time,

depending on the weather, for some local indoor activities at your

community centre or pool.

Almost every community is holding special events on the B.C.

Family Day weekend for the people who live there. As Canadians, we are

great at getting the most out of winter — skating, skiing, tubing,

tobogganing or getting out on our country roads. My children and

grandchildren make a day of it, taking hot chocolate and hotdogs to cook

over a fire and tube or toboggan on our local hills.

If this government really wants the best for British Columbians so

that they can enjoy a family holiday close to home and support the local

economies, then B.C. Family Day should remain on the second Monday in

February.

A. Kang: If you remember reading George Orwell’s novel 1984 , you

may remember the four ministries in the dystopia and their contradictory

purposes — the ministry of love, which is responsible for torture; the

ministry of peace, which is responsible for war; the ministry of plenty,

which is responsible for rationing; and the ministry of truth, which is

responsible for propaganda.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen and her party designated the

second Monday of February as B.C. Family Day. Yet there’s something

vaguely Orwellian about this, as for the past 16 years, the previous

Liberal government made life less affordable for families, hurt the

services that families relied on and failed to create good,

family-supporting jobs.

The Liberals like to talk a good game, but when they were in

government, they certainly were not working for families. This

government will change that. Our government is working hard to right the

wrongs of the past 16 years. The truth is that the member opposite can

call that one day of the year whatever she wants, but our government is

committing to working for families every single day. That’s something

the previous Liberal government forgot to do.

When the B.C. Liberals were in government, they made life less

affordable for families. The former government raised every fee and

service charge they could think of while giving a $1 billion tax cut to

their friends in the top 2 percent. Families felt the squeeze. From

education to health care to senior care, the B.C. Liberals also chose to

hurt the services that families count on.

On senior care alone, home support hours were cut, wait times for

residential care went up, and wait times for hip and knee replacements

and cataract surgeries are some of the longest in Canada. The most

shocking part: 91 percent of the publicly funded residential homes do

not meet the minimum staffing requirements, leaving seniors in those

facilities going a week at a time without baths.

On jobs, across B.C. people were working harder and falling

behind, as family wages were stagnant.

[11:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair would like to encourage all members to keep

their comments relevant to the motion.

A. Kang: Oh, to the motion. Okay, yes. It’s on Family Day, and it is about

supporting families not just on that one day of the year.

We need Family Day. We need to make sure that our families are

supported so that we have sustainable jobs, accessible programs and

transportation. So while the opposition talks about having Family Day

and celebrating families, I don’t see that celebration there. It is not

about that one day of the year; it is about supporting families every

single day of the year.

In the first 100 days of our government, we have made a budget

that is supporting families, that puts people first. We are committed to

supporting our families. Our government has increased income assistance

and disability payments by $100 a month. Families are now supported

under our government, and we are going to continue to do

that.

By celebrating families, it’s not about that one day; it is about

365 days of the year. It is about taking away fees on toll bridges that

are unfair, because families have to get to work. They have to be

travelling. We are making life more affordable for families and

commuters who cross the Fraser River bridge every day. And we’re

increasing the minimum wage so that families feel supported.

When families are supported and they are making the wages that

they can, they can celebrate Family Day. They can take kids to work.

They can take kids to skating and to swimming and to ski resorts.

Without having a good minimum wage, how are we supposed to be doing

that? We celebrate Family Day because there’s a holiday? That’s not

enough for us. We are committed to families.

Our government has committed to reducing MSP premiums by 50

percent as a first step towards eliminating the premiums over the next

four years.

Deputy Speaker: Relevancy, Member.

A. Kang: We have made post-secondary education free for former children in

care, because these are the people who will be celebrating Family Day as

well. We are taking steps towards affordable and quality child care,

because people who attend child care will be celebrating Family Day as

well.

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep it relevant, please.

A. Kang: I’m sorry?

Deputy Speaker: Keep it relevant to the motion.

A. Kang: It is relevant. I’m trying to make a point that in order to

celebrate Family Day, we need to be celebrating families.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on. Proceed.

A. Kang: In September, in less than eight weeks, we formed government. The

Minister of Finance released a budget report that puts people first, and

we are putting families first. I’ll wrap up here. The significance of

Family Day — it shouldn’t be just a provincial holiday.

E. Foster: Unlike the previous speaker, I’m pleased to stand up today and

talk about Family Day. Tourism is big business in British Columbia, and

we’re lucky to have some of the world’s most beautiful parks, mountain

ranges and an amazing back country. The tourism industry supports

127,000 employees spread across 19,000 businesses.

Historically, our government has been very invested in this

industry, providing more than $98 million annually to the tourism

sector. It is an industry that generates over $15.7 billion a year,

helping to accommodate approximately 5.5 million international visitors

every year. Family Day plays an integral

part in our tourism sector as

it provides a special advantage for B.C.’s ski industry.

Family Day lands on a holiday sweet spot, as it does not overlap

with Alberta’s or Ontario’s Family Day or President’s Day in the United

States, meaning that B.C. families don’t have to compete for access to

recreational and vacation space. Obviously, the minister for jobs and

tourism is not interested. During their holidays, those from abroad are

able to enjoy our slopes without any local competition.

Currently many of the ski resorts across B.C. are already booked

up for the three consecutive weekends in February this year — completely

filled to their maximum capacity. If we were to move the date to match

Alberta, many of the ski resorts would have to turn away business and

lose out on a weekend’s worth of sales.

[11:15 a.m.]

It has been reported by the Canada West Ski Association that

B.C.’s Family Day generates an estimated $10 million in direct

incremental visitor spending each year. Keeping Family Day where it is

allows for a steady flow of tourists, which not only helps our ski

industry but also allows local families to enjoy and take

part in the

green outdoor activities without having to fight for space.

In my riding, Silver Star Mountain, which is one of the largest

employers in the area, had this to say: “We’re booked, completely

booked, for the three holiday weekends. If we were to try to squeeze

that into two, we’re going to lose an entire weekend’s big income.” That

means that a whole lot of people aren’t going to get to work that

weekend because things aren’t full, cutting into the jobs.

Not only just on the ski hill, but on the B.C. Day long weekend,

folks are around in town. On the Alberta Family Day, Vernon is full of

cars from Alberta. The hotels are full, the restaurants are busy and the

shops are busy, because they’re not competing for all that space with

the folks in B.C.

Many ski areas have joined in to support B.C. Family Day by

providing discounts to lift tickets for the local residents, which is an

added bonus, providing residents with the unique opportunity to bond and

spend time with the family skiing and snowboarding without having to

worry about breaking the bank.

In closing, keeping Family Day where it is helps B.C. Family Day

live up to its intended namesake, allowing local families the

uncontested access to recreational spaces and providing our ski industry

with the necessary means to continue to showcase beautiful B.C. for

years to come and provide all the income and jobs that we so desperately

will need over the next few years in this province. We have seen, just

in the last month or so, the government making every effort that they

can to eliminate the good-paying jobs in this province.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member opposite for bringing up Family Day. I

actually love Family Day. This last Family Day fell in the middle of an

election period, or pre-election period, and I had an opportunity on

February 2 to talk to many constituents in my riding. There was a big

event in our riding, and I got to actually talk to families about the

things that were on their minds. There are many, many issues that

families in my community are facing. MSP is one of those

issues.

I think the member from our side that spoke previously, the member

from Deer Lake, mentioned that we shouldn’t be talking about Family Day

as just one day in this Legislature. We should be talking about families

every day. Every policy of the government should be about families. So I

appreciate that members want to talk about Family Day just as one day,

but I think we should be talking about families every day. Whether it’s

February 2 or otherwise, I think we should be talking about Family Day

and issues that affect families.

MSP is one of those issues that has been raised by families

consistently as something that really hurts families. So it’s nice to

talk about one day and just talk about one celebration, but I think it’s

critically important to talk about how families are affected every

single day. MSP is one of them.

Housing — a major concern for families. It’s nice to go to a park

on a day and celebrate one event, but families are concerned about

housing. They’re concerned about it every single day.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Yes.

I think other members would agree, in this House — not only an

issue of shortage of units. I remember talking to a family about their

fear about losing their one place, because their unit was only big

enough for their family. Their concern was around the loophole — that

the owner of their home could just evict them just because they wanted

to increase the rate. These are things that families are concerned about

every day, and I’m glad to say that our side of the House has addressed

that issue.

ICBC also affects families. I know the member opposite would also

agree with me that constituents in her riding are concerned about that.

These are issues that concern families every single day, and February 2

is one of those days.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

[11:20 a.m.]

Let me read the motion again, please. The motion reads: “Be it

resolved that this House continues to support B.C. Family Day on the

second Monday of February.” So please, all comments to be relevant.

Thank you.

R. Kahlon: Thank you. I appreciate that comment, hon. Speaker.

Like I said, I really enjoyed the February 2 Family Day that

happened this last year. I really enjoyed it. I supported that day. I

went out to the community events. I’m supportive of that day for my

community. That was an important day, and I got to hear from my

constituents about many things.

Like I was just saying, hon. Speaker, before you reminded us about

the motion, housing was something that critically comes up consistently

with families, and not only that. Tolls — I had one family talk to me

about this. This woman was talking to me about the fact that the tolls

were such a major issue, that they could not get over the bridge and

could not get to their families. It was a major concern.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Members across the way might not want to hear about this, but

these are issues that keep….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Carry on. Please proceed. Continue.

R. Kahlon: As I was saying, I did support February 2 Family Day, and I went

to all the events in my community. I don’t know what the problem

is.

Many issues came up, and like I said, the tolls were one of the

issues that have come up. ICBC issues came up, and MSP issues came up.

I’m very glad that we’ve just recently closed the loophole which many

families raised as a major concern. I don’t understand, because I bet

you these issues are similar to the issues that members opposite have

heard as well. If they supported February 2 Family Day — this last one

that just went by — they also would have gone out to their events and

heard similar issues. They were very important in the

election.

ICBC rates have gone up consistently every year. This was an issue

brought to me. I actually remember this issue coming up on Family Day.

Families talked to me on February 2, Family Day, about ICBC, about MSP

and about housing. It was an amazing event in our community, and we got

to talk to many people about the things that were on their minds. I was

really appreciative of that event.

I hope all of the members get a chance to speak to this as well.

They have lots to say. I can hear them yelling it out. I will give them

the patience and listen to their thoughts about February 2 as

well.

With that, I’ll conclude my comments.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Chair will remind, again, that we have a motion in

front of the House. Please speak to the motion.

S. Bond: I want to start, first of all, by correcting the member opposite.

Family Day is not on February 2. This has nothing to do with the motion,

and neither did the remarks of the other colleague that stepped up. This

is a serious issue. The comments this morning go exactly to the point we

are making on this side of the House.

Apparently, the members opposite are unaware of the fact that the

government — the Premier and his office — have said they are going to

change the date of Family Day. Apparently no one is aware of the

implications that that might bring.

Let’s talk a little bit about why that matters in this House and

why it’s relevant to talk about moving the date arbitrarily. Let’s be

clear. This government — the new government — inherited one of the

strongest, if not the strongest, economy in Canada. That didn’t happen

by accident. It happened because of the hard work of British Columbians

and a relentless focus on making sure we had a jobs plan that looked at

sectors across the entire economy.

Tourism was one of the most important sectors in that jobs plan.

We worked very closely with industry partners. We drove the plan to

strengthen B.C.’s brand and increase our market share, both at home and

beyond. In fact, our #explorebc campaign encouraged British Columbians

to consider a staycation. It was an incredible success and, in fact,

continues today.

Our government also promised to add a Family Day holiday, and we

did just that. One of the considerations around the alignment of that

particular day was how we could encourage increased tourism benefits. So

we actually designed a process.

We engaged with people right across British Columbia about the

pros and cons of when to celebrate that B.C. holiday. There were

thousands of submissions, comments and, ultimately, choices made by

British Columbians to hold Family Day on the second Monday in February,

unlike the member opposite, who continues to talk about the second of

February.

[11:25 a.m.]

Of course, there wasn’t universal support then, and there isn’t

now. But there was a process of ongoing consultation with the tourism

industry and other stakeholders. I, like other members on this side of

the House, am very concerned about the casual suggestion to simply

change the date of Family Day.

Where exactly is the Tourism Minister in this discussion? The

tourism industry has seen revenues increase by over 5 percent since

2014. GDP has gone up by 5.6 percent since 2014. The sector currently

employs more than 125,000 people, up 2.2 percent since 2013. We’ve seen

increased visitor numbers, and the sector expects that growth to

continue. In my own riding and many others, tourism provides hope and

opportunity for diversification of local economies.

Has there been any discussion about the financial impact or the

unintended consequences of simply suggesting: “Let’s just change the

date”? There are 19,000 tourism-related businesses, many of them small

businesses. Has the minister initiated any discussion with small

business operators? Is she prepared to share their concerns with her

colleagues and advocate on their behalf?

While changing a date on the calendar is the easy part, a

thoughtful, transparent process that engages the tourism industry and

British Columbians is essential before any change is contemplated. After

all, isn’t that how the original date was chosen? Yet in a statement

from the Premier’s office about this issue, they said they’re checking

“how quickly” they can make this happen.

British Columbians engaged in a process to determine the original

date of Family Day. The tourism sector is a critical revenue generator,

and this government certainly loves to consult, well, I guess, almost

all the time. The least this government can do is consider the

significant implications before they arbitrarily change the date of

Family Day.

Our questions to the government: what was the rationale for

considering the change? What process is in place to look at whether or

not there are implications, both fiscally and other unintended

consequences? Just who has been talking to the over 19,000

tourism-related small businesses in British Columbia? Apparently,

certainly according to the statements that have been made by the members

opposite, no one is having those conversations.

It is essential we look at the implications and the impacts of

simply, arbitrarily changing the date of Family Day.

R. Leonard: When we hear about the benefits of Family Day, I harken to an

episode of the 1950s and 1960s show Leave it to Beaver , where

the Cleaver family heads up the ski hill all geared up and smiling

without a worry in the world. But that video in my head comes to a

screeching halt like a broken reel-to-reel tape as I realize we are in

2017, and there are so very few families like them.

Before we start talking about which day Family Day should be

celebrated on, it does seem worthwhile to address the plight of families

who struggle every day and not just that long stretch between New Year’s

and Easter, when a day of rest and relaxation with loved ones would be

welcomed.

When people are struggling to make ends meet, a day off plays

second fiddle to an opportunity to make a little extra cash at

time-and-a-half pay. With about half of British Columbians living

paycheque to paycheque, Family Day doesn’t look like a day on the ski

slopes. It looks like a day to help make ends meet.

Why are there so many living with so little of a financial safety

net that they are within $200 a month of being unable to pay their

bills?

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep the comments relevant, please.

Interjection.

R. Leonard: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: The member has the floor.

Continue.

R. Leonard: I do recognize that we are talking about which day that we get to

celebrate as families in British Columbia.

[11:30 a.m.]

We’ve had 16 years of people living with a government that’s been

bringing prosperity to B.C. Well, it’s been bringing prosperity to the

top 2 percent, with a cut to the top tax bracket putting $1 billion into

the pockets of a very few…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Leonard: …as well as an opportunity for that Family Day on the slopes,

whether it is the second or the third Monday. That government course has

left far too many British Columbians digging out at the foot of the

hill.

Interjection.

R. Leonard: Oh, I’m sorry. I beg your pardon. I didn’t hear you. My apologies.

I was so carried away with what was going on.

Deputy Speaker: It’s okay, Member. Just keep the comments relevant to the motion,

please.

R. Leonard: Okay. Well, we’ve heard the suggestion that it was a casual

suggestion to change the date. As a matter of fact….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

R. Leonard: The comment was made that the notion of changing the day of Family

Day was a casual suggestion. In fact, the date that was chosen was a

casual decision. Businesses across British Columbia, not simply the

tourism industry, have a stake in what day Family Day is. The

opportunities for families to come together across all sectors has to be

considered.

We have heard an awful lot from the other side about skiing. I

have to tell you that there are not a lot of people I know who can

afford to go skiing. Choosing a day simply for those who can afford to

go up the hills is just not appropriate. I have absolutely no question

that those who get to go up the mountain…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Leonard: …and ski will do it throughout the season.

This is an opportunity for British Columbians to celebrate Family

Day, and it shouldn’t have to be about trying to make ends meet. While

claiming the exaltation of the family, the previous government of

British Columbia took on a long and fast run, creating a

low….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Courtenay-Comox has the floor, please.

Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let the member continue to speak, please. The member for

Courtenay-Comox has the floor.

Continue, please.

R. Leonard: We have a long way to go to make Family Day a day for all families

in British Columbia. We are taking steps to make life more affordable

and to bring good-paying jobs throughout every community in British

Columbia. We are doing it one day at a time. We will see bunny slopes,

and eventually, we will see diamond runs.

T. Shypitka: I’m not quite sure what the confusion is here. We’re talking about

the second Monday of February as a B.C. holiday.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order now.

Interjections.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

Deputy Speaker: Members. The members will come to order now — all of you. Please,

Members.

The member for Kootenay East will continue.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

T. Shypitka: Like I said, I’m not sure what the confusion is here. We’ve got a

holiday in B.C. It’s on the second Monday of February. It’s off line

with the Albertan holiday, which is on the third Monday of February.

That’s what we’re talking about.

The member on the other side says that some people can’t afford to

go skiing. That may be all well and true. A lot of people don’t ski. But

what’s important is there is an actual industry in British Columbia that

is reliant on tourism, and that’s what this is about.

Getting to the point, over the past decade, British Columbia has

seen a steady incline of tourists coming from across the Pacific, from

the United States and from Alberta east. With no shortage of natural

beauty, I’m sure members on the other side can agree that it’s no wonder

why people keep coming to British Columbia. We’ve got a great province

here. However, we deal with an influx of visitors to our province

throughout the holiday seasons. We run into the problem of space. It’s a

simple issue here. It’s a good problem to have, but a problem

nonetheless.

[11:35 a.m.]

There are many tourist hot spots across our province. In my

riding, I’ve got the Fernie Alpine Resort. I’ve got the Kimberley Alpine

Resort. I’ve got a really small little one in Fairmont — the Fairmont

Hot Springs Resort. These are all viable businesses that depend on

tourism. Many of these places fill up really quickly during the seasons.

It creates more traffic on our highways — there’s a bit of a safety

issue there — and there are lots of lineups at the ski

resorts.

As many of my colleagues have said on this side of the floor,

Family Day provides B.C. residents many unique opportunities. One of the

main opportunities that B.C. Family Day provides is a chance to visit

many of these recreational areas without having to compete with tourists

from out of province, many of whom will be experiencing healthy outdoor

activities in B.C.’s mountains for the first time.

Having our unique provincial holiday means that there is less

traffic on the highways and shorter wait times at ferries and airports.

This speaks to affordability. You know, higher demand and less

availability means higher prices. So when we spread it out, it becomes

less expensive and it becomes more affordable, for the member on the

other side, which is in essence the spirit that this holiday was founded

upon.

When it was announced that we would be holding Family Day for the

first time, thousands of British Columbians added their voice to the

discussion. At the end of the polling…. It was not the quick,

flash-in-the-pan-type decision that the member announced. There was

actually polling that went on, and it was overwhelmingly…. It was a

3-to-1 vote to have it on the second Monday of February.

Now, this was a sentiment that was echoed by the Canada West Ski

Areas Association, with good reason. Ski resorts across British Columbia

are able to benefit from having three weekends of increased visits from

tourists in February, instead of two. If we move B.C. Family Day to line

up with the others in Canada, we have a problem. We have a bit of a

bottleneck issue.

Annually the ski industry in British Columbia generates

approximately $2 billion, and $10 million of that comes directly from

incremental visitor spending on B.C. Family Day. The boost to revenues

from Family Day allows employers to hold onto two more staff over the

winter season, providing a greater balance between the summer and winter

tourist seasons. So we’re able to extend our employment longer because

of this extra revenue that we get in February.

Family Day doesn’t just benefit ski hills. It also allows many

B.C. recreation and parks to provide unique events that focus on

providing safe, family-friendly activities for B.C. families, many of

which are free. Once again, we speak to affordability.

In my riding, there are free swims, skate events, free skates —

that’s in the Fernie, Elkford and Cranbrook region. At the Fairmont Hot

Spring Resort, we have some great shoulder season events — free

fireworks and tube slides. These are all free. I’d be remiss if I didn’t

speak to the Kimberley Alpine Resort. They have the famous Spring

Splash. Families come down, free of charge, and get to participate in

some crazy stuff going on there.

Keeping our tourism industry booming means that we need to

continue to work our advantages wherever possible, whether it’s through

advertising, legislation or, in this case, making the best use of the

untapped market.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you. Take your seat, please. Thank you very

much.

Again, a reminder to all members. Keep your comments relevant to

the motion. I’m sure you can get your point across as long as you keep

it relevant to the motion. Thank you so much.

J. Brar: I rise today in this House to respond to the B.C. Family Day

motion introduced by the respectable member for Boundary-Similkameen.

First of all, I must say that I agree with the member that B.C. families

need help, and we need to support B.C. families.

I must say also that all members of this House, representing all

parties — Green Party members, B.C. Liberals, New Democrats — talk about

helping B.C. families through various policies that we debate in this

House and we develop in this House. But there is a real difference, and

the difference is developing catchy, feel-good slogans on one side and

on the other side investing real money to make a difference in B.C.

families’ lives. So that’s the difference.

[11:40 a.m.]

The debate we have today here is that the members on the other

side somehow believe that Family Day is the only fix to help B.C.

families. That’s what they’re stuck with. That’s what they think with

this motion. They think that Family Day is somehow a magic that will

help make life better for B.C. families.

We think differently. First of all, I would like to put on the

record that I think that everyone in this House supports the idea of a

day off in February. There’s no doubt about that, and we should continue

to do so. But we must do it right. You know, it’s not a kind of magic

decision that they have made. They have done it in a wrong

way.

They hadn’t done any consultation when they came up with Family

Day. They just announced it without any consultation. I would like to

ask the members if they know who they consulted with. Who did they

consult with?

I would mention, here, the Surrey Board of Trade. The Surrey Board

of Trade is there, and there are a number of other business

organizations coming forward, and they are saying they have done it

wrong. They have done it wrong. They just came up, and they chose it as

a political slogan just before the election, and they did it thinking

that this is a magic bullet and that this would win consent from the

people for the election. That was the thing, not that this was something

that they were going to do that was good for the people of British

Columbia.

We want to do it right. That’s the only difference. We want to do

it right. The question is: why wouldn’t B.C. be in line with other

provinces? It’s a logical question. It’s the right question. It makes

sense. Why wouldn’t B.C. be in line with other provinces? I ask these

members sitting on the other side, and they tell me what the answer is.

B.C. must be in line with other provinces to make sure…. It makes

economic sense. It makes social sense. That’s why we are debating this

issue here — so that we can have commerce continue so that you can have

a family holiday and not miss out because you have to work on the day

that everyone else is off in other provinces.

That’s the key question in this issue, and these members don’t

like that because, as I said to you, they chose these things as catchy

slogans just to win the consent of the people, not for the good of the

people. That’s what the difference between us and them is.

I also would like to say that when we have Family Day, we go meet

with families, and we do hear a lot of things from them about what

happens in this Legislature. I personally believe — Mr. Speaker can

correct me — the discussion we have that day with the families does fall

rightfully in this debate. So what I hear from them is that they want a

lot of actions from us in this House. They want to make life more

affordable. That’s what they want. And that’s not what happened during

the last 16 years. That’s what we hear from them during Family

Day.

I would like to say that if you look at it from that point of view

that the ICBC rates went up….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you so much.

P. Milobar: I realize the weather is cold outside. I didn’t realize it was so

cold that you-know-what was freezing over, because I’m now hearing the

NDP advocating to make sure that stockbrokers have an appropriate day

off with the rest of the stockbrokers across Canada. So it’s a very

interesting concept. To be clear, I have nothing against the

stockbrokers.

As someone who grew up working in the hospitality industry, maybe

I’ll shine a bit of light onto my concerns around this

holiday.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[11:45 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Coming from the hospitality industry, here is the simple reality.

The housekeeping staff in hotels have shifts and work when there are

rooms rented and people are staying in those hotels. Maintenance staff —

there are more hours there. There are more front desk clerks. There are

more people working in the kitchen. There are more people working in the

coffee shop. There are more working people in general — not just at ski

resorts but across B.C. — when hotels are full. There are more people

working in the gas stations because there are more people

travelling.

If we’re talking about trying to maximize employment opportunities

for people in this province, having a holiday that is aligned with not

only the American Presidents weekend, but as well as….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: The member from Oak Bay sure seems to come awake all of a

sudden.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

P. Milobar: That’s right. The reality is that the more available shifts people

in the service industry have…. No one on this side of the House is

saying that there should not be a Family Day. Let’s make that very

clear. We’re saying: how do we maximize the employment opportunities for

people around the Family Day holiday?

Having the holiday line up with Alberta and Presidents Day

actually minimizes those work opportunities for a great many people

that, by the way, will still be working on Family Day, whether it’s on

the second Monday or the third Monday of February. Those people are not

going to get Family Day off, because they work in industries that they

will be working throughout the long weekend.

Now having them have the ability to have those extra shifts to

help with their household income, I think, makes great sense. We’ve

talked with ski resorts, the industry. They agree. We’ve talked with

other small businesses. They agree. The reality is that it actually does

create more economic opportunity for the province as a whole.

It also generates, I might add, for the provincial coffers a great

number more PST dollars. It creates more sales tax on hotel rooms. It

creates more taxes through the gas pumps. There’s actually quite a big

hit to the provincial coffers if they decide to put everything into one

day. I don’t know that the B.C. NDP is too worried about the provincial

coffers or not, but apparently trying to move it so quickly, I’m not

sure.

I do look forward, though…. If they do want to make sure that

we’re all in sync, I guess that means that we will wind up getting April

23 off. Given that on April 23, the province of Newfoundland and

Labrador makes sure that they have a provincial statutory holiday around

Saint George’s Day. I look forward to seeing how we make sure that we

align every single one of our statutory holidays across this great

country to make sure that people in B.C. have every single day off of a

statutory holiday that we see in other provinces around this great

country.

I would point out Saint George’s Day is one quick example I’ve

been able to find that has a provincial holiday that does not sync up

with British Columbia, but I’m not hearing a great outcry from the

members opposite to make sure that we do adhere to every single

holiday.

The bottom line is: there was a lot of consultation that went into

this. There are valid reasons, valid economic reasons — not just for

people in their own daily lives in terms of their household incomes.

There’s actually an economic hit to the provincial government and the

provincial coffers if they decide to reduce hotel occupancy across this

province by moving the date to the third Monday in February.

There are only so many hotel rooms that can be rented, and you

can’t re-rent it the next day if people have all gone home. There is

significant amount of sales tax generated from hotels, restaurants,

bars, gas stations and clothing stores across this province on Family

Day, and there’s significant dollar revenue created by those same tax

dollars the following weekend when it’s Presidents Day weekend and

Family Day in Alberta.

It also means that you’re forcing everyone from B.C. that wants to

travel out of province to travel to other jurisdictions that have

already put their rates up because of Family Day and their Presidents

Day around those same times.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion on Family Day and

just to note that we’ve had some good, lively discussion on it. B.C.

celebrates Family Day on the second Monday of February. I recall, before

2013 when it was brought in, in February, there was much discussion in

terms of February being the only month without a statutory holiday, and

there was a lot of discussion and need to really establish

that.

[11:50 a.m.]

Certainly, British Columbia joined, really, the majority of Canada

that recognized…. Most of them do recognize a family day in Canada,

which is also lined up to the United States. They call it President’s

Day. Two-thirds of the country recognize a statutory holiday in

February. It’s called different things — Louis Riel Day in Manitoba,

Nova Scotia Heritage Day in Nova Scotia; P.E.I. is Islander Day.

Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward

Island and Saskatchewan all recognize their respective statutory

holidays in February on the third Monday, and B.C. is the only province

that has been laid out that observes Family Day on the second

Monday.

When we look at the North American context, it’s called

President’s Day, which is recognized in the United States on the third

Monday. The argument that we’ve heard from some on the other side is

that…. You know, there was great consultation in terms of selecting this

date, the second Monday, to be observed as Family Day here in British

Columbia. And B.C. stands as the only jurisdiction in North America that

observes a Family Day statutory holiday on the second Monday.

When we look at what the consultation was…. I would generously

characterize it as questionable. I think I’m being very generous with

respect to a very short on-line consultation, two weeks, with respect to

the selection of that date.

Now, I want to get to the substantive point and some of the points

that have been brought forward. This is not an arbitrary decision. This

has been brought forward by the Surrey Board of Trade, which has made

the recommendation and submitted quite a substantive report asking for

the government to move B.C. Family Day to line up with other

jurisdictions across Canada and also with the United States, to move to

the third Monday. That was supported by the Surrey Board of Trade. In

addition, we have that resolution from the Union of B.C. Municipalities

at their recent gathering, to make the recommendation to also move to

the third, in February.

I want to lay out…. What are some of these economic arguments when

we talk about…? What are the benefits, why are they making these

recommendations, and what is the advantage of moving it and really

standardizing that?

We have, from a family perspective, to allow family members who

live in other provinces the ability to come together and share that

holiday.

I want to underline some of the economic arguments. Unfortunately

— from the Surrey Board of Trade — four years of this misaligned holiday

have shown that it has a negative impact on the operations of businesses

across the province and that businesses have been negatively impacted by

this misaligned holiday in many ways, including wasted staff time and

missed business opportunities.

The misalignment of Family Day causes inconvenience, increased

costs and lost opportunity from businesses of all sizes and in myriad

industries. From the financial services sector, which has to operate

when markets in Toronto or New York are open, to the film and television

industry, which must stay open on Family Day to coordinate with the

industry hub in California, to any company that has customers, ships

products or does business outside of British Columbia, the misalignment

of Family Day is an unnecessary inconvenience and burden.

To put the economic impact in context, the following indicates

revenues generated by interprovincial trade between B.C. and the rest of

Canada. Interprovincial trade accounts for 44 percent of B.C.’s total

complement of trading partners, and that’s a huge value of goods and

services from B.C., over the year, at $37 billion. So when we look at

the value of one business day’s interprovincial export between B.C. and

the six misaligned provinces, it’s in excess of $120 million. This is

excluding $18 billion in annual exports to the United States.

When we look at the solution to the problem from the Surrey Board

of Trade to align B.C.’s Family Day with the rest of North America,

these are taking recommendations from the business community.

J. Sturdy: I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for

finally speaking to the discussion, the resolution that was on the

floor. Thank you, Member.

[11:55 a.m.]

I want to speak with regard to the tourism industry and Whistler,

obviously, because this is an industry that I certainly understand. I’ve

worked in this industry for almost 30 years as an employee for

Whistler-Blackcomb, as a mountain rescue specialist, as a B.C. ambulance

paramedic.

I’ve worked weekends and holidays for much of my working life.

Interestingly, I don’t think we’ve actually changed much here. As the

MLA, I think it’s essentially the same thing. But I think I know of what

I speak. I know of the experience of traffic, the crush of guests, the

lineups and the disappointments, the smiles and the thrills of an

experience that does exceed all expectations. Really, this is what the

debate is about.

This is about how B.C. deals with being a globally desirable

destination. This is about how we even out demand and create the best,

in my case, mountain experience and opportunity for guests and staff

again and again. Creating congestion and doubling the amount of visitors

on a weekend goes counter to these goals.

British Columbia is a first-class tourist destination in Canada

and one of the premiere natural and mountain destinations globally. In

2015, the tourism industry generated $15.7 billion in revenue for our

destinations such as Whistler for that.

When B.C. Family Day was established in 2013, British Columbians

were talked to, and what they recognized is that they wanted a day for

themselves — where they could enjoy their time without competing,

necessarily, with the rest of Canada — as well as our American visitors

who choose to spend their time in B.C. as a holiday. After all, if you

have the choice to make, B.C. is a great choice. Having Family Day on

the second Monday of February allows an extra weekend for communities

across the province to reap the economic benefits of tourism.

We know that in B.C., when one of us prospers, all of us prosper.

At least, we tend to know that, anyway. If we were to move the day as

proposed, it would align with Presidents Day, and B.C. residents would

have to compete, not only with other Canadians but with Americans who

come across the border in droves on the Presidents Day weekend — which,

incidentally, is the busiest ski weekend of the whole year. To pile B.C.

residents into the mix detracts from the opportunity and experience, not

just for international visitors but for B.C. residents as

well.

Today, in fact, many B.C. ski resorts offer B.C. resident deals on

Family Day weekends, like discounted lift tickets and family-friendly

activities to encourage people to get out and enjoy the mountains. One

could certainly expect that to end. As I said, I’ve seen it from

experience, from the traffic jams on the highway to huge lift lines,

crammed restaurants and overcapacity rental shops. It really is about

capacity.

Whistler, as I think we all know, is an internationally renowned

winter destination. It draws millions of visits, actually three million

visits each year. In fact, we see up to 50,000 people in the resort in a

day, while the community itself is home to 11,000 people who depend on

the tourism industry, especially in the ski season.

Doubling up on holidays would mean trying to cram just that many

more people into the resort, or it eliminates the opportunities for

guests to come at all, as everything is sold out. It just makes sense

for British Columbia to be able to experience B.C. without having to

compete for sold-out hotels, long waiting lists at restaurants and long

lift lines.

Why wouldn’t we want people who work in the service industry to

have the opportunity to make a little bit more money on two big

weekends, instead of one? Tourism Whistler has seen tremendous growth on

the B.C. Family Day long weekend, which results in expanded hotel

occupancy and economic spinoffs in the rest of the community as well as

the province, because people come to B.C. to come to Whistler, and then

go to other places.

My point is that if a place like Whistler — which contributes

tremendously to our global image, which supports 15,000 jobs, which

generates $1.37 million a day in tax revenue, which is all about the

guest experience — is confident that B.C. Family Day should be the

second Monday in February, then it’s the right day, and we should pay

attention.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada