Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 23

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

Tributes

Rodger Hargreaves

Hon. R. Fleming

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Orange Shirt Day and residential school system

D. Barnett

Centre for Wellbeing on West Shore

M. Dean

Childhood cancer awareness and fundraising ride

S. Cadieux

Employment of disabled persons

M. Elmore

Outdoor classroom and garden project at Bayside Middle

School

A. Olsen

Orange Shirt Day and residential school system

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Site C power project review and workers

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Mungall

D. Davies

Drinking water protection and timber deposit site in Campbell

River

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Freedom-of-information requests for wildfire loss cases

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Sims

J. Rustad

Election campaign financing legislation

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, annual report, 2016-17, and service plan, 2017-18 to 2018-19

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, financial statements, 2016-17

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Supply Act (No. 2), 2017

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Supply Act (No. 2), 2017

Hon. C. James

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Supply Act (No. 2), 2017

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Polak

Hon. C. Trevena

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[10:05 a.m.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us on the floor of the Legislature today is the former member

for Cariboo South, at that time former Minister of Economic Development,

former Minister of Aboriginal Relations, former Minister of Agriculture,

former Minister of Forests, my former boss and also a really good guy well

known to all members of this place. Would you please welcome Mr. David

Zirnhelt.

Hon. L. Popham: For those of you who have known me over the last eight years, you know

how much I love bees. I’m happy to say that the B.C. Honey Producers

Association is here in the chamber. I’ll be meeting with them today. I think

one of their members, Jeff Lee, is here. I’d like to welcome him to the

chamber.

I also would like to welcome Farmland Advantage, a group that I spoke

with this morning who came to me around the importance of ecological

services that farmland brings to our province.

I also have two guests visiting from the Lower Mainland, Christian and

Kristel Sig-Bardson. Welcome to the chamber.

Last but not least I’ve got an elementary school here, Prospect Lake

Elementary, which is visiting with their teacher, Mrs. Laurel Evans, and her

grade 5 class. Thank you for visiting.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my great pleasure today to introduce a group of people. All of

you have your people, as well, who make our work here in the House and out

in our communities so effective. They are the people who support us and work

tirelessly. Often they’re not at the forefront.

First of all, I am so happy to have Shannon Russell here joining us.

She’s my senior ministerial assistant. I’ve got Karl Riley, ministerial

assistant; Param Grewal, my executive assistant from Surrey; Trent Sanders,

our administrative assistant; and, of course, Kathleen Fleurant,

administrative coordinator.

I want to acknowledge and appreciate the work that this team has done

to make my transition into this ministry so effective and for giving me the

support that I so much needed.

J. Isaacs: Joining us in the House today are two guests who have travelled quite

a long way to be here. Noelia is visiting from Spain, and Florent is here

from France. They have spent the past five months touring around South and

North America and will be heading back to Europe next month. Will the House

please make them feel welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: In the gallery today, I am delighted to welcome Phyllis Webstad. She’s

the president of the Orange Shirt Day campaign. Many of us will gather on

the front steps of the Legislature at 12 o’clock today to raise awareness of

the Orange Shirt Day campaign. This event commemorates the continued impact

of the residential schools on British Columbia’s Indigenous children and

families.

It’s an important issue that we must keep in the public eye. We are

very honoured to have Phyllis travel down from her home of Williams Lake

today. Her presence helps raise awareness of the campaign here in the

Legislature on the last day of the sitting before the official Orange Shirt

Day on September 30, which is this coming Saturday.

She’s joined by Hank Adam, Kristin Spray, Eddy Charlie, Bear Horne and

Monique Pat, who are part of Victoria’s organizing committee for the Orange

Shirt Day campaign today. Will the House please join me in making them feel

very, very welcome.

Tributes

RODGER HARGREAVES

Hon. R. Fleming: I rise today to recognize the passing of a respected, well-loved

and inspiring educator, Mr. Rodger Hargreaves.

[10:10 a.m.]

Rodger passed away in a tragic accident on September 11, 2017, at

the age of 58. He lived a life of lifelong learning and a love of

teaching. Rodger earned his Red Seal in heavy duty mechanics, a teaching

degree from Simon Fraser University and, later, a master’s of education

from the University of Victoria.

Rodger was a gifted individual, whose passion and dedication for

teaching was evident throughout his career as a trades educator, working

in the Ministry of Education’s career programs area and serving in the

Sooke and Saanich school districts and, more recently, with Camosun

College.

Many ministry staff and colleagues have remarked on the impact

Rodger made in the lives of students and the legacy he has left behind.

His colleagues are quoted saying that Rodger could talk with kids and

tell them about what their future might hold. He offered career

possibilities to those that he worked with, and he would help anybody he

knew who had a problem.

He was an educator that cared deeply about so many students and no

doubt had a positive impact on all students who were lucky enough to

know him. Public education, both in the K-to-12 system and advanced

education, has been enhanced by Rodger’s tireless effort over his life

and career to ensure there’s a path forward for so many students in our

province.

My deepest condolences go out to his family: his beloved wife,

Kathy, and daughters, Krista and Jamie.

Introductions by Members

M. Dean: I am very proud this morning to welcome three wonderful community

volunteers who are visiting today. First of all, Marg Jacobson. She’s

previously been a school trustee, and she has also been a director on the

board of Pacific Centre Family Services Association for over 30 years. Her

husband of over 40 years, Don, is also with her here today. He’s given

decades of support to youth through rowing and other support for community

agencies.

Alison Campbell had an amazing career in British Columbia as a lawyer,

particularly representing vulnerable victims. She has also served for nearly

ten years on the board of Pacific Centre Family Services

Association.

I trust all members will make them welcome here today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ORANGE SHIRT DAY AND

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

SYSTEM

D. Barnett: I rise today to recognize Orange Shirt Day.

Back in 1973, Phyllis Webstad’s grandmother saved up what little

money she had to buy her a bright orange shirt for her first day at

school. But this was not the first day of school that many parents were

privileged to celebrate only two weeks ago. Phyllis was attending the

St. Joseph Mission School, a residential school. When Phyllis arrived

she was stripped and her clothes taken, including her favourite orange

shirt.

For her, the colour orange would serve as a reminder of how no one

cared, a reminder of the pain and suffering Phyllis and other Indigenous

families endured at residential schools across B.C. Phyllis has since

received help and healing on her journey to recovery. However, she is

still haunted by the feeling that she doesn’t matter.

Orange Shirt Day is a legacy of the St. Joseph Mission residential

school. As envisioned by Chief Fred Robbins, this brings together former

students and their families to commemorate the residential school

experience and honour the healing journey of survivors like Phyllis and

their families. Orange Shirt Day started in the Cariboo, but it has

reached far and wide in Canada. The Assembly of First Nations has

recognized by resolution that Orange Shirt Day is the first step in

reconciliation.

September 30 marks the time of year that many students were taken

from their homes. Today it serves as a means for all Canadians to

discuss the legacy of residential schools and seek reconciliation with

survivors. Today, in wearing our orange shirts, we honour survivors of

the residential school system. Today we reaffirm that every child

matters, even if they are an adult, from now on.

[10:15 a.m.]

CENTRE FOR WELLBEING ON WEST SHORE

M. Dean: Tomorrow is a landmark day in my constituency of

Esquimalt-Metchosin. It’s the official opening of a new wellness hub for

the West Shore, attended by the Lieutenant-Governor and our Premier of

B.C. The Centre for Wellbeing on Goldstream Avenue is the work of the

Pacific Centre Family Services Association, which will soon be

celebrating 50 years of service to the community.

This is a remarkable legacy of service and stewardship by a

non-profit organization and a testimony to amazing teamwork. The new

Centre for Wellbeing includes 15,000 square feet of program space to

support children, families and adults in need of safety, support and

finding new pathways. With the growth on the West Shore, the need for

services is especially acute. Last year more than 1,000 individuals

accessed the professional services provided by PCFSA, and this new

centre holds the promise of reducing wait times.

One young First Nations woman, who has been receiving services on

and off since she was four years old, told us: “PCFSA saved my life, and

my one ambition now is to be a PCFSA counsellor to help

others.”

This Centre for Wellbeing is part of the revitalization of the

heart of the city of Colwood. On the land, there is also going to be an

opportunity for creating more than 100 units of affordable

housing.

I hope all members will join with me in congratulating the project

team, the staff and the board of PCFSA for this milestone, which I will

be honoured to share with them.

CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS

AND FUNDRAISING

RIDE

S. Cadieux: Whether directly or indirectly, we all know someone who has won,

battled or earned their wings. For me, it’s about Sue and Irene and Eve

and Tiffany and Marilyn and so many others. They are and were adults

when they battled. Sadly, about 1,400 children are diagnosed with cancer

every year. With childhood cancer representing only 2 percent of the

cancer epidemic in Canada, the area of research and care is

underfunded.

Enter the Chase. The Chase is a part of the tenth annual national

kids cancer ride — 36 riders on two teams, cycling across Canada in 18

days. This year, eight riders on Team Chase joined that ride, completing

their coast-to-coast journey in just eight days, travelling up to 650

kilometres every day to join the other 36 national riders to finish the

journey together. They started by dipping their rear wheels in the

Pacific Ocean, and will end by dipping their front wheels in the

Atlantic Ocean.

The experience for the riders has no doubt been a challenging one,

but it is nothing compared to the battle that 10,000 Canadian children

with cancer are fighting every day. Two of my friends are participating

this year as support staff on the Chase. They’ve been on the road now

for seven days and tomorrow will ride the last 100 kilometres with the

team.

Burnaby’s Melissa Burkeholder and White Rock’s Caryl Houde join

national riders from B.C. — Bob Ahuja, from Abbotsford; Rochelle

Davidson, from Steveston; Chuck Magnus and Al McNabb from Langley. As we

speak, they’re in Quebec, travelling towards New Brunswick. Tomorrow

they’ll travel through Nova Scotia, with a triumphant finish in

Halifax.

From the comforts of the Legislature in British Columbia, ride

strong on the last leg of your journey. Thank you for your show of

force, of support for kids battling cancer today and for a cancer-free

tomorrow. For more information about the foundation’s work, I encourage

members to visit www. beyondkidscancer.com.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS

M. Elmore: For the residents and businesses that call Vancouver-Kensington

home and for the individuals and families in communities large and small

throughout the province, September is a special month for us. This

September marks the fourth annual Disability Employment Month here in

British Columbia. This month, British Columbians from all walks of life

are recognizing and celebrating employers and employees for their

contributions and determination to build inclusive businesses and

communities.

In my riding of Vancouver-Kensington, I see businesses embracing

the genuine value that people with disabilities have to offer. With

almost 90 percent of consumers saying they prefer to engage with

companies that employ people with diverse disabilities, more and more

employers are realizing the benefits and positive outcomes that these

individuals can bring to their businesses. Every British Columbian

deserves the opportunity to thrive, to contribute to the future of this

province and to go home at night knowing they’re able to support

themselves and their families.

[10:20 a.m.]

With the direction and vision of the presidents group, B.C.

businesses are leading the way in providing sustainable employment

opportunities for people with disabilities. With this leadership, the

trend of inclusive workplaces is continuing to snowball. As more

opportunities there will be for people with disabilities in B.C.’s

workforce.

Last Thursday Science World in Vancouver lit up their dome in blue

and white to recognize Disability Employment Month and to honour

employees with disabilities and inclusive employers. Today both Canada

Place and B.C. Place will light up blue to show their support for people

with disabilities and to help bring added awareness of the unique

abilities that British Columbians with disabilities embody.

Like Science World, like Canada Place and B.C. Place, I hope

you’ll join me, my constituents and the rest of British Columbia in

celebrating the employees with disabilities that are bringing value to

the workplace in our province and the employers that support their

success.

OUTDOOR CLASSROOM AND GARDEN

PROJECT AT BAYSIDE MIDDLE

SCHOOL

A. Olsen: This evening Bayside Middle School in Brentwood Bay, my home

community, is unveiling its outdoor classroom and peace and friendship

garden. The year-long project is entitled “NEPENKÁUTW.” It’s a place of

teaching. It’s a land-based learning, environmental stewardship and

intercultural friendship project.

The school’s administration, the parent advisory council,

community members and local businesses worked together to raise the

money to build this new space. Students helped to plant the garden. The

outdoor classroom and garden will be a special site for environmental,

Indigenous and peace education and will be used by all the students and

teachers in the school.

The school’s unveiling ceremony tonight is auspiciously timed

because today is the United Nations International Day of Peace. As part

of the garden, the school has installed the first peace pole in school

district 63. The peace pole has the text “May peace prevail on earth,”

language of the WSÁNEĆ people and one of the languages taught at Bayside

Middle School.

My uncle, Charles Elliot, master carver and member of the

W̱JOȽEȽP village, created the

WSÁNEĆ moon’s carving, highlighting our annual cycle. It’s also featured

in the Indigenous curriculum taught at the school. This carving will be

displayed on the front of the outdoor classroom.

The project is also an important symbol of the school’s commitment

to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to

mark the year of reconciliation.

I raise my hands to Bayside Middle School and school district 63

and its students, staff and parent advisory council on completing and

unveiling this wonderful project in a good way.

HÍSWḴE

SIÁM .

ORANGE SHIRT DAY AND

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

SYSTEM

R. Kahlon: Over the course of more than a century, it’s estimated that

approximately 150,000 Indigenous children were separated from their

families and communities and forced to attend one of the 139 official

residential schools across Canada. One of those children was Phyllis

Webstad, who is with us in the gallery today.

In 1973, which is not so long ago, she was sent to St. Joseph

Mission residential school in Williams Lake. She was six years old,

younger than the children that are in the gallery today. She wore an

orange shirt that her grandmother bought her, but when she got to the

school, she was stripped of that shirt and never wore it again. Like so

many Indigenous children, by stripping her of her shirt, she was made to

feel that she didn’t matter, as if no one cared.

Many Indigenous people across Canada and here in B.C. suffered

terrible abuse at residential schools. This was a shameful period in our

shared history, and the impacts of the trauma echo through

generations.

The colour orange has continued to resonate with Phyllis. In the

years since, she has faced challenges, and she has started her healing

journey. In 2013, a commemoration event at Williams Lake gave birth to

the Orange Shirt Day campaign. This campaign’s message is simple: every

child matters. They have always mattered, even though they weren’t

treated as such, because being forcefully taken and subjected to

residential schools doesn’t nurture your importance.

We need to send a message that today they matter. On September 30,

please wear your orange shirt. Talk to your children, your family, your

friends and colleagues about the ongoing impacts of residential schools,

so they can learn about our collective history.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action call us to

redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process of

reconciliation. One of those ways that we can do that is to acknowledge

the trauma that Indigenous children experienced as a result of

residential schools. If we do this as individual acts of reconciliation,

then we’ll be better able to stand in solidarity with Phyllis, survivors

and the Indigenous children in communities who endured the residential

school system. We’ll remember that every child matters.

Oral Questions

SITE C POWER PROJECT REVIEW

AND

WORKERS

M. Bernier: Six weeks ago this government ordered a rush review on the Site C

project. Today’s preliminary report that was released actually

reinforces the sham of the review that was taking place. We’re in the

midst of the single largest infrastructure project in this province’s

history. It’s going to bring energy self-sufficiency, it’s going to help

B.C. grow, and it’s going to help families for generations to come. We

also have heard that cancelling this project is going to cost an

additional $3.2 billion.

Now, the BCUC has been very clear that they’re not going to be

making any recommendations through this review. In fact, the political

decision is going to be made solely by the Minister of Energy and Mines,

by this Premier and by this government, on the future of Site

Surely, in light of the report that is out now…. Will the minister

stand up, tell this House, tell British Columbians but, most

importantly, tell the 2,600 people that are working right now at Site C

that their jobs are secure?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m very honoured to be

able to stand in this House and respond to the question as the new

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

What is clear, when it comes to Site C, is that British Columbians

have a lot of questions, and they deserve answers. They deserve answers

from an expert panel reviewing this independently. That should have been

done years ago when it was the B.C. Liberals in charge.

The B.C. Liberals chose not to do that. They clearly have contempt

for the independence of the B.C. Utilities Commission, and they chose to

not put Site C through the B.C. Utilities Commission. That was wrong.

That was the wrong choice. This government knows that it was the wrong

choice, and that’s why we’ve asked B.C. Utilities Commission to get the

answers to the questions that British Columbians have.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, the only contempt we’re seeing now is for the workers in the

province of British Columbia. It’s clear that the only risk to this

project are political decisions that are going to be made by the

government right now.

The B.C. Utilities Commission has confirmed that Site C can

actually be completed one year ahead of

schedule if this government does

not slow things down. There are timelines in place that have to be met.

The river needs to be diverted by next September. Work needs to be

completed. Contracts have been out. People are working on site right

now. This government is actually putting those jobs at risk, they’re

putting businesses at risk, and they’re putting the future of this

project at risk, only for nothing more than the political grandstanding

they’re doing right now.

The minister needs to stand up and be clear on this issue. There

is too much uncertainty right now around this project that this

government has created. Will she stand up, talk about the future of the

province, the benefit of this project and remind all of the workers at

Site C that they’ll be going to work tomorrow and they’ll be going to

work to finish this project one year ahead of schedule, continuing

now?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The only people that put anybody at risk when it comes to Site C

are the B.C. Liberals. When they refused to do due diligence, when they

refused….

Interjections.

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

Minister, proceed.

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s your time.

It was the B.C. Liberals who put everybody at risk in British

Columbia when they absolutely refused to have the B.C. Utilities

Commission do the due diligence, do the independent review by experts,

that British Columbians deserve.

The only people….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: We appreciate that people’s lives are on hold right now and that

they’re wondering where their future is at. That’s why we’re providing a

timely review. British Columbians, including the workers, have questions

about this project. They deserve answers. The B.C. Utilities Commission

is going to deliver on those answers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: The B.C. Utilities Commission is going to deliver on those

answers. We’re going to be taking that into consideration — something

that the B.C. Liberals should have done years ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a second

supplemental.

M. Bernier: Through the review and the expert panel saying that this

government slowing down the project is going to cost the taxpayers of

British Columbia billions and billions of dollars if they don’t finish

off with the project…. The uncertainty that’s actually being created

right now for 2,600 workers needs to be addressed.

In fact, the minister came up to the area. It was a nice flyover,

I know. It’s too bad she didn’t actually stop and go onto the site and

talk to those 2,600 families, those people that are working on site, the

contractors that are there. The minister should have actually stopped

and talked to them. More importantly, she should have witnessed the

actual project to see how great that project is proceeding and the work

that’s actually taking place, the hard work for families in British

Columbia that’s happening there right now.

All the minister has done and all this government has done is

bring uncertainty, not necessarily just to the project but to the

families and to the people working there. The minister needs to stand up

and confirm for those people today that their jobs are secure, that they

can go out and buy a house, that they can put food on the table for

their families and that they’ll be able to continue working at Site C

until that project is complete.

Hon. M. Mungall: From day one, the B.C. Liberals, when they were in power and to

this day, clearly are the ones playing politics with Site C.

If they had any respect for British Columbians, if they had any

respect for how we actually do hydro projects in this province, they

would have allowed the B.C. Utilities Commission to review this when it

was supposed to be done years ago. They failed to do that. That was the

wrong choice. British Columbians are quite upset about that choice.

They’re the ones that have put everybody at risk as a result of their

failure and as a result of their contempt for the B.C. Utilities

Commission.

That is not how this government operates. We respect that

independence. We respect British Columbians’ desire for answers. We’re

going to get that for them through the B.C. Utilities Commission, where

those answers are supposed to be coming from.

D. Davies: Unfortunately, people in my riding don’t trust the minister with

this decision. People in my riding who rely on Site C don’t trust the

minister.

[10:35 a.m.]

People are curious about Site C, British Columbia’s largest

infrastructure project, which is located a mere seven kilometres from my

community of Fort St. John. In the past, the practice has been for B.C.

Hydro to accommodate people that are curious about the project,

facilitating members of government, members of the opposition, media and

others on Site C tours. It was an open and transparent way for people to

actually come and see this project in the riding. I can tell you from

personal experience that the 2,600 people that are working on this

project are very proud of the work that they are doing.

That has all changed. Remarkably, the government has given special

instructions to lock the gates that allow people to come and review and

look at this project, to see the progress that has been made on this

project.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Will the minister confirm that she has given instructions to

not allow and to deny requests for any tours of the Site C

project?

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s exactly these types of questions why B.C. Hydro decided to

not allow tours while the B.C. Utilities Commission process is going on.

It’s because they didn’t want people like that member playing politics

with this process.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s your time.

Mr. Speaker: Members are reminded to respect the member standing,

please.

Hon. M. Mungall: This is an independent process by the B.C. Utilities

Commission.

If the member is looking for an open and transparent way to

actually address what’s going on at Site C, it is this process. If the

member wants to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission website, which I

hope that he does, going forward, the public and First Nations have the

opportunity to consult and present to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

That’s the next phase of this, and that is an open and transparent

process — a process, I might add, that the B.C. Liberals have an

incredible contempt for.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: It’s a shame that this government has directed B.C. Hydro to not

allow people to look at this project.

It’s also one thing for the minister responsible to not want to

meet with these workers while she was in Fort St. John, let alone tour

this incredible project, but it’s quite another to actually tell people

that they cannot take a look at it. Without access to the site, British

Columbians can only guess what direction this government is taking on

this project.

The public wants to know what the government’s actual agenda is

here on Site C. The cost of cancelling this project, we know, is going

to be in excess of $3 billion. We’ve learned this.

At the end of the day, this is a leadership issue. This is going

to be a cabinet decision, not the B.C. Utilities Commission.

My question to the minister. Is she going to personally be coming

to Fort St. John to hand out pink slips to the 2,600 people — many of my

riding’s residents — or is she going to wait until closer to Christmas

to really have a good impact?

Hon. M. Mungall: Again, that question shows exactly how the B.C. Liberals have

continued to just play politics with this very important issue. From day

one, they played politics when they decided that the B.C. Utilities

Commission wasn’t good enough, apparently, to actually review Site C.

Today we hear more politics from across the way in that question. I

think it’s time that playing politics with Site C comes to an end, and

that’s exactly what this government is doing.

British Columbians have questions. They deserve answers. The B.C.

Utilities Commission is looking into the very questions that they have,

and they’re going to be delivering answers that all of us — all of us —

are going to be able to have access to, because this is what a public

process looks like.

[10:40 a.m.]

This side of the House, this new government, is committed to

working for British Columbians. We’re committed to building a better

B.C. That’s how do you it, through a fair and public process, and that’s

what we’re doing.

Interjections.

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

AND TIMBER DEPOSIT SITE

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

S. Furstenau: I find it interesting to hear the members of the opposition

shouting down a woman doing her job as representative.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: So it continues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Furstenau: Earlier this month the Campbell River Environmental

Committee….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, if you may take your seat for a moment.

Members, we shouldn’t have to be constantly reminded to be

respectful of the person standing.

Member, proceed.

S. Furstenau: Earlier this month, the Campbell River Environmental Committee

reported to the Ministry of Environment that Upland Excavating Ltd. has

deposited over 1,200 tonnes of creosoted timbers at its quarry site,

timbers that caused B.C. Hydro workers to report that they were feeling

ill after handling them.

The site sits over a highly vulnerable aquifer that drains into

Cold Creek and the Quinsam River. The Uplands permit only allows inert

waste to be deposited, yet creosoted timbers have been shown to leach,

causing potential health problems, including cancer. As a result,

residents of Campbell River are worried about the safety of their

drinking water.

My question to the Minister of Environment. Given the sensitivity

of this site for the local watershed, will the minister commit to

re-examining the deposit of creosote timbers at this site to ensure that

the health and safety of the residents of Campbell River are

protected?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s an honour to stand in this House and talk about how this

government is going to protect British Columbians’ air, land and water

in an open, trustworthy and transparent process.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have received emails about this

issue from concerned citizens in Campbell River, and I asked my ministry

for information and a briefing note. I received it, and I reviewed the

history of this landfill, the history of this permit, and data on how

and why creosote-treated timber is regulated in a particular manner.

Then I thought about how I would feel if I learned that a possible

carcinogen was being dumped in my backyard over my water supply. I

realized that the answer that I would want would not be a history. It

wouldn’t be data. It would be an assurance that my government was doing

its job to look out for my health, my air, my land, my water and that of

my neighbours.

After receiving the briefing note, we sent a compliance and

enforcement officer to review the site on September 12. We expect a

report to be delivered in a couple of weeks. I’ll be happy to share it

directly with the member, but we’ll also share it publicly on the

website so that all of the residents can see it.

Further, we’ve directed Upland Excavating to demonstrate to the

ministry that the creosote-treated timber that has been deposited over

the summer and that has been deposited for years will not generate

leachate that could cause environmental issues or harm the

water.

Further, Upland has applied for a new permit that will include an

impermeable liner, and we will review that permit very

carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: Finally…. I think this is important because it may be the most

important answer to the member’s question.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: I have all day. The members only have 30 minutes.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you.

The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Sadly, this is an another example of a community having to monitor

the safety of its own drinking water, because they don’t actually trust

the government to do that, and that erosion of trust has been festering

for 16 years. There is a lot of work to be done to rebuild that trust.

Unfortunately, combining the excuse from the Ministry of Environment

that these creosoted timbers are inert with the plan to put a liner at

this site to stop any leaching exposes one of the contradictions that

too many communities in this province have had to deal with at the hands

of the Ministry of Environment for too long.

What will this Minister of Environment do to proactively rebuild

the trust of the people of B.C. in this ministry, which is long

overdue?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, Member, specifically on the issue in Campbell River,

I’ve directed staff in the ministry to review the current science and

practice of handling creosote-treated timber to directly address this

question.

I recently toured the Ministry of Environment buildings and met

with staff. I met some that, over my previous career, I represented for

over ten years. I know from talking to them that they want to do the job

they were hired for, and that’s to protect British Columbians’ air, land

and water. They are public servants, and they carried out their duties

under the direction and policies of the previous government of the day.

But they are eager for a change in direction. They’re cooperating in a

change of direction.

We are reviewing practices. We are reviewing policies. We are

going to review environmental assessments so that British Columbians

know that there’s an open, transparent process in partnership with First

Nations that will protect air, land and water while building good,

sustainable jobs in this province.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

FOR WILDFIRE LOSS

CASES

J. Tegart: We know this fire season has had a devastating effect on those in

central British Columbia. Some of the hardest hit have been in the

community of Pressy Lake. We learned a few days ago that this

government, when approached by victims of wildfire seeking information,

tells them to submit a freedom-of-information request instead of simply

providing the information asked for.

If that isn’t bad enough, we’ve now heard from victims, having

gone to the trouble of submitting an FOI request, that the government is

now intimidating them to withdraw those requests.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, through the Speaker: in the

theme of openness and transparency, can you explain to Heather Pederson

why she was asked to withdraw her FOI request regarding the destruction

of the property at Pressy Lake?

Hon. J. Sims: First, let me say, like every one of us in this room, our hearts

go out to all of those who have been impacted by the fires. This has

been a crazy season for fires. We know that there are many around this

province who are living this day in and day out.

Secondly, let me say that we are not going to take any lessons

from that government when it comes to freedom of information and how,

over the years, they have made that system opaque. It was win at all

costs. It was triple-delete. Let me assure the members that we are

expediting freedom-of-information requests.

[10:50 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Upon hearing media reports that their properties had been

destroyed, evacuees begged for information. They wanted answers. Surely

the government can understand that. Ms. Pederson has been told to submit

an FOI request if she wished to know what measures were taken to protect

her property, and she did just that. Since then, she’s been contacted

twice to withdraw her FOI request because it’s “difficult to obtain” and

“likely to be part of some sort of investigation.”

These people have hit rock bottom. Their homes are in ruins.

Livelihoods are gone. Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services commit

today to ending the intimidation and ensuring the residents of Pressy

Lake get the documents they need to understand exactly what

happened?

Hon. J. Sims: I will assure the member across the way that as soon as question

period finishes, I would like to meet with her so that we can go over

the information she has and then address it in an open and transparent

manner.

Let me assure every member that this government takes freedom of

information and access to that very, very seriously. We are a government

that is committed to open and transparent government in a timely manner,

and I am willing, as soon as this question period finishes, to sit down

with the member and address the issue and look at the

details.

J. Rustad: The Minister of Citizens’ Services wants to sit down and

understand the information she has. The problem is that the person, Ms.

Pederson, does not have the information. This is the whole point. You’re

requiring somebody who has gone through the trauma of losing their home,

of having to be evacuated, not knowing what’s going on, to have to

actually put in a freedom-of-information request.

It is completely unacceptable that she would have to go through

that type of treatment by this government. You have the power,

Minister…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Rustad: …through the Chair, to be able to stop this — stop the phone calls

— and get information. Will you today release the information that is

being requested instead of having to force these people to go through a

freedom-of-information request?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say that our hearts go out to those who are being impacted

by the fires, and let me reiterate as clearly as I can — and I’m hoping

it will be heard — that I want to sit down with the members across the

way if they have specific concerns and address them.

This is not an issue where we want to say…. Members across the

way…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …know that there isn’t one person in this House who does not

empathize and is not feeling the pain that British Columbians are

feeling as a result of these fires.

We want to get to solutions, and we can get to them when we sit

and talk. So come to my office, or I’ll come to yours, and let’s get

this sorted out.

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING

LEGISLATION

M. de Jong: Quite a week for the Premier. His government was found to have

abandoned or broken a number of key campaign pledges. He broke his

personal word to British Columbians that they would not have their basic

and fundamental right and freedom to decide who to financially support

in an election.

[10:55 a.m.]

They have had that fundamental right violated when the Premier

broke his word. No real explanation for the flip-flop, except this

remarkable game of political ping-pong between the NDP and the Green

Party, who still can’t seem to get their story straight about who was

responsible for this.

The Premier called it historic. Well, my question for the Premier

is twofold. When exactly did he come to the historic conclusion that he

would break his word to British Columbians that the government wouldn’t

dip into the taxpayers’ pocket to the tune of millions of dollars to

fund political parties, and will he, as we end the legislative week,

take this final opportunity to stand up and apologize to those British

Columbians, some of whom he ridiculed for doubting the sincerity of his

promise — apologize to them for breaking his word?

Hon. J. Horgan: I agree with the member; it has been quite a week. We’ve banned

union and corporate donations in British Columbia. We’ve passed a budget

that will put more money into classrooms so kids can get the education

they deserve. We’ve taken steps to cut in half the MSP premiums that

that side of the House doubled. We’ve put money back into the pockets of

people who travel and commute to work crossing the Port Mann and Golden

Ears bridges. We’ve said this week to children who are aging out of care

in British Columbia that there is hope for them by waiving tuition fees.

And we’re just getting started.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports of

the Representative for Children and Youth: Annual Report 2016-17 and

Service Plan 2017-18 to 2018-19 and Financial Statements

2016-17 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 2),

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 7, the Supply Act, be read a second time

now.

Existing appropriations provided by Supply Act, 2017 — that was

the first bill introduced, you’ll remember, in February — are expected

to be exhausted by September 30, 2017. Consistent with past practice,

Bill 7 extends interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations beyond that provided by Supply Act (No. 1), 2017, in

order to ensure the continuation of government services as the House

completes our estimates debate.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 7 extends ministry operation allocations for approximately

three months by increasing the 6/12 authorization provided by Supply Act

(No. 1), 2017, to 9/12 of voted amounts included in the estimates that

were tabled on September 11.

[11:00 a.m.]

Bill 7 also provides 9/12 of the combined vote amounts in

schedules C and D of the estimates that were tabled on September 11 for

disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and

other financial requirements, and an increase from the two-thirds

authorization which was provided in Supply Act (No. 1), 2017. Final

supply will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects all of

the sums that are voted on appropriations to be given to government in

the current fiscal year.

That ends my comments on second reading.

S. Bond: I thank the minister for her comments and an explanation of the

process. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, ever so briefly, on Bill

7, entitled the Supply Act.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this many members in the House for

the Supply Act, because it’s a pretty routine thing. So it’s great to

see you all here for this, for what is pretty much a routine bill. I

think the minister will be relieved to know that I don’t intend to

extend the discussion about this bill for a lengthy period of time. But

I think it is important for British Columbians to actually understand

the process. Often either members that are new here or people in the

general public don’t necessarily understand the budget process and what

happens.

On budget day, obviously, the focus is often on the budget speech

itself, but the minister at that time tables the estimates for the

coming year. Those estimates contain the fiscal plan and the priorities

of the government — including this new government. The members of the

Legislature then have a chance to review those estimates and to ask

those questions during Committee of Supply. It’s a very important

accountability process, and it is important for members of the official

opposition to be able to ask questions about the plans and the proposed

spending of the government.

Certainly, as a member who has been on the other side answering

questions for a long period of time, I know that people work very hard

to bring relevant, important questions. I know that sometimes there’s

the attempt to do the gotcha thing with the minister. I’ve been there,

done that. But interim supply actually does matter. It is a serious

matter. It is about authorizing the government to continue supporting

programs and services while the estimates are debated. Basically, it’s

to make sure that people can be paid, that the work that government does

can continue.

This bill will provide the government with authority to withdraw,

from the consolidated revenue fund, the amount necessary to cover the

costs and expenses incurred by the public service, pending the

completion of our estimates process, for the fiscal year ending March

31. Yesterday we saw the budget pass. I know that for the minister, it

will not come as a surprise to her — she is a seasoned veteran in this

place — that the official opposition and many British Columbians do have

questions about the plans and the priorities that are contained in the

budget update.

We know that this government did inherit one of the strongest

economies in the country and a track record of five balanced budgets in

a row. They also inherited a $2.7 billion surplus. That was confirmed by

the Auditor General. So you can imagine our concerns about the fact that

the first act this government took, in order to pay for the campaign

promises that are included in the budget update, was to raise taxes. We

can only speculate at this point that the new government may well be

forced to increase income taxes once again in February’s full budget.

But this time, who knows who that will impact?

I know that the minister knows and will be prepared. The official

opposition will certainly bring a great deal of vigour to the estimates

process, and we’ll be looking at the budget update with a significant

degree of scrutiny.

Yesterday the minister, in her closing remarks before the passing

of her first budget in this House, remarked on the fact that opposition

members were pointing out two things. The minister saw them as contrary

to one another, and I disagree with that. I just wanted to reflect on

the fact that the minister pointed out that our members had brought, to

their remarks, comments about aggressive spending and then about

promises missing from the budget update. She questioned how those two

things aligned.

[11:05 a.m.]

Well, here’s how. In essence, the concern is that the very first

budget update — while we see some of the key promises made by the new

government; they are captured in that budget — is built on the legacy of

a multi-billion-dollar surplus that is not guaranteed to continue in the

future. So we have aggressive spending, very little additional fiscal

room left for any other spending, and increased taxes to pay for those

initiatives. Add to that the other side of the equation: promises made

to British Columbians about key programs and service enhancements. No

sight of them in the budget.

While I’m sure the minister knows we will be supporting the

interim supply bill that’s before the House today so that government can

continue to operate, we are very much looking forward to some vigorous

discussion during the actual estimates process to pursue some of those

important questions.

Thank you to the minister. With that, I will end my remarks with

the support of this bill.

A. Weaver: As designated…. Oh, I’m not party status, yes.

I know members opposite are looking forward to a long and vigorous

debate about the Supply Act. I rise just briefly, obviously in support

of the Supply Act, to point out that, really, we shouldn’t have to be

doing this.

One of the problems with our system here in British Columbia is

that we go into an election after we have not passed a budget. So were

we to have elections in the fall, there would be no need for interim

supply acts to be brought to this Legislature for debate. We could go

into election campaigns with a full budget, the Supply Act in place,

with the people of British Columbia knowing what the books actually are,

not what opposition or what government say they would be.

So while I do support this and my colleagues and I will vote in

favour of this, it is troubling that we continue to have our elections

in the spring, bringing the need for such supply acts time and time

again. And I look forward, hopefully, sometime in the near future, for

us discussing and debating moving our fixed election date to the fall,

as was promised by the government.

With that, I won’t take up further debate time. Although a full

half-hour might be…. It’s hard to even think what to say, apart

from….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: More? My friends and colleagues would like me to speak more to the

Supply Act, but I’m at a loss for words.

With that, thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister to conclude

debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to members from the opposition and from the third party

for your comments. I, as well, look forward to a vigorous debate at

estimates.

Those people who have watched question period…. There are those

who think question period is the best part of the Legislature. I’m one

of those people who actually enjoy the estimates debate. I think it is

an opportunity for real questions and real answers to actually occur in

a very respectful approach. And it’s an opportunity to be able to make

sure the information is available for not only the opposition, who has

to hold government to account, but in fact for the public, which is the

reason we’re all here.

I think this bill moves us into the estimates process. It gives

the opportunity for members of the opposition and the third party to be

able to ask the questions that they want and for ministers to be

accountable for their spending, as we should be. I think that’s a very

important process.

Just to touch on the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s comments

about the change in date for the election — I look forward to a future

discussion on that issue as well. I think there are certainly many

people who feel that summer budgets and preparing budgets in the summer

when that occurs in an election year doesn’t provide the kind of

accountability that’s needed to be there. So I look forward to that

future conversation as well.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 7, the Supply Act (No.

2), 2017.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: By leave, I move that Bill 7 be referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration now.

Leave granted.

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 2),

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

Hon. C. James: I’d just like to introduce my staff, who are here for this brief

discussion that will occur. David Galbraith, the secretary to Treasury

Board, and Chris Skillings, the executive director in fiscal planning

and estimates. I look forward to any questions that may come forward

from the member across.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:11 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 2),

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), 2017, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Dix: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Polak: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House and respond to the Speech from

the Throne. I ask the forgiveness of all members in this House for the fact

that I just gave my budget response yesterday afternoon. There may be some

repetition that happens, but I’ll try to keep it interesting — not that we

ever repeat things in this House ever. I’m going to try. I’ll do my

best.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Maybe we’ll start here. I guess I look at this throne speech as one

that has a lot of potential, but a lot of missing pieces. In some cases,

those missing pieces leave me to speculate as to what might be the

underlying intent. What is it that we’re trying to get at? Where are we

trying to get to? That’s a bit of what I want to explore as I discuss the

throne speech that was delivered.

First, all the talk about affordability. Everybody these days talks

about affordability. My daughter just turned 30. She lives in downtown

Vancouver in a nice little apartment. But boy, oh boy, when she had to go

and look and find that, affordability was certainly a big topic.

[11:15 a.m.]

Affordability is a topic when you live south of the Fraser and have to

determine how you’re going to travel, whether it’s transit or vehicles.

Affordability is an issue for everyone. It’s an issue for government and

certainly one that we all heard loud and clear during the campaign leading

up to this past election.

There are two sides to affordability, in terms of how government can

respond. One is to spend the taxpayers’ money to try to relieve some of

those costs for families, for individuals. But the second piece is missing,

and the second piece is equally important. That is: how do you generate the

revenues so that you can then spend them to help with those very real

affordability issues?

I would argue that that’s really the fundamental question that faces

all governments all the time on every single issue. Every government wants

to be popular. Everyone knows that to be popular you give people the things

that they want. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, that’s part of democracy —

people sharing their ideas and seeing if they are popular enough to get them

elected.

But the balance also goes directly to affordability. If one takes the

foundations around affordability — as the throne speech describes these

initiatives — spending more taxpayers’ money to help people out with respect

to affordability, and doesn’t put in the second piece — generating revenues,

controlling spending, spending enough to help people but not so much that

you go into the hole…. If government doesn’t do the second thing, pretty

soon there’s another affordability issue, and that’s taxes.

There is no escaping this equation. It faces all governments all the

time on every issue. The first missing piece that I noticed in the throne

speech is that with all of the grand intentions that are outlined, there

isn’t an offsetting effort to talk about how spending will be managed so

that it doesn’t, in and of itself, become an affordability issue for

people.

Next, in terms of foundations, the throne speech talks about the very

important relationship with our First Nations. In fact, in the throne

speech, it is spoken of as a partnership. I’m always glad to hear

governments of any stripe speak this way about First Nations. I spent time

as a Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and over the

course of other ministries in which I served, I developed very strong and

long-lasting personal relationships with many First Nations

leaders.

I walked with them at ceremonies that tore my heart out — stories of

what had happened in First Nations families and in communities, the

destruction of their society. To hear that governments of any stripe are

willing and wanting to create that real relationship, create that

partnership, I applaud that. I always will. Again, another missing piece. It

is one thing to have those personal relationships, those firm beliefs that

we, as government, have to act differently with First Nations and that we,

as a whole, in our society have to treat First Nations differently. It’s

quite another to be able to accomplish it if what you are also doing is

creating the kind of uncertainty in our economy that sees investment

flee.

When you travel around and talk to First Nations leaders, what they

will tell you is that they’re tired of managing poverty — that what their

people need are good-paying jobs. What their people need is training so that

they can go to those jobs. All of this is dependent on making sure that the

British Columbia economy continues to thrive.

[11:20 a.m.]

Even if you train a wonderful First Nations young woman, like the one

I met in Prince Rupert when I travelled there…. You train her to be a

heavy-equipment operator. If mines are shutting down and if forestry is

having troubles and if oil and gas is not there to produce those kinds of

jobs, she will sit, with her training certificate, and not be able to

support her young family. Again, a missing piece. The intention is there; I

applaud the intention. But without the ability to provide jobs for these

people and an economy in their often small, rural communities, that promise,

I fear, will go unfulfilled.

One of the areas where this is most apparent is in the missing piece

around the move on carbon tax. Yesterday in my budget response, I spoke

about the problematic nature of removing the revenue-neutrality piece and

the potential which that had to being a risk to the economy. But I want to

go deeper into another element of this, and that is that there is a plan to

raise it, without an accompanying plan to ensure that emissions-intensive,

trade-exposed industries are somehow protected from the impact.

We think about the types of high-paying jobs that can be available in

small, rural First Nations communities around our province. What are they?

Well, guess what. For the most part, they are emissions-intensive,

trade-exposed industries. The climate leadership team — not the previous

government but the climate leadership team, in its recommendations, which

the current government claims to endorse wholeheartedly — made it very clear

that after a tremendous amount of analysis that they had

undertaken….

Remember, these were people advocating for a lift to the carbon tax.

They wanted to see the carbon tax rise. They, in their report, cautioned

that the carbon tax should not rise unless there was a plan to help support

emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries.

What did they predict? They predicted that if government raised the

carbon tax without doing that, those industries — those very ones we’ve been

talking about: mining, forestry, oil and gas — would be hard hit. Those

industries would see their costs rise. In some cases, especially when you

look at some of the commodity prices that industries like mining are

struggling with, it wouldn’t just raise their costs; it would put them out

of business, at a time when our industries are struggling.

Here’s another missing piece — one that they were told very clearly

about and one, if the government is to believed, they have read over and

over again. They’ve clearly adopted and studied the recommendations of the

climate leadership team, yet a missing piece in this throne

speech.

Consultation is a regular feature of the budget process in British

Columbia. I have served on many committees in this House. I’ve been

fortunate, or unfortunate, not to serve on the Finance and Government

Services Committee. I say that only because there is a tremendous amount of

travel involved, and those who have served on that committee over the years

are certainly to be commended for their stamina.

I know it’s a really, really tough job. But I also know that as the

committee travels around the province, they are going to hear far more

requests for funding than the government budget, any government budget,

could ever afford. It’s the nature of things. People come to that committee,

and they tell that committee what it is they want. Of course they do. We

expect them to.

In this throne speech, much is made of the consultation, the listening

— and then moving into: “We will take that. We will find solutions.” While I

don’t see evidence of it, as I spoke of earlier, in the throne speech, I

hope that the current government has the stamina to be able to evaluate the

requests and be ready to say no to some of them, be ready to tell people the

truth when it’s something that government can’t afford to do. Affordability,

as I’ve said, is an issue for government as well. I fear, however, that

there is an appetite for more spending that isn’t offset by increasing

revenues.

[11:25 a.m.]

In my budget speech, I talked a little bit about what’s happening on

the Port Mann Bridge. I won’t go into it in detail here, but it’s another

area where there’s a missing piece. The missing piece is: when you remove

all the tolls from the Port Mann Bridge, where is the plan for demand

management? The project, as it was originally constructed, didn’t just have

tolls on it in order to pay for the mortgage, if you will, on the bridge.

That wasn’t the only reason. There was a tremendous amount of analysis done

that showed that if you did not have a toll in place, some kind of a price

on it….

Certainly, our position had been to create a cap to ensure that those

who were travelling that route a lot were not overburdened. But the analysis

showed if you didn’t have some sort of toll on that bridge, you would not

accomplish demand management and, indeed, what would happen is that in a few

short years, you would be back to the same kind of traffic snarls that you

had before the new bridge was built. It’s inescapable. It’s in all the

reports.

The missing piece here is that while they have given with one hand in

terms of removing all the tolls, I can tell you, from hearing from

constituents in my riding and experiencing it myself, the moment that toll

came off, the world changed on the Port Mann Bridge. No longer could you be

pretty much assured of a 40- or 45-minute trip from Langley to downtown.

Those days are gone, and it’s going to get worse. I’m not saying that. The

analysis says that — that it’s going to get worse. I know it’s one of the

reasons that the members of the Green Party were not supportive of removing

those tolls.

I hope that they find a way to fill that missing piece and determine a

method. Obviously, they’re not interested in putting a toll on. But they’re

going to have to think of a plan for demand management, because pretty soon

those commuters who were excited about having the toll taken off are going

to be calling their offices to tell them how long their commute is now. Then

I think their joy will be short-lived.

Very quickly, as we evaluate the missing pieces, it becomes apparent

that the economy that the government wants to work for everyone is

potentially turning into an economy in which everyone pays through the

nose.

After the reannouncements and the potential for uncontrolled spending,

come some of what I call the spectres of things to come. Throughout the

throne speech, it is referred to as a foundation, and I understand that.

It’s a very short time period since the election. We’re at a point where

there isn’t a full budget. There’s a budget update. I understand that, that

this is a foundation and there are plans for further things to come. That

makes sense. However, we also see, if we take them at their word that this

is a foundation, some hints — I admit I’m speculating, but I think I’m

speculating on pretty safe ground and some pretty good information — of what

may be the future of this government’s activities.

Now, usually in the House, we’re the ones who bring up the 1990s.

That’s kind of the way of things here. So I was surprised when there were

things mentioned in the government’s throne speech that hinted back at the

1990s.

The first one I noticed was the fair wage commission. Why? Not because

there was a fair wage commission before or anything like that, but because

it reminded me of something else that perhaps this is the precursor to. It

reminded me of the fair wage policy.

The fair wage policy, for people who don’t recall, was a policy that

extended to all government capital projects and required that the workers be

paid at a certain rate, no matter what that contractor said they could do it

for. It was an arbitrary setting of what rates should be paid.

[11:30 a.m.]

The analysis at the time indicated that the policy arbitrarily

increased the cost of those projects — all the public-infrastructure-type

projects, schools, hospitals, roads and bridges — by 22 percent. I don’t

know if that’s what they’re planning to do, but it was interesting to me to

see those phrases come back. It makes me wonder. If this is a foundation,

what are they going to build on it, and what will it mean? What it meant,

back when it was brought in, was that everything went up so much in cost

that, in spite of some very ambitious capital plans that the then government

had, they ran out of money. They ran out of money.

That was evidenced by the fact that they had to put in place a full

capital freeze — a stop on every single government project that was under

construction, and even some that were in the midst of construction. I

remember seeing the equipment and machinery stop in mid-build at a

renovation at Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in Surrey. It wasn’t just

that they froze new projects going out the door. There were projects being

built and they had to stop, because they ran out of money.

I hope that this isn’t a foreshadowing of yet another method by which

they will increase costs and, in spite of the best of intentions, put

themselves in a position where they have to do that kind of thing

again.

We know, as well, that the minimum wage is an area that the fair wages

commission will look at. We know that there’s a commitment on the part of

this government to get to a $15-an-hour minimum wage. There again, the

missing pieces.

You can talk about raising a minimum wage as though it’s an idea out

there. In fact, surprising to me, when I talk to constituents, there are a

lot of people who think that the minimum wage is somehow paid for by

government or something like that. You have people…. If they’re not part of

a small business, if they’re not part of that world — understanding how

those things operate — some people actually don’t even realize that a

minimum wage rise affects the ability of small businesses to manage their

costs.

Now, it’s not that it shouldn’t be raised. But how fast? How much? My

fear, of course, is that — as a foundation in this document and judging by

the pressure coming from so many groups that are affiliated with the

government’s position — the commission will recommend that this move take

place much too quickly for small businesses to absorb.

Why is that important? Of course, it’s important for the businesses.

We want our small businesses to thrive. We want them to help maintain this

strong economy. It’s important for that reason. It’s also important for this

reason: a small business owner has only certain levers that they can control

so that they can manage their costs. If government raises the minimum wage

too rapidly, too high, that small business owner has only very few choices

to cut costs in other places.

We know from other jurisdictions that when the minimum wage is raised

too quickly and too high, it means job losses on the low end. It means the

very people that government is intending to help are often the ones who

suffer. They are the ones who end up getting put out of work, because it

raises the cost of employment all through the different pay

scales.

So I hope that the thoughtful approach is maintained, where there is a

gradual rise that businesses are able to absorb without having to put people

out of work.

Another kind of — I don’t know, I guess — blast from the past that

occurred to me, listening to the throne speech, was all the language about

post-secondary and affordability. I hope it’s not true, but I fear…. When

the throne speech talks about doing more things — beyond what they’ve

already begun — to make advanced education affordable, I fear they may go

back to an old script. They may go back to the old script of a tuition

freeze.

[11:35 a.m.]

What a tuition freeze meant was that institutions were starved for

funding. That had an impact on costs for students, because students had to

take, most often, an additional year to complete their degrees — and that

was if they could get a course. Tuition is a natural part of funding

advanced education. Now, perhaps, they would do that and then inject more

taxpayers’ money, from government, into advanced education to offset that,

but they didn’t last time. I hope that that isn’t the foundation that

they’re building here, with respect to advanced education. It was not

pleasant the first time around, and I hope it’s not where they’re

headed.

Transit is another theme that the current government is interested in

pursuing. Having been Transportation Minister, I wish them all the best. It

is a very complicated matter to deal with, especially with the interests of

the Mayors Council and the kind of transit infrastructure that they want to

see, and all the questions around how to pay for it. Even the public has

mixed views as to how one ought to pay for transit.

But there is a question that the minister and the government are going

to have to deal with fairly quickly, and it’s based on this foundation that

they’ve talked about. They have talked about fully endorsing the Mayors

Council’s plans. There’s certainly a lot of spending there that’s going to

be involved. They have been on record in the past as supporting the idea of

the provincial government kicking in more money for transit in order to

accomplish those goals and, certainly, have not been supportive of some of

the efforts that the previous government took to try and achieve funding

from the mayors in those communities, or their communities

themselves.

So here’s the inevitable brick wall that the minister will run into,

that the government will run into, and I’m concerned about how they might

address it. It’s an area of fairness and equity. It’s one that I hope they

are going to take very seriously. Currently, outside of Metro Vancouver,

communities pay for a third of their transit and they pay 40 percent in a

hospital capital tax for health care facilities that are built in their

area.

Now, why does this come about here? Why is it important to me now?

Well, another trip down memory lane. There were people who are here now, in

this House, who were part of the grand bargain that was struck with

municipalities in what is now Metro Vancouver. That grand bargain was that

they would be given a break. They wouldn’t have to pay. Their communities

would not have to pay the 40 percent of hospital capital tax on health care

facilities in their area if they would pay their share of transit out of

property taxes.

It wasn’t a bad idea, I guess. Sometimes you guys have good ideas.

That was to leave room in the property tax space for them to charge property

taxes to pay for transit.

What happened? Well, they kind of used up that room with other stuff.

That’s fine. They make choices. They’re elected. They make choices. But now,

as we move forward, if that bargain, if that deal no longer functions, if

that doesn’t work anymore, that’s fine. I can accept that. But what do you

say then to communities outside of the Lower Mainland when you let the Lower

Mainland communities off the hook for that? I’m not sure what you say to

them.

Now, maybe there’s something else to construct. I think there are

other ways to do it, but you’re going to have to square that circle some

way. Either it means that when you give the additional provincial moneys to

Metro Vancouver, you’re going to tell them: “Well, okay. We’re giving you

this money, but now you’re going to have to pay for your 40 percent hospital

capital tax.” Or you’re going to have to have a pretty serious conversation

with the rural communities to explain how you’re going to make it fair for

them.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, a missing piece — lots of money to put out the door from

taxpayers from the provincial government, not a lot of answers about how all

these other pieces are going to fit. We’re going to have to wait till

February to hear how this story continues, what the next

chapter will be.

I’ve certainly outlined some of my concerns and some of the things that I

think are missing from the throne speech.

I want to finish, though, with something that is related to both the

budget and the throne speech. It was just a comment at the end of the

comments of the Minister of Finance at the end of closing debate yesterday.

It just struck me, and I got it pulled from Hansard , because I

think it’s instructive as to how this government sees itself and its

role.

She said the following. She talked about investments in the economy

and jobs and how on our side, in discussing the budget, we had continued to

say that they didn’t have plan for the economy and jobs. She pointed out

that this was actually a difference between that side and this side. Here’s

what she said. She said: “We will do that…by investing in the very citizens

who helped build that strong economy.” It’s clear, if anybody wants to read

the comments in full, that when she talks about investing in those very

citizens, she’s talking about increased investment in programs and in

services.

Well, I will end by saying that I think she’s right that this is the

big difference. What we recognize on this side of the House is that in order

to invest in the very citizens who helped build our strong economy, you

actually have to take initiatives directly to build that economy and the

jobs. That has to come before you have the funds to invest directly in

services for people.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome 34 students from the University of Victoria’s

Gustavson School of Business who are in the gallery today, along with their

instructor, John Oldale, from the University of Victoria. Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a pleasure to be standing here and responding to the throne

speech. I have to say, after 12 years and into my fourth term, it is a true

pleasure, a real pleasure to be speaking about a platform, a plan, an agenda

for people of B.C. — a plan that will really build a better B.C. for

everyone.

It’s really exciting. I think it’s hard for people who haven’t been in

here to quite gauge that sense of anticipation. To have heard the speech

given by the Lieutenant-Governor — followed, a couple of days later, by the

budget from the Minister of Finance…. It was a real joy and a privilege to

hear the values and ideas that we, now on this side of the House, have

cherished and continue to cherish and continue to work for, which is working

for every single person in British Columbia — working on questions of

affordability, on making sure that the services they expect are working for

them, that the services provided by the government are there for them.

Whether it is on the environment, whether it is on health care, whether it

is education or whether it is post-secondary, it is there for

people.

To make sure and to encourage a truly strong, sustainable economy, one

that will take British Columbia not back in time, but will set us on a path

for future development — it’s a joy to be able to talk about

that.

Before I get into the details…. This is a debate, and I have to raise

a couple of issues with the previous speaker, the member for Langley, who

formerly had a fair number of roles when she was in government, including

the job that I have at the moment: Minister of Transportation. She had

Minister of Environment. She had a number of roles, so she understands quite

a lot about what government is about. But she clearly doesn’t understand

what the effects of 16 years of her government did to British Columbia. It

is quite clear that she has…. I think this is true for everyone on that side

of House. They haven’t actually realized yet the impact of 16 years of their

government.

[11:45 a.m.]

I just wanted to pick up a couple of points that she raised — one

about my ministry and our decision to make life affordable for people in the

Lower Mainland by removing tolls for the Port Mann and the Golden Ears

bridges, meaning that people can save about $1,500 a year for a family.

Trucking companies can save more than $4,000 a year, which comes back to us,

the consumers, the people of British Columbia, saving money.

What she forgot when she talked about how it might be something about

demand management was the fact that we have the tolls to pay for the bridge,

the bridge that was an extraordinarily inflated price thanks to, when they

were in government, their gross mismanagement of the Port Mann project. It

was a complete failure and ended up costing everyone a huge amount of

money.

The other area that the former minister talked about that I would just

like to pick up on is the investment in the economy. We are all committed to

invest in our economy. What is different is that we are committed to invest

in all our economy, right across the province — not just selected people,

not just those who are friends of the government, but everyone.

So the member talked about wanting to provide jobs in small, rural

communities. Well, as a result of the former government’s actions — 16 years

of inaction in forestry — a small company, an important company in the North

Island, has closed its doors after 90 years — 90 years, almost a century in

business. W.D. Moore Logging had to shut up shop in Winter Harbour as a

direct result of the actions and inactions of what that side of the House

did, when they were in government, in our forestry sector.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is why I’m so proud of what we’re going to be doing. We’re going

to be working on behalf of everybody, whether they are a small logging

contractor, whether they are somebody living in an urban environment,

whether they are living in an island community or in the north of the

province. We’re going to be working for everyone.

I’ve got to say that I find it very exciting, how much you can do in

such a short time. We’ve been in government for just two months. The list of

achievements is…. Really, I think if people stop to take it in, it surprises

them. Everything from taking off the cost of adult basic education, which is

going to have a huge impact…. We’re already seeing it in my constituency. In

my community in Campbell River, the Robron Centre is now opening its doors

and able to provide adult basic education free to people who need it, who

need that upgrading so they can participate fully in our economy, in our

society.

Whether it’s looking at — what for some reason has become a

controversy this week — the fact that we are going to take big money out of

politics…. We are banning corporate and union donations. We are going to

make our democratic system, our parliamentary system, work for people, work

for those people who rely on what we provide, by making it transparent,

making it clear.

We have announced money going into housing — again, right across the

province. My constituency…. Like everyone, I’m extraordinarily proud of my

constituency and very humbled to be representing it and to have been elected

for four terms now.

I look at my constituency as a sort of a microcosm of British

Columbia, with Campbell River as the main centre. It’s a city of about

30,000 people, and it’s got a huge amount of good things. It has a new

hospital that we are opening, and it has some industry — a lot less, thanks

to 16 years of the B.C. Liberals in power. But it is a city that is changing

its direction, changing its economic focus now. It has to, because it had

two mills. Both have had to shut, since we’re still living with the impact

of the forestry decisions by the former B.C. Liberal government.

Then we have large rural areas. They’ve got small communities. After

Campbell River, there is no community with more than 5,000 population in my

constituency, which is the top half of Vancouver Island. The islands that go

up on the east side of Vancouver Island — that whole archipelago of the

northern Discovery Islands, right up to Alert Bay — and then up into the

mainland. In fact, if you look at a map, we actually have part of Tweedsmuir

Park in my constituency. So up into the inlets, into the mainland where we

have remote First Nations communities — Kingcome Inlet and

others.

It’s a challenging riding. It’s obviously very exciting to travel

around. It’s challenging, but it reflects what B.C. is like. It reflects the

urban issues; it reflects the rural issues.

[11:50 a.m.]

As that, I can see the need that we have in our province, the need

that has been neglected for 16 years and that this government is going to be

acting on. We are looking at investing in our infrastructure. As the

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I’m extraordinarily pleased

about this. We’ve already started acting on it. As I say, we’ve removed the

tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and on the Golden Ears Bridge.

People in my own constituency look at me and say: “Yes, and? So what

does that mean?” It means that if we can get people living and working in an

affordable way, with services working in the Lower Mainland, it’s going to

benefit the rest of the province. Likewise, getting people working in the

rest of the province, making sure that our forest sector works, making sure

that our communities are connected, is going to benefit everybody in the

Lower Mainland.

We are a connected province. It is false and dangerous to create this

urban-rural divide. I think that the opposition is trying very hard to make

that a case. “Oh, you’re just urbanites. You have no sense of what rural

life is. You really don’t know what rural people need.”

There are a number of members on this side of the House, on the

government side of the House, who do represent rural areas, myself among

them. I know the difficulties that people in rural communities face in

trying to ensure that they are…. Dealing with distance from services,

services that were taken out of their community by the B.C. Liberals when

they were in government. The problems they have in accessing health care

because health care was pulled back under that government. The problems

their kids have in getting to university, getting a good quality education.

That’s why I’m so proud of our government investing immediately in getting

thousands of teachers back into the classroom.

Our government is just starting. We are anticipating four years of

being able to chart a direction for everyone in British Columbia. A full

budget will be coming next year. This is really just a highlight of what we

can do, of the opportunities that we can give to people to make sure that

their life is going to be affordable, that they can invest in their

communities, that they….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s very interesting. The opposition is heckling about actions that

we’ve taken in just two months which are going to have more impact on the

people of British Columbia and lay a better foundation for the future of

everyone in British Columbia than the 16 years of the B.C. Liberals in

charge.

I’m very proud that we are now government. The Premier has laid down a

vision for the future. The Finance Minister has shown how we’re going to pay

for it. We’ll continue to engage with people and make sure that we are

delivering the services that people need, that people can live in an

affordable way and get the services they need and that we do truly have a

vibrant economy for the future.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place in the speaking

order for when we resume the throne speech. I would like to adjourn

debate.

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

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