Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 77

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Lunar new year celebrations

T. Wat

Earthquake and tsunami preparedness

J. Rice

Rogers Hometown Hockey in Williams Lake

D. Barnett

Student housing at Capilano University

B. Ma

ORCCA Dental Clinic Society in Sidney

A. Olsen

Moose Hide anti-violence campaign

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and comments by Prime Minister

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Tailings pond breach at Mount Polley mine and mining industry regulation

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and comments by Prime Minister

J. Johal

Hon. G. Heyman

Environment Minister attendance at environmental group event

S. Bond

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

M. Polak

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Managing Climate Change Risks: An Independent

Audit , February 2018

Reports from Committees

Crown Corporations Committee, Transportation Network

Companies in British Columbia , February 2018

B. Ma

S. Cadieux

A. Weaver

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2016-17

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

T. Wat

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Morris

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: No introductions?

I should just mention, Members, that yesterday we had the member for

Vancouver–West End who reminded us of his son’s first birthday. But there

were two other birthdays in the House. Both members from Peace River had

their birthdays yesterday and tried to escape accountability for

that.

Members for Peace River South and Peace River North, happy

birthday.

Interjections.

D. Davies: Hon. Speaker, I believe we’re doing introductions — I think that’s

what I heard through the laughing — but thank you for the birthday wishes as

well. We up in the Peace River country do things right. In fact, we even do

our birthdays on the right day. Well done.

I’d like to welcome a guest of mine today in the House, Tyler Doyle.

I’d like to say he’s from Fort St. John. He spent most of his life in Fort

St. John. However, he’s now one of the newest residents here in

Victoria.

Welcome, Tyler.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

T. Wat: Tomorrow marks the beginning of the lunar new year, one of the

most celebrated festivals among Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese,

Singaporeans, Malaysians and many other communities.

British Columbia is home to a large Asian population. In our

province, lunar new year carries a meaning beyond the time-honoured

traditions of family dinners, lion dances and red packets. It is an

occasion that reminds us of the contributions Asian Canadians have made

to the province’s culture and to the economy, making British Columbia a

diverse and vibrant place to live.

Being a multicultural society helps us attract skilled immigrants

to grow our economy and nurture understanding among different cultures.

As a former minister of multiculturalism, I have always recognized that

our strength lies in tolerance, acceptance and cooperation among the

many people that call this province home.

So 2018 is the Year of the Dog. That symbolizes luck and fortune.

Lunar new year will be celebrated in various municipalities in the month

of February. Two of the largest events will be the countdown at the

Aberdeen Centre in my riding of Richmond North Centre this evening and

the Vancouver Chinatown parade on Sunday. Past parades have attracted

more than 4,000 participants from a wide range of cultural groups and

were enjoyed by an estimated 80,000 participants. I encourage each and

every one of you to join in these celebrations.

I wish everyone celebrating the lunar new year happiness,

prosperity and good health.

新年快樂.

Xin Nian Kuai Le.

恭喜發財.

Kung Hay Fat Choy.

身體健康.

Shen Ti Jian Kang.

狗年吉祥.

Gou Nin Kat Cheung.

[Text and transliteration provided by T.

Wat.]

EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: In 2012, I attended a dance at Prince Rupert’s Moose Lodge, a few

blocks from the waterfront. The music was loud, and the drumbeats

vibrated from the floor. Cell phones lit up, illuminating dozens of

alarmed faces, which, initially, I thought nothing of. I danced and

danced, oblivious to the other residents who were already scrambling to

higher ground.

[10:10 a.m.]

The reason? The trembling dance floor was not caused by the thump,

thump, thump of the bass but a giant 7.7 magnitude earthquake — one that

could have set off a major tsunami but, mercifully, didn’t.

I’ll never forget the quizzical expressions of the faces of the

Prince Rupert first responders when they arrived at the hall. You can

bet we danced out of there then, and fast. I’ve pondered the events of

that evening a great deal and no more so after a major earthquake

triggered a series of tsunami alerts up and down the entire coast last

month.

It would be a cliché to call the events of January 23 a wake-up

call, but that’s exactly what it was, both literally and metaphorically.

At 1:32 a.m., as most of us were slumbering in our beds, a 7.9 magnitude

earthquake rattled the earth’s crust off the coast of Kodiak, Alaska. A

series of tsunami waves were heading for our shores, potentially

inundating coastal communities. Fortunately, nothing significant

happened because the plates slipped sideways past each other as opposed

to vertically. A strike-slip earthquake it’s called.

In many respects, though, this warning represented the ultimate

training exercise. It’s important for people to know that while EMBC,

emergency management B.C., which I so proudly serve, is tasked with

coordinating emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery

at the provincial level, it is local governments that decide whether to

activate a tsunami alert. And no alerting system is fail-safe. People

turn off their phones; they sleep heavily; they don’t watch TV; or, like

me, they can’t necessarily tell the difference between a vibrating dance

floor and an earthquake.

As we contemplate the events of January 23, we still need to ask

ourselves what we could have done differently and what we, as

individuals, families and communities, can do to ensure that the big one

doesn’t catch us napping — or dancing, for that matter.

ROGERS HOMETOWN HOCKEY

IN WILLIAMS

LAKE

D. Barnett: A little bit of hockey magic came to Williams Lake over the

holidays. We were honoured to host Rogers Hometown Hockey in Williams

Lake on the weekend of January 6 and 7. Complete with TV hosts Ron

MacLean and Tara Stone, hockey fans came together to celebrate the

game’s biggest stars and the most compelling stories. The free,

hockey-themed weekend featured games, prize giveaways, fun activities

and live local entertainment for the whole family.

Williams Lake is no stranger to producing some pretty impressive

hockey talent. This includes Anahim Lake native Carey Price, who

currently tends goal for the Montreal Canadiens. An Olympic star

athlete, Carey believes in giving back to his community, and he once

donated $10,000 worth of hockey equipment to the minor league in

Williams Lake. That makes for quite a few Habs fans in a small town like

Williams Lake.

Then there is Edgar Arnold Patenaude, better known as “Rusty.”

Rusty was originally selected in the Alberta Oilers’ WHA draft, their

very first, in 1972. He played the first season for that team during the

whole 1972-73 season. Rusty was subsequently named Alberta Oilers’

rookie of the year in 1973. He is a hometown boy who grew up on a

500-acre 153 Mile cattle ranch that includes the famous 153 Mile Store,

which is still intact today and will become a museum.

All of these precious memories were a part of a very special

weekend that could not have taken place without highly dedicated

volunteers. They put on a spectacular show that families and fans in

Williams Lake will remember.

STUDENT HOUSING

AT CAPILANO

UNIVERSITY

B. Ma: On January 18 this year, I had the honour of attending Capilano

University’s annual Chancellor’s Circle Dinner. This year’s event was

particularly special. It was held in celebration of Capilano

University’s 50th anniversary, but it was also held in the gym of

Capilano University’s student residences.

“What’s that?” you say. You didn’t know that Capilano University

had student residences? Well, that’s not a surprise at all because, you

see, even to Capilano students, these dorms are brand-new.

In a whirlwind deal with Darwin Construction, a three- to

five-year arrangement was reached in July, and the first students moved

in on September 1 — incredible.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today the dorms are now in their second term of use by Capilano

University students, and everyone is settling in quite well. Students

have residence advisers, access to meal plans and access to more than

115 programs and events. Their community of 108 students continues to

grow.

It’s almost good enough that it would be easy to forget what life

was like for some of these students before student residences were a

thing at Capilano University. Local housing prices on the North Shore

are through the roof, and those who are fortunate enough to have homes

elsewhere in Metro Vancouver can face gruellingly long

commutes.

It gets worse. The heart-wrenching stories were all too common,

stories about students who have been days away from being homeless, who

live in cars, who camp in the woods around campus because they couldn’t

find housing they could afford. Too many students have had to face the

stress of deciding whether or not they should continue their studies

because of their housing situation.

Young people shouldn’t have to face the stress of homelessness on

top of the stress that already comes with being a university student. I

look forward to continuing our good work together to make sure they

don’t have to.

ORCCA DENTAL CLINIC SOCIETY

SIDNEY

A. Olsen: Just 15. Grade 10 starts tomorrow. The cupboards are empty.

Well-worn sneakers, the freshest addition to the wardrobe. The pain is

excruciating. Both front teeth have been infected now for weeks, need

root canals. Can’t eat, can’t drink, can’t breathe. Raw nerves shriek in

pain. Everyone in the house feels the stress. No dental insurance. There

are few, very few, circumstances where the sound of a dentist’s drill is

welcome. Usually, that sound is the sure sign the next few hours are

going to be uncomfortable.

There are lights in our community that shine a little brighter,

and one of those lights in Saanich North and the Islands is ORCCA, Oral

Care for Children and Adolescents Dental Clinic Society. A non-profit

dental clinic in the annex at Sidney Elementary, ORCCA provides dental

services to children under 19 from families on the Saanich Peninsula

that need the support from their community. Basically, they make sure

kids are not suffering because they don’t have dental insurance. Of the

400 kids ORCCA has helped, they average eight fillings needed on the

first visit. Clearly, this is a valuable service.

The staff and board of ORCCA cannot do it alone. So the B.C.

government stepped up with $24,000 last June — $14,000 for root canal

and sedation equipment and a $10,000 operating grant that helped

resource the clinic.

ORCCA won the 2017 Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Crystal

Award for non-profit of the year. They are one of many examples of

incredible citizens investing their time, effort and love into finding

innovative solutions for our friends, family and neighbours who need

it.

This story is of how government plays a critical role in our

society, stepping up to help improve the quality of life in our

communities. For all the remarkable accomplishments of ORCCA, the most

remarkable might be their ability to make a dentist’s drill a sound of

comfort.

MOOSE HIDE

ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

B. D’Eith: Every February since 2011 the Moose Hide Campaign has highlighted

the need for men to stand up to violence against women and children.

They do this as close to Valentine’s Day as possible to say that women

in our lives deserve more than flowers and chocolates. They deserve to

live in communities and in relationships that are free from violence,

free from fear and where their voices are heard. Violence continues to

exist when it is shielded by silence.

As men and as government members, we need to be vigilant to ensure

our actions and our words do not perpetuate a culture of silence. It’s

not enough to say violence is unacceptable. Words must be followed by

actions.

The Moose Hide Campaign is about men standing together as strong

role models and holding each other accountable. Paul and Raven Lacerte,

the co-founders of the campaign, started with one moose hide that they

cut up by hand and made patches that are now so familiar to

us.

Today, seven years later, the number of patches that have been

handed out has reached over a million. That’s one million people

standing together against violence towards women and children. It’s a

remarkable number for a small, B.C.-born grassroots campaign that has

grown into a Canada-wide phenomenon.

[10:20 a.m.]

Many of us here in the Legislature and across the public service

are fasting today in solidarity with the participants who are attending

today’s Moose Hide Campaign Day. Only nine hours to go. It’s a symbol of

sacrifice and honour to the women and men in our lives. Fasting is a way

to embrace the practice of humility and to create a pathway to healing

and to demonstrate that, as men, we are serious about making change. It

is a personal commitment to change as an individual to make change

happen at a collective level.

Now, today at noon, men and women will gather on the steps of

these Parliament Buildings to honour the women and children in our

lives. We will stand together and say no to violence. For the first time

this year, there will also be events in Kamloops and Prince George.

These are official so that the public servants in those areas can

contribute to this movement.

So join us, stand with us, say no to violence. On Moose Hide

Campaign Day, and every day, make sure everyone’s voices are

heard.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND COMMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada came out in a rare and

almost unprecedented role and condemned the actions of the Premier of

British Columbia.

The Prime Minister said that frustratingly, the Premier, using his

name, “is actually trying to scuttle our national plan on fighting

climate change.” The Premier has shown no remorse about this. He’s

triggered a totally unnecessary trade war with Alberta. He’s now drawn

the criticism of the Prime Minister of Canada, which draws into question

the credibility of British Columbia and our current government.

Thousands of small business people are being affected by this in many

locations around the province.

Will the Premier simply admit he’s made a mistake?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. But again, it’s curious to

those on this side of the House and, I think, all British Columbians

that the new Leader of the Opposition prefers to sow discontent rather

than unity here in British Columbia when it comes to a clear violation

of internal trade agreements, which the member will be quite familiar

with.

Why he would choose to sow disconsent rather than unity as we try

to defend the interests of British Columbia is a mystery to me, and I

suggest it’s a mystery to British Columbians as well.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The only mystery in this House and this province this week is why

the Premier can’t swallow his pride.

The Prime Minister of Canada has said that the historic $1.5

billion federal investment in ocean protections for British Columbia is

now at risk. It was secured by the previous B.C. Liberal government.

It’s now at risk because of an impulsive decision by this Premier. This

is not serving the interests of British Columbians. To quote the Prime

Minister yesterday: “We won’t get the ocean protections plan

investments.”

The Premier knows he’s made a mistake. The statements by the

Premiers across the country and the Prime Minister confirm that he’s

made a mistake. He stands alone, and he needs to admit that.

Will the Premier save the credibility of British Columbia, admit

that he’s standing alone on this issue amongst first ministers in Canada

and admit that he’s made a mistake?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, it’s all well and good for the Leader of the Official

Opposition to look across the country. What he should be doing, as all

members of this House should be doing, is looking at their neighbours

and looking at British Columbians and defending their

interests.

We announced on January 30 our intention to consult British

Columbians, to fill the gaps in science that have been acknowledged by

the federal government, to fill the gaps in science about the adverse

consequences on our billion-dollar sport fishery, our $900 million

agrifood export industry. That’s standing up for British Columbia, not

dividing British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Standing up for British Columbia means having a constructive and

Ottawa.

[10:25 a.m.]

I’ve been there. I’ve been at first ministers conferences, where

the attitudes of Premiers are essential to the development of this

country as a whole and to provincial interests.

It’s up to the Premier to bring credibility back to British

Columbia. He started this fight with Alberta, and now, sadly, the Prime

Minister has effectively stepped in as a referee to solve this squabble.

It’s the Premier who’s made a mistake, and now he simply cannot admit

he’s wrong. His counterpart in Alberta said it well this week: “It’s in

British Columbia’s power to put this issue to rest.”

For the thousands of British Columbians stuck in this petty

dispute, will the Premier swallow his pride, make that phone call to

Edmonton and solve this dispute, which is not in the interests of

British Columbians?

Hon. J. Horgan: While clearly there’s a jurisdictional difference of opinion right

now between British Columbia and Alberta, it appears that the Leader of

the Official Opposition prefers to side with the government of Alberta

when it comes to where jurisdiction rests on protecting the interests of

British Columbians.

Yesterday the member beside the Leader of the Opposition talked

about the rule of law. The question of jurisdiction is in dispute. We

have a position on this side of the House, and the B.C. Liberals prefer

to defer jurisdiction to another province. But when it comes to the

law….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps the members on the other side would want to hear this,

hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps if the members on the other side would talk to their

Leader of the Opposition…. He was appointed by the former B.C. Liberal

government to be one of the dispute resolution members on the TILMA

board. So he knows, I would hope, a little bit about internal trade, and

therefore he would know that Alberta is violating the law by restricting

access to their market with our wine. That’s a clear violation of an

agreement that he was part of.

I will concede that he would prefer to stand with the government

of British Columbia. I would prefer to stand with the people of B.C. But

at a minimum, he should understand, as a former so-called expert on the

matter, that Alberta is violating internal trade agreements. He should

stand up for B.C. and stand up for the wine industry.

T. Stone: Standing up for British Columbia does not involve traipsing across

Asia to encourage investment to this province, all the while back at

home doing everything that you can, throwing every tool that you can, to

kill a $7.4 billion investment in British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

T. Stone: Speaking out of both sides of your mouth is not leadership. These

are serious words that were uttered by the Prime Minister of Canada

about this Premier’s provocative behaviour. I’m going to quote these

words again. Frustratingly, the Premier “is actually trying to scuttle

our national plan on fighting climate change.” These are the words of

the Prime Minister of Canada.

Now, we saw in the recent throne speech all kinds of spending

commitments, and a lot of these spending commitments rely on federal

funding. Clearly, it can’t be good news when we saw yesterday’s

postponed federal funding announcement regarding child care and, of

course, the sharp rebuke from the Prime Minister of Canada. This cannot

be in B.C.’s best interests.

When will the Premier stop playing games with this project? When

will he admit that he is wrong? When will he fix this mess to prevent

further damage to British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: As we end the Year of the Rooster and go into the new lunar year,

Year of the Dog, I’ll say gung hay fat choy on behalf of the

Legislature. I guess I’ll exclude the member for Kamloops–South Thompson

in that because traipsing around Asia is about building

markets.

You used to do it. Governments before you used to do it. It’s

important to the economy of B.C. that we grow and expand our

markets.

[10:30 a.m.]

While our forest industry was ignored by that side of the House

and U.S. interests abrogated the softwood lumber agreement again, they

were nowhere to be found. I traipsed down to Washington to stand up for

B.C.’s interest.

I’ll go anywhere in this country, anywhere on this planet to

respect and promote British Columbia. You should follow suit.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: What the Premier’s traipsing around the world has done, coupled

with the opposite actions back here in British Columbia, is that there

is a chill in the investment climate in this province. This province is

now quickly becoming a laughingstock in international capitals around

the world because this government does not respect the rule of law. This

government is changing the goalpost as it moves forward, and this

government is trying to kill major project after major project in this

province.

What is needed is for cooler heads to prevail. What is needed is

for this Premier to show some humility. What is needed is for this

Premier to work with Ottawa to get the maximum benefits for British

Columbians. The Premier has done serious damage to British Columbia’s

international reputation, and he has put critical investments in B.C.’s

coastline in jeopardy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could hear the question, please.

T. Stone: My question to the Premier is this: when will the Premier swallow

his pride? When will he stop this damaging trade war with Alberta? And

when will he allow the thousands of British Columbians to get on with

their jobs?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the bronze medal winner — actually, no, you’re just off

the podium, Member — for the question. I do believe there was a

question.

He wanted me to stand up for B.C. industry. He wanted me to stand

up for the sport-fishing industry that puts $1 billion into the economy

in British Columbia. He wants me to stand up for agrifood industries

that export almost $1 billion worth of agrifood products — seafood

products, geoducks, shellfish — and a whole host of other issues that

are put at risk by a catastrophic spill.

Now, I don’t know what part of that these guys don’t understand.

But get with the program. We’re in this place to protect British

Columbia, not to defend Alberta.

TAILINGS POND BREACH AT

MOUNT POLLEY MINE AND

MINING INDUSTRY REGULATION

S. Furstenau: On August 4, 2014, the largest mining disaster in B.C. history

happened. We all know the story.

We know that Imperial Metals was repeatedly warned by government

over several years that its tailings pond was above the authorized

level. We know that reports raised serious concerns about the need to

find a sustainable way to discharge the excess water. We know that in

2012, UVic’s Environmental Law Centre warned that the environmental

assessment certificates for mines issued by government are vague and

unenforceable.

Now we know conclusively that the province will not be pursuing

any charges against this company. What troubles me most about this is

that whether it was government inaction or a company at fault, the

warning signs for this disaster were all there, yet no action was

taken.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. Given the

documented pattern of non-compliance at the Mount Polley mine and the

disastrous impacts of the tailings breach, can the minister explain why

the B.C. government has chosen not to pursue charges in this

case?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The incident, perhaps

the largest environmental disaster in B.C. history, to which the member

refers must never be allowed to happen again. Let me just start by

making that absolutely clear.

That disaster followed years of deep cuts to inspections and

monitoring under the previous government. We are taking a number of

steps to address that, including reviewing the professional reliance

model and ensuring that we have a greater inspection capacity on the

ground.

[10:35 a.m.]

With respect to the decision that was made by the B.C. prosecution

service not to proceed on the private prosecution, that is an

independent decision made by that service. What I can tell the member….

The investigation continues. It’s a cooperative investigation between

the B.C. conservation officer service and federal officials, including

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I have sought assurances from my staff as well as from federal

staff that that investigation will be completed well within the statute

of limitations that applies federally. The penalties under federal law,

including the possibility of criminal prosecution, are far more severe

than those in B.C. If they are warranted, I am confident the

investigation underway will support them.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister saying that this kind of disaster must

never be allowed to happen again in B.C., but what this fundamentally

comes down to is trust. Communities across this province rely on

government to ensure that our laws are kept up to date and that

regulations are enforced.

A UN report released last fall did not paint a positive picture.

Canada has the second-highest number of mines tailings spills in the

world due to too many financially risky and marginal mines being

permitted. Alaska has repeatedly raised the alarm over B.C.’s

lackadaisical mining regulations, citing concerns for salmon and

drinking water. How many warnings need to be given before actual action

takes place?

My question, again, is for the Minister of Environment: beyond the

reviews, what clear and concrete steps is this government going to take

to address the shortcomings in the regulatory and legislative framework

that oversees mining in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member. The member has pointed to the

lack of faith of British Columbians that we have the ability, the

regulatory regime and the staff to protect our environmental interests

while we grow a sustainable economy. That’s why we are reviewing the

professional reliance model — a review that is well underway.

That is why, shortly, I’ll be announcing a review of our

environmental assessment process which will include the conditions that

are put on projects that are approved as well as ensuring that projects

that are approved are sustainable, supported by First Nations and

communities, and meet strong environmental standards.

My colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines, in fact, is

reviewing the permitting of mines and the enforcement of those permits

to ensure that conditions in existing mines protect the public interest

and our environment. We will continue to work together, as we will with

other ministries, to ensure that the public has faith and trust in our

regime to protect our environment and a sustainable economy.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND COMMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER

J. Johal: B.C.’s reputation as being an equal partner in cooperative

federalism is being further discredited by the day. Instead of working

collaboratively with our provincial and federal partners, this

government instead chooses to appease its three most important

constituents: its coalition partners in the Green Party.

Today, however, we are witness to a government willing to put its

own political future above that of its relationship with the rest of

Canada. Will the Minister of Environment come clean to British

Columbians and state the actual motivations behind the government’s

reckless actions?

Hon. G. Heyman: It should come as no surprise to the member opposite, to any

member in this House or to any British Columbian that our government

campaigned on a promise to protect our environment, to protect our

waters, our coastline, and to protect our inland streams and

rivers.

We have looked at this issue very carefully. It’s no surprise that

we have been in opposition to the pipeline. We understand that the

federal government has jurisdiction to approve it, despite the fact that

we are challenging that in court. But what we have determined, and what

we are standing up for on behalf of British Columbians, is a right that

has been stated by the courts — that provinces have a role, a

responsibility and a right to regulate to protect against environmental

impacts in our jurisdiction. That is exactly what we are consulting with

British Columbians about.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: I’m glad the member has stated that the federal government does

have jurisdiction. Perhaps he should explain that to the

Premier.

[10:40 a.m.]

The Prime Minister also sees things differently. Just yesterday he

called out this government, stating the NDP’s actions against Kinder

Morgan are putting the entire national climate change plan at risk. In

fact, the Prime Minister believes the Premier is actually “trying to

scuttle our national plan on fighting climate change.”

This does not sound like a government interested in working

together. This sounds like a self-serving government acting blindly and

recklessly. Will this government stop this reckless behaviour, walk back

its ill-conceived policy and admit to the Prime Minister of Canada that

it has made a mistake?

Hon. G. Heyman: I hope the member opposite heard me very clearly. We’re clear

about where the federal government has jurisdiction. We’re also clear

about where the province of B.C. has jurisdiction. The previous

government was willing to give that up until the courts told them that

it was our jurisdiction. We are standing up for British Columbians

within our jurisdiction.

British Columbians want to know why the members of the opposition

won’t stand up for B.C.’s jurisdiction, won’t stand up for the

environment, won’t stand up for our rivers, lakes and streams, won’t

stand up for our coastline and won’t stand up for our wine industry. I’d

like to know the answer to that as well.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTER ATTENDANCE

AT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

EVENT

S. Bond: Yesterday we raised concerns about taxpayer-funded government ads

directly mirroring the anti-development slogans of groups opposed to the

Trans Mountain project. It’s obviously clear that the government actions

on this file have had very little to do with good public policy. It’s

all about keeping activists and agitators who oppose the Trans Mountain

project on side.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Following his

announcement on January 30, did he attend a dinner on Bowen Island with

activist groups opposed to the Trans Mountain project?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: I have attended luncheons with the Business Council of British

Columbia where I’ve answered their questions about our environmental

assessment review. I’ve attended the resource forum in British Columbia

to talk with resource developers in all industries about what we need to

do to move ahead together to build a sustainable economy. And, yes, I

met with environmental activists on Bowen Island to talk about our role

in protecting B.C.’s environment.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: January 30 was the date that the minister announced the measures

that sparked the conflict with Alberta and the federal government — in

fact, that started a trade war. Following his announcement, I understand

the minister attended a dinner with a group that calls itself the Kinder

Morgan strategy group. This includes Greenpeace, Stand.earth and 23

other activist groups that aim, in their own words, to fight the Trans

Mountain project.

Will the minister please tell us exactly who attended his victory

dinner and how he can continue to claim that he is an unbiased

regulator?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much for the opportunity to answer this

question.

Yesterday I had a meeting with representatives of the Canadian

Association of Petroleum Producers. Last week I had a meeting with the

head of the Mining Association of B.C. In previous weeks, I’ve met with

representatives of Teck Resources as well as the association of mineral

explorers in B.C.

[10:45 a.m.]

On the evening of January 30, I attended a dinner with the express

purpose of answering questions of representatives of the environmental

movement to explain the actions of my government. At all times, I made

it clear that I am the Minister of Environment. That is my role. I am

explaining government policy in my role as minister.

P. Milobar: Let’s just see if I got this right. The minister announces

provocative measures that everyone sees as an illegal attempt to halt

the Trans Mountain project. The very same day he reports back to his

activists and agitators. This so-called Kinder Morgan strategy group was

holding a 48-hour retreat on how to halt the project. Hopefully, you at

least had B.C. wine at that retreat.

To the minister: was there discussion at this meeting of civil

disobedience tactics that these groups may deploy should your

government’s legal attempt to block the project fail?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

What I’ve been trying to make clear in my answers to other

questions is that I am prepared, as Minister of Environment, to consult

with people across all sectors of B.C. society — across all industrial

sectors, across all environmental sectors and with other British

Columbians who wish to tell me what they think or ask me what I

think.

Perhaps the member opposite would care to reflect on the actions

of the past government, which didn’t believe it was important to consult

with all British Columbians, which believed instead that it was

important to meet quietly in Calgary with proponents of projects just

before they received several hundred thousand dollars in contributions

from Kinder Morgan and their friends.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: If memory serves, it was this previous government that negotiated

the $1.5 billion spill response that your actions have now put in

jeopardy.

However, this is a very serious issue, and the minister needs to

start being transparent about his conversations with the activists. One

of the minister’s dinner companions was Tzeporah Berman. Now, this is

Berman’s view on Trans Mountain: “Conflict is messy and unpleasant but

looking necessary…. Nobody likes conflict. I’ve been to jail. It’s not a

pleasant place, and I’m not looking forward to going back there. But

we’ll do what it takes.” Her direct quote.

Will the minister disavow statements that support conflict and

illegal activity?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m quite prepared to stand in this House and answer for my

opinions, for my actions. But it’s not my job nor would I think the

public of B.C. would expect me to answer for the opinions of the

statements of other people.

I will point out, however, that Ms. Berman was retained by the

province of Alberta to advise on climate change strategy. She was

retained by the previous government to advise on climate change

strategy. She is well respected and is an adjunct professor.

The real question here is: what do British Columbians expect of a

government? They expect a government that will stand up for our

environment, stand up for our interest and, unlike the previous

government, not back away from the possibility of exerting our

jurisdiction over environmental protection and regulation but stand up

for it.

The previous government gave it up. The courts told them they were

wrong. We are reclaiming it and exercising our jurisdiction to protect

our environment and our economy, and we’ll continue to do

that.

[10:50 a.m.]

M. Polak: Just last month the Premier said: “If we’re going to be a

government that governs for all B.C.’ers, we have to set aside our

activism and start being better administrators.” He probably should have

added that to the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment,

somewhere around the bullet where he says: “Employ every tool available

to block the Kinder Morgan pipeline.”

I think at this point, and with the questions that are being

raised about the dinners and the retreats for strategy on activism, it’s

time that the Minister of Environment tells us why it is he won’t take

the advice of his Premier and set aside his activism for a

change.

Hon. G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I am doing my job and fulfilling my function as

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy to exercise B.C.’s

right and responsibility under the Environmental Management Act to

protect our economy and protect our coast.

There’s a court decision, which the previous government chose not

to appeal, and it states in part this. The case is known as Coastal

First Nations, and it states: “To disallow any provincial regulation

over the project because it engages a federal undertaking would

significantly limit the province’s ability to protect social, cultural

and economic interests in its lands and waters. It would go against the

current trend in the jurisprudence.”

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present a report intituled Managing Climate

Change Risks from the Office of the Auditor General.

Reports from Committees

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

B. Ma: I have the honour to present the report by the Select Standing

Committee on Crown Corporations entitled Transportation Network

Companies in British Columbia .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Ma: I seek leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

B. Ma: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments.

This report summarizes the committee’s work related to

transportation network companies, or TNCs, and the provision of

ride-hailing in B.C. The committee supports a provincewide approach to

governing TNCs, and its unanimous report makes 32 recommendations

focused on a provincial regulatory regime, the impact that TNCs may have

on British Columbians and their communities, and the provision of

insurance products.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the expert

witnesses who took time to either make a presentation or written

submission and the incredible legislative staff, including Hansard

Services and the team at the legislative committees office, who kept

everything moving like clockwork.

I would also like to thank the committee members for their hard

work and dedication throughout this process. Our deliberations benefited

greatly from hearing a variety of perspectives on many of the complex

issues raised in our discussions. We spent over 30 hours together in the

span of one month, and we’re all still alive and well.

I felt that committee members approached this work in good faith.

As a result, the dialogue was respectful, productive and an excellent

example of the value that cross-partisan collaboration brings to this

province. I would especially like to thank the Deputy Chair and member

for Surrey South, whose experience and cooperative attitude were of

great value to the entire process.

S. Cadieux: I, too, would like to make some brief comments.

In a very condensed time period, the committee was able to hear

from a variety of experts and perspectives and to deliberate and come to

consensus on the report before you. I think the recommendations strike a

balance — focusing on the need to welcome disruptive technology to our

economy but with due care and attention to the diverse province in which

service will be delivered and ensuring equitable access and equitable

regulation.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’d like to thank the presenters and the committee members, as

well, and note the efforts of the Chair, the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale, and the committee staff in bringing this to a

successful conclusion.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the motion before

us and thank the Chair and Deputy Chair for their work in guiding us

through this process.

I will say that this is a wonderful example of collaborative work

across party lines. We came together as individuals with diverse points

of view, with diverse positions, and we came together to come up with a

list of recommendations that were unanimously accepted. I think it

serves well for future examples of how committees can work in British

Columbia to put the betterment of all people front and centre and to

recognize that disruptive technologies are critical to embrace while, at

the same time, taking steps to do so in a manner that’s fair to those

that are already existing here in this province.

Again, I’d like to thank the committee Chair, my committee

members, as well as the incredible staff in the B.C. legislative

committee Clerk’s office who, unbelievably, were able to put together

these vast testimonies from a diverse array of expert witnesses in such

a short turnover. Without their good work and hard work, we wouldn’t

have been able to get to where we are.

Thank you to everyone involved and thank you to the government for

initiating this process.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2016-17 annual report of the

Environmental Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

T. Wat: Thank you for the opportunity to rise in this House to respond to the

Speech from the Throne.

Before I give my remarks, I would like to acknowledge some of the

people in my life who offer great support to me in my role as MLA for

Richmond North Centre. It’s a role I’m honoured to have been bestowed by my

valued constituents.

Thank you to my wonderful parents, who have always been unwavering in

their support. They are now in their 90s, and I’m so thankful to have them

in my life.

I thank my daughter Tin, as well, and my first grandson, Andre, who

truly lights up our lives. It is in these joyful moments with him that I

remember why I’m here in this House: to help make life better for families

in our communities across this great province.

I offer my thanks, as well, to my hard-working staff in Victoria and

in Richmond North Centre — Steven Lee, Tracy Grimsrud, Jennifer Wizinsky,

Blake Hodson, Trix Chan, David Sum, Tony Lu and Nathan Kurt.

The government has laid out a vision for the legislative session and

for the people of this province, and I’m pleased to provide my thoughts and

perspective on some of those plans and ideas they have brought forward. As

the MLA for Richmond North Centre, it is my duty to share the priorities of

my community and its constituents and see how their dreams and aspirations

fit in with this government’s vision moving forward.

There are so many positive things to celebrate in Richmond, but there

are also some challenges that residents are keen to see this government

address in meaningful ways. Chief among the concerns is the state of health

care in Richmond. The skilled medical professionals at Richmond Hospital

have been providing top-notch care to local residents and visitors for more

than 50 years.

[11:00 a.m.]

Those years have taken a toll on this facility. It is aging, and there

are seismic safety concerns as well. We all want patients and their families

to feel safe at Richmond Hospital and to know that it is equipped with the

most modern equipment and technologies.

This is important for the medical staff as well. They can only do so

much with outdated equipment and facilities. But each and every day they do

an outstanding job. Still, we need to look at how we can support their fine

work and provide even better care to Richmond residents. Certainly, the

community has rallied behind this cause in a big way.

I have spoken before about the tremendous work undertaken by the

Richmond Hospital Foundation. Founded in 1987, the foundation has raised

nearly $75 million in support of Richmond Hospital. Those funds have

directly impacted the acute and community care service that Richmond

Hospital and Vancouver Coastal Health provide, from the purchase of the most

urgently needed medical equipment and the latest technologies to capital

infrastructure, patient care initiatives, research and education

programs.

The foundation’s hard work and the generosity of its donors have

provided medical teams with the vital tools they need to provide and enhance

patient care. And the foundation has been at the forefront of the campaign

for a new hospital tower. At the Starlight Gala back in October, attendees

and, indeed, the entire community were reminded that of the nearly $27

million that’s been pledged towards a new tower, half of that is contingent

on a commitment of funding by the province and a 2020 construction start

date. That’s why the community has been calling for a strong, clear

provincial funding commitment for the new tower.

When I pressed the Health Minister for a timeline during his ministry

estimates last October, the minister was unable to offer those specifics. He

said: “We’re proceeding, as we should, expeditiously through the process,

for the concept plan for a project that has a high priority within Vancouver

Coastal Health and a high priority with the government.”

Well, as I mentioned, that was back in October. There was no mention

of it in this throne speech. The Richmond News caught that as well,

stating: “The government’s throne speech Tuesday made brief mention of new

hospitals but was short on specifics.” I know all eyes will be on next

week’s budget for those details.

There has been a petition going around in Richmond, started by three

city councillors last fall, signed by more than 1,840 people thus far. The

business community in Richmond is also strongly behind this project. The

Richmond Chamber of Commerce rallied 47 local businesses, employing about

8,000 people, behind this cause.

Indeed, there are many reasons why this hospital is such a high

priority for my constituents. It’s been a high priority for me since being

elected in 2013. So we will wait for next week’s budget and see whether it’s

a high priority for this government as well.

On the education front, I know many parents and students will be

watching the budget for any mention of seismic upgrades to schools as well.

Under our former government, improvements to four Richmond schools were

completed. Those were Garden City Elementary, Steveston secondary, Samuel

Brighouse Elementary and William Cook Elementary.

I believe that currently there are two schools proceeding to

construction, five in business case development and 18 designated as future

priorities. So we will be keeping an eye on the progress of those projects

for the safety and well-being of our students in Richmond.

I’d also like to address the issue of housing affordability. This was

an issue that the government did mention in its throne speech, but sadly,

what the NDP presented in their speech falls far short of what was promised

to the electorate. What a surprise.

The Vancouver Sun ’s Vaughn Palmer notes: “Not so much gone as

shrunken was the commitment to build 114,000 new housing units over ten

years. The throne speech mentioned 2,000 modular homes for the homeless for

three communities and 1,700 other units approved for construction — well

short of the pace needed to meet the ten-year target.”

[11:05 a.m.]

The NDP also promised to make life better for renters by committing to

a $400 renters rebate, but it’s not in the throne speech. In fact, we

haven’t heard much about this for some time now. And what about the NDP’s

other big promise of $10-a-day child care? That’s what they committed to

families across B.C., but here again, the throne speech comes up

short.

They say they are making a start, but they are clearly backing away

from what they promised to people. Says the Vancouver Sun ’s Rob

Shaw: “The $10-a-day term may have been dropped due to a disagreement with

the B.C. Greens, who are in a power-sharing deal with the NDP and oppose

what they call an unnecessary ‘slogan.’” So what we have here are promises

that don’t mean much to the NDP. If the Greens say, “Jump,” the NDP says:

“How high?” Just so they can stay in power.

What’s more, they offer no ideas to stimulate the economy. How can you

afford to fund the lavish promises made to British Columbia when you offer

no ideas, no concrete plans, to grow jobs and the economy to assure

investors? What a sad state of affairs when you consider that the NDP was

handed an economy that was in great shape, the envy of the

country.

Now they are starting needless trade wars with our neighbours in

Alberta over a federally approved pipeline project. As a result, Alberta has

banned B.C. wine in retaliation. According to the B.C. Wine Institute, “30

percent of all wine sold in Alberta is from B.C., with a total value of $160

million.” The B.C. wine industry contributes $2.8 billion annually to B.C.’s

economy. So we have an industry that makes tremendous contributions to our

economy being hurt by the action of this government.

That’s not all. The trade war has also put a $2 billion pipeline

project in the province in peril. On February 8, the Alberta Department of

Energy, formally voiced its opposition to the North Montney mainline

extension, a critical outflow pipeline for B.C. natural gas, necessary for

eastern markets. It’s interesting, because Alberta has never expressed any

opposition to the project until this week, until it became embroiled in this

trade dispute with B.C. It’s clear this trade war is having far-reaching

impacts.

Still, we don’t see much action from the NDP to de-escalate the

unnecessary dispute they started in the first place. In fact, all the

Agriculture Minister can come up with are a few newspaper ads and the

proclamation of B.C. wine month in April. Winery operators and producers

want quick action now, not a month and a half from now.

The NDP are not only damaging B.C.’s wine industry and the talented

men and women who work hard to deliver top-quality, award-winning products,

but they are damaging our reputation as well. What are investors to think of

all of this? Maybe it makes them think twice about coming to B.C. to create

jobs and contribute to our economy.

Speaking of jobs, there’s much uncertainty on that front, not just

because of the scare the NDP is putting in the investor but locally, here at

home, with cancelled projects and needless redundant reviews.

In Richmond, people are talking about the frequent congestion at the

aging Massey Tunnel. We know it to be B.C.’s worst bottleneck. It prevents

people from getting where they need to go.

Whether it’s a commercial truck driver trying to get to the ferry,

trying to do his job transporting goods, or a young family trying to get

their baby to a doctor’s appointment or someone trying to get home to relax

and spend quality time with their loved ones after a long day of work or a

first responder attending to a crash, trying to get patients to a hospital

in Richmond or Vancouver, they are among the 80,000 commuters a day who have

to deal with gridlock and frayed nerves, not to mention a seismically unsafe

structure. We have been waiting a very long time for a solution.

[11:10 a.m.]

Our former government actually tried to find one. There were numerous

meetings and consultations with stakeholders and the public. There were

14,000 pages of information produced and study after study performed,

including two independent engineering reports.

That information was carefully and thoughtfully considered, and our

former government came to the conclusion that a bridge was the best option

to relieve this congestion. This option will also minimize the impact on the

environment. It would be more cost-effective and allow for pedestrian and

bicycle traffic as well. But the NDP decided to cancel the project and order

a redundant and unnecessary review.

Many of my constituents have expressed frustration at this. They are

tired of sitting in traffic, wasting time that could be better spent

elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, there was no mention of this significant

issue in this government’s Speech from the Throne, and 9,000 construction

jobs continue to hang in the balance. It’s sad to see this level of

uncertainty for workers and commuters as they await the result of the NDP’s

redundant review.

Many of my constituents are also concerned with an exercise that we’ll

go through later this year. That’s the referendum on proportional

representation. I’m concerned about it as well. I want my constituents and

all British Columbians to be fully aware of what they will be voting on and

what it means for them. I fear that the process is being skewed to favour

the outcome desired by the NDP and their Green partners.

They are lowering the threshold for the result to be binding on

government to a bare majority of 50 percent plus one, as low as you can go,

with no regional threshold to go along with it. Folks living in rural areas

fear they won’t get as much of a say as their urban counterparts.

There are concerns about the referendum question itself. It will be

crafted by provincial cabinet behind closed doors by politicians who have a

vested interest in the outcome.

What’s more, the Premier had promised British Columbians that it will

be a yes-or-no question. Then we learned voters will have to choose between

multiple proportional representation options against first-pass-the-post. Of

course, a first-pass-the-post victory is not favourable under a ranked

ballot vote. Voters who mark that system as their first choice will have to

choose between multiple PR systems for their second and third choices. If

first-pass-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot, a victory is

unlikely.

Those are just a few of the ways the NDP has treated the process,

which raise important questions about fairness. Contrast that with 2005 and

2009 referendums held in this province. Both times the process was free of

political interference and manipulation. What we see here is an effort by

the NDP and the Greens to make it easier to get a system of proportional

representation in place here in B.C., because they know it would likely

serve them very well.

That just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s not the manner in which

something as important as choosing a new electoral system should be handled.

It’s an exercise that could fundamentally change the fabric of our democracy

and affect every single British Columbian. I believe this issue that I have

outlined today in my remarks speaks to an overall theme of trust. You can’t

go around making big promises to people, raising their hopes and

expectations, without a real plan to make those dreams a reality.

The NDP don’t have a plan. They don’t have a strategy for creating

jobs and investment in this province. They have no clue how to grow the

economy. They don’t know how to get us out of this unnecessary trade spat

that they have started with Alberta. They are backing away from the

$10-a-day child care they promised B.C. families. They stopped talking about

the renters rebate that appealed to many voters. And they are not on pace to

build all the housing units they have promised over the next

decade.

We as politicians often hear lots of disillusionment on the part of

the electorate. They don’t take broken promises lightly. But sadly, that’s

all they are getting from this Speech from the Throne.

[11:15 a.m.]

We can only hope that their upcoming budget does more to address the

pressing needs of British Columbians and brings some credibility to the

platform that the NDP presented to voters many months ago.

Hon. C. Trevena: It is truly an honour to be standing here to speak about the throne

speech today. It was a throne speech that I think really embraced a lot of

ideas, inspiration and positive options for people in British Columbia —

things that people really need, things that will seriously make life more

affordable for people, help deliver those services that people need, as well

as enforce and create in areas a strong stable economy that works for

everyone.

Before I get into my remarks about the throne speech, I would like to

have the indulgence to recognize the people who are important to me. As

always, I would like to acknowledge my spouse of many years, my life

partner, Michael McIvor, without whom I know I wouldn’t be here. He’s not in

the House today. He is coming down later today, but he’s not in the House

today. His support, love and encouragement have really made sure that I can

do my job.

I’d also like to thank and acknowledge the wonderful team with whom I

work, the team in my constituency and the team down here in Victoria. It is

one team. My constituency assistants: Mary Carstairs, Sandra Doran and Fred

Robertson. Fred, who works out in Port Hardy, often feels on his own up

there, but he is an integral part of the team.

My former constituency assistant, now my executive assistant, is Lynn

Stone, with whom I have worked for now almost 13 years. She has put up with

me for almost 13 years. For that, I am extraordinarily grateful

too.

Derrick Harder, Alisma Perry and my administrative support, Jacqueline

Chapotelle and Lindsey Jackson. As I say, we do work as a team, and I think

that I wouldn’t be able to do my job without all their support and hard

work.

As I mentioned, I find it always an honour to stand in this House to

talk about issues that come from government that reflect on my constituency.

So I’d like to talk a little bit in my remarks today about the throne speech

and how it is going to impact the North Island. I’ve been elected by the

North Island four times now and feel very honoured and continually humbled

by that, the fact that people have that many times put their faith in me as

their representative.

I know, Madame Speaker, you have a longer history with your

constituents. I know you have those sorts of links, that that is the first

area you go to. The first area you think of when anything comes up is how

you are — what your constituents need, what your constituents are asking for

and how you can work to improve lives for your constituents.

I’m very pleased that there are a number of areas in this throne

speech that will really benefit the North Island, things that the North

Island communities have been longing for, for many, many years.

There’s obviously a big focus on housing. This is a serious approach

by our government. We see that there is a massive housing crisis in this

province, and we do need to address it. We need to work together to tackle

this. It’s with that, that I look at the investments we’re going to be

making in housing.

I know we have the budget in a few days’ time. We’ll hear more details

about that. The commitment to housing that our government is making is not

just going to impact people in the large urban centres but is going to

really be important for people who live across our province in the rural

communities.

I’m very proud to represent a rural community. I look and hear from

people in my own constituency who are looking for affordable housing. Those

young families are looking to try and find somewhere where they can have a

home, whether it is on the islands or in smaller communities — that ability

to move out of the cities. They still are facing struggles finding homes.

What our government is doing will help them.

[11:20 a.m.]

At the other end of the spectrum, the seniors are also looking,

whether it is for the supportive housing, assisted living or more

independent living. I’ve had approaches, whether it’s Port Hardy or Quadra

Island, where community groups have come and said: “How can we make this

work? How can we make sure that our seniors can stay in our community? How

can our elders stay in our community? How can we make these investments

happen?”

I’m very pleased that a commitment we are making in housing will

embrace all ends of the spectrum: those who we know are homeless; who are

couch-surfing; who are caught in the middle; those who are earning too

little to be able to get into the housing market and looking for a good

rental, safe rentals; and those who are the seniors who are looking for

something more permanent.

Likewise, the emphasis that we are putting on child care is going to

have a huge impact for my constituents. There is no question about that. The

fact that we are making substantial progress towards having a child care

system that will be embracing, will be affordable, will be

accessible.

I think that everybody has talked to those families who have been

struggling with (1) trying to find child care and (2), when they do find

child care, making their lives work. I was talking to a father the other day

who is a bus driver who was saying that he enjoyed being a bus driver

because of the shifts. His wife worked days. He was able to work nights.

That meant that he could look after children during the daytime while his

wife was at work. They passed for about 45 minutes to an hour at suppertime,

and then he went off to work. It’s not great for family life, but it’s the

only way they could make things work for child care for them.

I think there is that aspect, too, of how it’s going to make life

better for people. It’s not just for the young people who are going to grow

up through a child care system that will be supported; it will be better for

all families. It will be able to deal with a real affordability issue for

all families. I’m extraordinarily pleased that that is in our platform, and

it will have a lasting impact for the north Island.

Also in the throne speech, there is the commitment to look at funding

for education, particularly for funding for schools in rural and remote

areas. This has been something that I have been arguing for, for many years,

in opposition — that rural education has been disproportionately affected by

the funding formula. To be able to address that to ensure that those

students in Port Hardy, those students in Zeballos, those students in more

remote communities actually get the opportunities that students in larger

centres get.

I know that there are lots of different ways we can be using new

technology to do that. But I think that this is something that looking at

the funding formula, and addressing the gaps will really be vital for my

constituents. I have three school districts, as the Speaker well knows. She

came to visit them a few years ago. There are three school districts in the

north Island, and changing the funding formula will have a real impact for

them.

Likewise, the commitment to the Internet. This is something that I

have been fighting for, I think, for all the time that I’ve been in

opposition. To see the commitment from the Minister of Citizens’ Services

portfolio, to have this in the throne speech….We will be investing in

broadband that will be able to reach coastal communities, remote communities

and ensure that everybody has access to the high-speed Internet that is so

central to life, whether it’s government services that are found through the

Internet or whether it’s the quality of living — you know, people watching

Netflix — or whether it is people wanting to do business.

I’ve looked at it many times from the business point of view. I know

people who have moved from where they wanted to have their home because they

haven’t had access to high-speed Internet.

It’s not just the web designers who thought they could work on Cortes

Island and had to move because they weren’t able to access high-speed

Internet. It’s those people who want to run a small business or work

remotely. While we have issues for some of housing affordability, we do have

the advantage of — compared to Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna — very

affordable housing.

For people who want to live and work in smaller communities and are

able to make those connections and be able to work remotely, it will now be

a possibility. This is going to have a huge impact for my constituency.

There’s no question North Island will benefit from these changes.

[11:25 a.m.]

I also want to talk about the driving force, I think, of the north

Island and of much of B.C., and that is forestry. Again, the throne speech

made a very strong commitment to forestry. We on the north Island have been

trying to redefine, since we lost both our mills a number of years ago…. We

lost the Catalyst pulp mill. We lost the TimberWest sawmill. The Port Alice

Specialty Cellulose mill has been down for a number of years now. This has

had a dramatic impact on the communities.

We’ve still had the harvesting, the resources, but recently Western

Forest Products announced that they were centralizing. They were moving out

from a number of areas. They were closing a number of sorts, which are going

to have a serious impact for the north Island. They also had made the

announcement that they are going to end the logging train that they ran from

Woss to Beaver Cove. This comes after a very tragic accident in April, where

people got killed when the train was in Woss. It had a huge impact on the

community.

The whole of the north Island is really shaken by the fact that the

company has decided not to restart that and to move its operation to roads.

I’m going to come to that in a second. But Western really has the control of

much of the Crown land — in fact, nearly all the Crown land north of

Campbell River. It is the tenure holder, the licence holder for large, vast

areas. I think there are three or four TFLs that it has in my constituency.

There has been a huge concern that it’s been harvesting and shipping out the

logs, harvesting and shipping out the logs, harvesting and shipping out the

logs — not bringing any of the benefit back.

The fact that our government is saying now that there has to be a

social licence, that forest companies who are working in our communities

have to be responsible to those communities, is a major step for those

communities. People are applauding, because it is going to make a huge

change, that the forest companies are not just working for their

shareholders. They’re working for the communities where they are logging.

They’re working for the communities whose land they’re working in. These are

Crown lands; these are public lands. They have a licence to operate, so that

social licence and the commitment by our government to that social licence

is extraordinarily important for my constituency.

As I mentioned on Western — I’m not going to beat up on Western too

much — we have the move to the highway transportation of the logs. As the

Minister of Transportation, it has added an extra number of calls to my

office. People have been very, very concerned about what that impact will be

on the quality of the highway, on safety on the highway, on just how they’re

going to be moving the logs. I have been working with ministry staff to look

at how we can ensure safety, how we can ensure that the highway is kept up

to the standard that it should be.

As an opposition member and as a constituency MLA, I have railed

against the poor quality of Highway 19 on many times. I continue to raise

Highway 19 with my staff and say: “How can we fix it? How can we make

sure…?” Now there are approximately another 60 or so trucks a day — that’s

on top of the trucks that were already operating and that weren’t using the

railway — on that stretch of highway between Woss and Port McNeill, and Woss

down to Sayward. It’s significant. We’re trying to find solutions to that,

making sure that the highway is protected.

It’s an honour to be the representative for North Island, and it

continues to be an honour. It’s also an extraordinary honour to be the

province’s Minister of Transportation. I take the responsibility very

seriously. I know that we have 46,000 kilometres of highway. We’re

responsible for 2,900 bridges, 200-plus weather stations, 24 coastal ferry

routes and another 14 inland ones, 51 border crossings, 131 airports and 82

B.C. Transit systems, which serve 130 communities. It is a huge

responsibility, as I say.

[11:30 a.m.]

The ministry staff are extraordinary. I’ve travelled around and talked

to people in ministry offices, whether it is in Smithers, in Courtenay, in

Kamloops, in Cranbrook. I’ve been travelling around the province talking,

and I don’t think it’s because they’re talking to the minister, even a new

minister. They all say that it’s a great ministry to work for, and they are

dedicated.

They are dedicated to making our roads work for everyone in the

province. They are dedicated to ensure that there is safety there. They are

dedicated to ensure that we really do get the best service. I have to thank

the ministry staff right through, from top to bottom, for their hard work

and their continued hard work.

The Speech from the Throne does make quite a good and detailed mention

of transportation. I’d like to pick up on a few of the items, if I

might.

I’m going to start in my own backyard, going up Highway 19 — Port

Hardy, Port McNeill, Campbell River — and going on down. We have ferries. We

are linked by ferries. We continue to be linked by ferries.

It has been one of my driving forces, I think. I think everybody knows

I actually live in a ferry-reliant community. I live on Quadra Island. I

live and breathe ferries. One does if you live in a ferry-reliant community.

That’s why I’m extraordinarily pleased that we are acting on B.C. Ferries. I

call it a soup-to-nuts review. Somebody said it should be the

chowder-to-nuts review, but we have started a complete review of B.C.

Ferries.

It was set up by the previous government 16 years ago, taken out from

the hands of government, away from the Crown corporation, and became this

quasi-autonomous, independent business operation. The review is looking at

everything from how the administration works, how the reservation system

works, how the commissioner works. It is a very thorough review.

I’ve had some criticism by people asking why we aren’t looking at

governance models. My answer to that is: what do you really want? Do you

want the ferries to be a Crown corporation, like they used to be? Do you

want them to be part of the Ministry of Highways? It’s been many years since

only a few of them were, and that was way back when. I think it’s before

most people’s memory. Or do you want a system that is affordable and

reliable and works for you and your community and your economy?

Most people would go for the latter. That’s why we’re not looking at

governance. We are looking at making sure that the system works for people

in the public interest.

I’m not going to steal thunder from the Finance Minister here, but

something we announced a long time ago — and we are going to being carrying

out with it — is reducing the fares on all the routes by 15 percent except

the three from the Island to the Mainland, where the fares will be frozen. I

know seniors are very eager that we are bringing back the free

transportation for seniors Monday to Thursday. That all starts on April 1.

It is no April Fools’ joke. People will see a reduction in their ferry

tickets.

Our government is committed to affordability, and one of the first

acts as Minister of Transportation with the Premier was announcing the

removal of the tolls for the Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridge. This has had

a significant impact. I know that people see the increase in traffic, and

we’re still assessing how the traffic is redistributing, but it has saved

commuters about $1,500 a year and people who work in the commercial sector,

truck drivers, approximately $4,500 a year.

That’s money that can go back into…. Whether it’s their business or

their own quality of life, it’s going to help the rent or it’s going to help

maybe get money towards a vacation. It is absolutely vital to people that

they can get that extra bit of money in their pocket.

While I’m talking about bridges, there is mention…. I think it’s very

clear in the throne speech. The statement about the Pattullo Bridge says:

“The Pattullo Bridge is a critical piece of transportation infrastructure

for Lower Mainland drivers.” I think anybody who knows the Lower Mainland

would absolutely agree on that. We are working with TransLink. There are

real problems of safety on that bridge, and this is a priority for our

government, to make sure that the safety is dealt with. We are moving on

with that.

These are items that are in my mandate letter — the letter that the

Premier gives all members of the executive council at the beginning of their

time before they’re sworn in.

[11:35 a.m.]

We have the ferries, we have the Pattullo Bridge, and we have the toll

removal. Also in my mandate letter and something that I’m absolutely

committed to — and I’m sure that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke

will support me in this — is the four-laning of Highway 1, the eastern

section. The previous government had started work — Kamloops to the Alberta

border. We are accelerating that.

There’s been some talk about: “Oh, you’re going to be pulling back.

You’re not going to be doing that.” I’ve heard calls from Salmon Arm and

calls from around Kamloops — people concerned that we’re not going to do it.

It’s the reverse. We are accelerating that. We know that there are serious

safety issues.

While we’re continuing proceeding with the work that is happening

between Kamloops going east, we’re also now looking east from Golden going

west — how we can make sure that the work done there happens more quickly.

As I say, I know that this is a very serious safety issue. Everybody who

lives in those areas…. Whether you’re in Golden or in Revelstoke, you’re

driving that highway, you know people who have, sadly, died in accidents or

have been involved in accidents.

D. Clovechok: Every week.

Hon. C. Trevena: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke says that it’s weekly. It’s

true, and this shouldn’t be happening, not on our national highway. That’s

why it is such a commitment for us to work as fast as we can to improve the

safety in that

section of road, the eastern

section between Golden and

Revelstoke and beyond. We’ve got $273 million, investing in this over three

years. We are working on, as I say, Revelstoke, Golden, Chase and Salmon

Arm, so both sides.

We are consulting more. We have to consult, obviously very

thoughtfully and thoroughly, with First Nations. We need to talk with

communities. But this is, as I say, a serious commitment. We will be moving

on this as swiftly as we can. It is a commitment that we can’t see people

involved in accidents. It is the Trans-Canada Highway. It is our link for

personal use, for business use, for economic use to the rest of the country.

We need to make it safe.

The other area we’re looking at very seriously — and it is a priority

for me — is the greening of transportation. We’re working on highways. We’re

building highways. We’re always going to need highways. But how can we also

build options for people?

In the end, you cannot build your way out of congestion. There will

always be more cars to fill the roads, and we know that. So how can we both

cut congestion, get people out of their cars, and look at alternatives for

people? I know that in many areas, there are no alternatives. You need your

vehicle. There are no bus services. But how can we do that?

We are looking at investments in transit, not just in the large urban

areas. We’re announcing bus lanes through here, in the south Island. We’re

talking. Obviously, we’re working with TransLink on the Broadway line and

the Surrey rapid transit. But how can we do this everywhere?

I’m very pleased, and I think that it was something the previous

government brought in after much, much lobbying by many, many people…. The

member for North Coast and the former member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and

myself and many people on this side of the House, as opposition members,

were lobbying very hard for the transportation on Highway 16.

It started last year, and it’s been a huge success. It is growing. I

think it is really important to see that and to acknowledge that. Five

thousand people have been using this service that links communities. More

than 9,000 are using the smaller community buses. This has really made a

huge difference, particularly for women and girls, vulnerable people along

that very long stretch of highway that we were trying to address. We really

needed to ensure their safety.

It is accessible. Fares are under $5. It is something that is for

safety. We’ve got bus shelters. We’ve got webcams. We’ve got different

travel shelters. It’s been something that we are really very proud

of.

[11:40 a.m.]

We’re also very aware that Greyhound has made its application to pull

out from a number of its routes, particularly those that service the north.

I’ve met with members of the opposition who represent those northern

communities. I’ve met with mayors who also represent those northern

communities. We are extraordinarily aware of the need — that people do need

that safe, reliable and affordable transportation.

While we’ve had a coach service there, if that…. I mean, it’s a

decision by the Passenger Transportation Board. If they decide that

Greyhound can leave the area, it will leave people stranded. This is

something that I’m very conscious of and want to ensure that we can have

that safe transportation.

We have seen, with Highway 16, that work can happen, that we can look

at long distance travel. Hopefully, we won’t see Greyhound leave but if it

does, we are committed to make sure that transportation does happen for

people in those areas.

As I say, we are looking at investing in transit. I think it’s a great

way of getting people out of their cars in urban areas. We went out to

Kelowna in the late summer, where they had a new transit exchange at the

University British Columbia Okanagan campus. They are seeing people coming

down from Vernon and then going down further south into Kelowna and

beyond.

It’s how we can link that, how we can make sure that we can get those

connections between communities as well as get an effective transit system

within our communities. This is one of the areas where I think it is really

a great opportunity for all of us to look at new ways of doing

things.

I’m also very excited at the new electric buses that have been used in

trials at the moment, as well as the continued growth of the compressed

natural gas buses — again, how we can meet transit needs.

Just one last comment. The TransLink transit…. We work with TransLink

very closely. I talk about Metro Vancouver. We talk about Surrey light rail

and the Broadway and Arbutus. It’s a pleasure to work with my colleague the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, under whose remit TransLink

comes, because we are the ones negotiating, at the moment, with the federal

government to try and get some funds for these transit projects, because

they are vital.

While I extol all the virtues of my constituency, the areas of Surrey

and, obviously, the Lower Mainland are where there is the densest population

and where we really need to be working very closely with the mayors to

ensure that we are delivering on what they see, what their vision is. They

have a ten-year plan — so looking how we can work closely with them, whether

it is the Pattullo Bridge, which was made mention of earlier, or whether it

is the Broadway or Surrey rapid transit.

These are people who were elected locally, and we have a number of

mayors in the Metro area. They have a transportation plan. They have a

vision for ten years, which we respect. We want to work closely with them to

deliver on that vision, whether it is trying to access money or whether it

is working in partnership, how we can do that — to deliver what they are

asking for and what their constituents are asking for.

At the same time, it’s looking at the whole area and those corridors

that are our responsibility as a province, and still those ones which are a

crossover. Which bridge is which? Who owns what bridge? We’re still working

on those.

As I say, it is a real honour to be here as the Minister of

Transportation, to be representing, working on behalf of all the province on

transportation and the need for the transportation networks.

I see that my time is almost up. I could continue for many more hours,

talking both about my own constituency as well as my portfolio as minister.

But with that, I’ll have to save some to talk about when it’s the budget and

then continue talking over the coming months and hopefully years about the

fabulous work that the ministry is doing on behalf of the whole of British

Columbia.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

[11:45 a.m.]

M. Morris: Before I get into the meat of the throne speech and the points that I

want to make, I just want to thank a couple of people that are very near and

dear to me and have helped me out tremendously over the over past number of

years since I’ve been elected.

First and foremost, to my constituency assistants in Prince George.

Charlotte and Nicola: I couldn’t do the job without you. I refer back to a

Supreme Court of Canada decision a number of years ago that defined the role

of an elected official as somebody who was not only a representative of the

constituency but also acted in the role of an Ombudsperson. It’s very true.

That’s exactly what Charlotte and Nicola do on my behalf and, of course,

what I do when I’m out there.

I’d also like to thank all the constituents in Prince George–Mackenzie

for having the trust and faith in me, in electing me and putting me down in

this great place here in Victoria to represent the interests of you folks up

there, rural British Columbia and all of British Columbia, for that

matter.

Most of all, though, I’d like to offer special thanks to my wife of 40

years, Chris, and my two sons, Matt and Dan, for all the support that

they’ve given me over the years, particularly in the last year or so as I’ve

gone through some personal struggles. They’ve stood by me and helped me out

tremendously. My heart goes out to Chris, who’s down here in Victoria with

me right now, and my two boys and their wives and my five grandchildren in

Prince George. Without them, I don’t think I would be here.

I grew up in poverty. I experienced domestic violence as a young

fellow and a lot of tragic experiences that no young child should ever have

to endure. I went to over a dozen schools from grade 1 to grade 12

throughout the province and lived in 18 different homes during that period

of time. My father was moving around quite a bit to escape his past. My

mother eventually succumbed to the domestic violence and abuse, and she left

my dad when I was a very young teenager. We struggled on our own until after

I left high school.

During that period of time, we were introduced to the social services

— the social net, I guess, that helps people out in times of struggles. This

was back in the early ’60s. That social network kept our family together as

much as it could. I still had brothers and sisters that were farmed out to

other family members, but it was that social assistance that put us into a

home and provided some food and clothing for us.

That’s what I want to start with in my response to the throne. I

understand, from the bottom of my heart and my life experiences, the need

for that social net in British Columbia and across Canada to help people out

that are in dire need of support, to help them out in their struggles. But

that doesn’t come cheap.

Back in 1963, 1965, the social net that we had at that particular time

was pretty sparse. The assistance that we have today in British Columbia,

particularly, is a lot more complex, a lot more in inclusive than it was

years and years ago. That costs money. It doesn’t come at a cheap price to

try and make sure that we help everybody out that we can.

As I listened to the throne speech and went through it in a little bit

more detail over the last few days, I noticed that there were a number of

things absent in that speech. Now, I’ve got no problem at all with providing

that social safety net to people in British Columbia. I think we need a

robust social safety net for everybody in British Columbia, but it comes at

a cost, like I said. In order to sustain that, we need to have a robust

economy.

Looking through the throne speech, I didn’t see anything about

developing a robust economy. I didn’t see any meat and potatoes behind that.

It was mentioned. I’ll talk about that a little bit later as I go through my

speech here.

[11:50 a.m.]

There was also no mention of campaign promises that the NDP ran on,

like the $10-a-day daycare. That really caught the attention not only of

people that need that social net out there to fall back on but of the

everyday working man and woman in this province that was looking forward to

that $10-a-day daycare so that the wives or the husbands or the partners

could get out and work and provide a living, or increase the standard of

living for the household, and make sure that their kids were in a safe

environment. That evaporated, along with the $400 rental rebate that a lot

of people were looking for.

There was no mention of the 114,000 housing units that this government

had promised that they would deliver. Yeah, they had a couple of tidbits in

there about 2,000 modular homes that they’re going to put in some places

and, I think, another 1,500 or so social structures that they’re going to

build in the province here — far short of the 114,000 social housing units

that they were talking about.

Again, people’s expectations were raised during the campaign, during

the election cycle, thinking that the NDP government would be providing all

these extra things for them. I think they’re utterly disappointed with what

they see.

The speech was full of rhetoric, pages and pages of it. I think when

you take the rhetoric out of it and you render it down to some of the

factual statements that were in there, it could have been a two-page

document, at the end of the day. Instead, it just went on and on and on with

their rhetoric.

I note the hour, Madame Speaker. So give me the nod when you say it’s

time for me to wind her up.

They did speak about….

Interjection.

M. Morris: Before I get into this, it’s probably a good time to break. I reserve

my right to speak again and make a motion to adjourn debate.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada