Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, February 24, 2020

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 312

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Condominium crisis

J. Thornthwaite

B. Ma

Child care

R. Leonard

L. Throness

Aboriginal rights and title

E. Ross

N. Simons

MSP

R. Glumac

N. Letnick

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 2 — Forest industry and land base

J. Rustad

J. Brar

D. Barnett

R. Kahlon

D. Clovechok

D. Routley

M. Stilwell

J. Sims

P. Milobar

M. Elmore

M. Bernier

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2020

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Brar.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CONDOMINIUM CRISIS

J. Thornthwaite: Today I rise to speak about a growing issue in British Columbia,

that of the massive spikes in strata insurance premiums and deductibles

that are hurting people across Metro Vancouver.

[10:05 a.m.]

If this issue continues to go unaddressed, it will have

potentially devastating effects on the people of British Columbia. It

started as a few isolated cases of strata buildings being unable to

renew their insurance. We now understand that it is, in fact, a looming

crisis. Anyone who lives in a condo, townhouse or duplex is at risk and,

in particular, those in Metro Vancouver, where affordability is already

such a significant problem.

As a townhouse owner myself, this hits me very close to home, and

I’m sure that I’m not the only one in this room who that is the case

for. Now, we are not just talking about seeing premiums increase by a

few dollars. Strata councils are in crisis because they’re seeing their

bills increase by as much as 400 percent, which is absolutely

staggering.

In addition to premiums rising, deductibles are increasing too.

These increases can look like $25,000 to $500,000 per claim, or in one

case, $750,000 for water-related losses. Of course, these costs are then

passed on to homeowners and residents.

Asifa Lalji is a condo owner in New Westminster, and she describes

the situation facing her building, in an interview with the New West

Record , saying: “We thought we were going to get a 40 percent

increase in our insurance for our building, which would then translate

to an increase in our maintenance fees. Then January rolled around, and

we found out that instead of 40 percent…it was actually a 300 percent

increase.”

For this owner, that means the difference between fees of $480 a

month to $600 a month. Such significant increases could end up costing

residents thousands of dollars per year. Asifa says that she is worried

about the impacts of these fee increases on residents who are on fixed

incomes or those who are already struggling to make ends meet due to the

cost of living in British Columbia.

She continued: “Having a hit like that — where does the money come

from? You dip into your savings. You dip into your home equity lines.

There is no fiscally responsible way to cover these costs. What do you

do when all of a sudden you have a $150 or $200 increase to your living

expenses every month?”

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

In addition to affecting current residents of these buildings, the

crisis is also affecting those who are interested in buying homes. Some

strata buildings have been turned down altogether when they have sought

to renew their insurance. There have been 11 such cases reported

recently.

This becomes a problem for homebuyers and those looking to sell

their homes, because banks won’t finance uninsured buildings, so

prospective buyers are unable to afford new homes, and the deals fall

through. This was the case for Zafar Khan in Cloverdale. He had an offer

on his condo, and the deal was set to close on February 3. Then at the

very last minute, it fell apart when the buyer pulled out of the sale

because the strata couldn’t renew its insurance. Prospective buyers and

those who might not be able to afford newly raised fees have little in

terms of options.

We already know that the ten-year housing plan of this government

is actually a 100-year plan, as they fall farther and farther behind

their goals. Of the 114,000 housing units that the government promised

to build, after nearly three years, just over 2,400 have been built. The

only true way to deal with housing affordability is to provide greater

supply, and the government is failing at this. At this time, they are

not being upfront with British Columbians about the situations. They

continue to promise tens of thousands of new units, yet this year’s

budget shows that housing starts are projected to decline by 22

percent.

Deputy Speaker: Just cautioning the member that these remarks should be largely

non-partisan.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government also told the people of B.C. that they would

improve vacancy rates, and instead, they’re 0.1 percent, the lowest in

the country.

These realities leave little options open to those who are now

faced with the growing crisis in strata insurance. As the situation has

steadily worsened over the last few weeks, people who are at risk, those

who worry that they won’t be able to afford new fees and those who want

to buy a new home and those who want to sell their property are waiting

for some kind of solution.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. Member.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, you’ve cautioned the member against making partisan

remarks, and she is not adhering to your comments. I think that requires

further rebuke.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, please, Member, in light of the remarks you’ve

heard.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. I’ll finish up what I just said, because I got interrupted.

These people are unable to afford new fees. Those who want to buy a new

home and those who want to sell their property are waiting for some kind

of solution, but none is being offered.

[10:10 a.m.]

B. Ma: I want to start, first off, by thanking the member opposite for

raising this important issue. I think that she has expressed a number of

concerns very well, and I see the same concerns being raised in my

community.

I’m also very grateful to the many community members who have been

speaking with me over the last few months about this and keeping me in

the loop about their efforts to try to renew strata insurance premiums

and how that’s been impacting their buildings. I absolutely agree. It is

an incredibly serious, concerning problem.

As soon as the first handful of complaints came to my attention

late last year — and they came in quick succession of one another — I

was in the ministers’ offices flagging the concern, asking questions,

searching for solutions. I’m incredibly grateful that I had the ability

to reach out directly to ministers to discuss these issues so that they

could begin looking into them in late 2019, rather than having to wait

until the House sat again in February to raise the issue, and so that we

could immediately start looking into it.

We’ve learned several important things. First off, we’ve learned

that the rising cost of insurance is an issue that strata corporations

are facing across Canada and all over the world. Climate change and the

increase in weather-related incidents have been having a direct impact

on the cost of insurance all over the globe and here in B.C.

Here especially, in B.C., higher real estate prices and

construction costs have contributed to a surge in the cost of insurance

coverage. Further, stratas that have not reduced the possibility of

insurance claims by having depreciation reports and following

preventative maintenance programs are more likely to be

impacted.

All of this came to a head when the global insurance marketplace,

overseen by Lloyds of London, took what they called firm action,

resulting in eight syndicates pulling out of the market and sending

rates skyrocketing. Regardless of the reasons, it continues to be a

serious concern.

Condo buildings in my riding are also being hit with high fees or

fears of being unable to find insurance. I’m extremely concerned about

what might happen to people if this issue isn’t resolved.

While the Strata Act, which requires strata buildings to have

insurance, is legislation that is managed provincially, it is the

federal government that bears responsibility for regulating private

insurance markets. Nevertheless, we’ve asked the British Columbia

Financial Services Authority to investigate the situation and ensure

that we are doing everything we can to financially protect British

Columbians.

As a private insurance market, the rates are set by private

companies. We encourage all stratas that are having difficulties getting

insurance coverage to contact the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which,

ironically, is also in the midst of a campaign to fully privatize auto

insurance in B.C.

ICBC was created in B.C. following similar problems in the private

auto insurance market back in the 1960s and ’70s. Despite having roughly

175 private insurance companies operating in B.C., rates were sky high

for certain types of drivers, and many couldn’t get insurance at all,

leading to roughly one-third of all cars on B.C.’s roads operating

without any insurance at all. A huge public safety hazard.

It’s clear that there are certain markets the private insurance

industry just isn’t suited to serve the public in. Unfortunately, after

operating for several decades to resolve that problem, ICBC itself

became a problem, under the previous government, when it was run into

the ground. It’s extremely frustrating to me.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, please restrain yourself from partisan comments.

Thank you.

B. Ma: Absolutely. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I wonder whether some kind of public insurance could have been a

solution to this serious problem with condo insurance in the market if

we weren’t still trying to get ICBC to work for people again in the auto

market. There are certainly, I know, many condo owners asking the same

question.

I honestly don’t know what the right solution is in this case, but

it will undoubtedly need to involve the federal government. This is a

serious issue for B.C., but it is not a B.C.-only issue.

Of course, I recognize, also, that the members opposite believe

strongly in the free market and are opposed to government intervention.

I value their perspectives, even if I disagree, because it helps all of

us to make better policy decisions when a variety of views is

considered. So I look forward to hearing what kinds of solutions the

member opposite offers. It will be important that we all work together

to resolve what appears to be a failure by the private market to work

for people.

[10:15 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to thank the member opposite for her comments on this

urgent issue. However, I would remind the other side that, regardless,

the government is doing nothing to help these people and the rising fear

that is resulting from the situation. The government has said that they

are going to monitor the issue. In a full-fledged crisis, that simply

isn’t good enough.

I would also like to point out that it is not only those of us on

this side of the House that are saying that it is a very big deal.

Experts and those who are experiencing it firsthand are themselves

describing it in startling terms. Strata president Bruce Campbell spoke

of the situation with the Vancouver Sun , saying: “I’d describe

it as a crisis. There’s no other way around it.”

This should inspire action from the government. It should not be

used as an opportunity to blame factors out of their control. Rather, it

should be the time to focus on those things that the government does

have control of. It should be a time of listening to the thousands of

people across the Lower Mainland who are expressing their concerns,

those who are afraid of being suddenly unable to pay their bills or buy

the home they have been saving for, for years.

This is an issue that affects nearly half of the households in

Metro Vancouver. In the whole of B.C., there are 30,000 strata

corporations, and the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C.

estimates that 2,000 renew their insurance every month. As long as the

government fails to respond to this crisis, it is only going to get

worse, and as is demonstrated by those statistics, the effects of a

worsening crisis are going to be incredibly far-reaching.

It’s time to take action. It’s time to do more for those who are

caught up in this difficult situation. I hope that all members of this

House will take notice.

CHILD CARE

R. Leonard: This past Friday I was wonderfully rejuvenated by a visit to a

high-quality, affordable child care centre in Courtenay-Comox. Outside

the over-threes were playing under the careful supervision of ECEs —

that’s early childhood educators — and support staff. The kids were

having a lot of fun, and there was lots of physical activity and lots of

imagination.

Inside it was snack time for the infants and toddlers. I was

snuggling a giggling baby who was working on his snack, which was peas.

He almost pulled my hair off. Another toddler, I learned, had just come

off a feeding tube and was learning to eat food by mouth. He was

relishing it. I was so impressed that this was a place where, through

such a delicate transition, parents could leave their vulnerable child,

leaving confident that they are well cared for and safe.

I compare that to my own experience with child care many decades

ago. I had done some contract work at home while our first-born was an

infant. Eventually I was ready to dive back into the workforce before I

was obsolete in my field. I could only find a space in an unlicensed

home daycare.

Now, parents don’t have to pass any test before they have kids,

and we know that kids don’t arrive with instructions. But we do expect

our children to be safe, to have their needs met and, yes, even to be

nurtured when we leave them with a caregiver. When I learned my child

had been spanked by her caregiver for a toileting accident, I felt that

I had failed her. My trust in the caregiver was crushed, and with no

other child care alternatives in sight, I decided to stay home and not

risk our daughter’s safety and security.

Fortunately, I had a spouse, and I had a spouse who had a good

unionized job. Though the budget was tight, we survived. That’s not

everyone’s case. But years outside the workforce take their toll on a

career. Not only was I not earning a paycheque or building up a pension,

I was also losing confidence. Without a job, I wasn’t keeping up to

date. So like many other mothers, I shifted into new endeavours,

starting at the bottom once again. All because of a lack of safe,

affordable, quality child care.

[10:20 a.m.]

The state of the child care system in British Columbia has been….

Well, there’s been very little system. A poorly supported patchwork

showed that child care was simply not a priority of the previous

government. Instead of opening doors to see women being a part of a

prosperous economy, the opposition critic has consistently stated that

moms or dads should be 24-7 child care providers.

This sentiment bears out by the lack of supports for our child

care system our government inherited. As the Minister of State for Child

Care has noted, funding for providers was limited; subsidies for

families were tough to access, with low return; and there’s been a dire

lack of affordable, quality child care spaces.

Our government has made child care a priority. We’re replacing a

fragmented system that failed too many children and families and choked

the full potential of our growing economy by keeping one parent, mostly

mothers, out of the workforce and even on social assistance.

We’re replacing it with a robust, universal child care system,

thanks to the dedicated work of the Minister of Children and Family

Development and a minister of state who’s solely focused on child care.

People are beginning to feel the positive effects of Childcare B.C.’s

three-year, $1.3 billion plan. It is addressing education, recruitment

and retention of early childhood educators with 620 more learning spaces

and flexible learning schedules so workers can upgrade their skills

while continuing to provide the child care that families so desperately

need.

So far, 5,400 ECE bursaries have been provided, and 11,000 ECEs

have had a wage lift. The plan is addressing costs with start-up grants

for providers who move to become licensed. Licensing improves the

quality of service, and families can feel more confident with enhanced

safety and improved accountability from child care providers, something

I could have used.

Capital grants to local governments and school boards, NGOs and

private facilities are helping with upgrading and building more

affordable spaces — over 10,400 approved to date.

The fee reduction initiative is benefiting up to 50,000 families,

regardless of family income, and the affordable child care benefit helps

families with incomes up to $111,000 a year. So 27,000 are paying $10 a

day or less. Families with incomes of $45,000 are not having to pay

anything at all.

Thirty-five percent of parents rely on relatives so they can go to

work. The B.C. affordable child care benefit provides up to $394 per

month when grannies and aunties, who don’t live in the child’s home,

care for their children. Combined, the fee reduction and affordable

child care benefit can save many families more than $19,000 per

year.

Once upon a time, long ago, I had the privilege of working for a

non-profit on a project in partnership with the institute for health

promotion research at UBC. We talked about the concept of diffusion of

innovation. Innovation is not easily embraced by most people or

institutions. One way to move toward universal adoption is to

demonstrate advantages, tweak to fit unique circumstances and work out

unintended consequences, all by way of small pilot projects.

So it is how we are exploring universal, affordable child care,

beginning with 2,500 spaces at prototype child care centres across our

diverse province, where parents pay no more than $200 a month. We’re

working towards the successful adoption of a universal child care system

where everyone is a winner.

The child care centre I visited on Friday is celebrating its 50th

anniversary this year. It is now one of the prototype centres. After

decades of struggle for support for the centre and for families,

providers and families are liking the changes we’ve introduced in the

last 2½ years.

Providing for accessible, affordable, quality child care is not a

gift. Our government recognizes that it works to close the income

inequality between men and women and open doors for tens of thousands of

workers that will help to build a sustainable and prosperous British

Columbia.

L. Throness: I do appreciate the remarks of the member opposite.

The former government is really very proud of its support for

child care over the years. I would point out that according to the

government’s own figures, 3,400 new child care spaces per year were

created between 2004 and 2017. We began all-day kindergarten for

five-year-olds. We began StrongStart, the early learning program. The

former government has done a great deal for child care.

[10:25 a.m.]

The present government likes to make strong claims. I’d like to

examine a couple of those claims in a very factual way.

The member spoke about universal child care, but here’s what the

throne speech said two weeks ago about universal child care. “This

government brought forward…a universal child care plan to provide

affordable quality care to every family that needs it.” The government

had promised in their 2017 election platform that every family that

wants or needs it would receive child care.

I would quote again from their budget in 2018. It laid out a plan

for universal child care that is affordable and available for any family

that wants or needs it. That was echoed again in the Canada–B.C. early

learning and child care agreement, which is a legal agreement signed by

both federal and provincial ministers. They had committed in writing to

the federal government that they would subsidize child care for every

parent who wants or needs it, but two weeks ago, in the throne speech,

they abandoned that course and reversed it when they confined their

program to need.

If it’s only about need, it’s no longer universal. Gone is any

idea that a family that wants subsidized child care should receive it,

and parents should be aware of this.

So it’s not universal anymore. I guess the government found out

that it would cost too much, but there are implications to this new

direction in the throne speech. For the first move, the government

should stop giving fee reduction initiative subsidies to millionaires,

because right now, fee reductions are universal for every family,

whether they need it or not.

In this way, the government is, right now, actually giving

millions to upper-income families, money that is no longer available to

lower-income families, which, I would suggest, is morally indefensible,

according to the government’s own philosophy. Unfortunately, the budget

last week said nothing of it. But the government needs to be consistent.

If child care is on the basis of need, then the programs need to be

brought into line with the criteria of need.

The next thing I want to examine is the new spaces child care fund

and the start-up fund, which are two funds the government uses to create

incremental new spaces. The claim that was made last fall was that

10,400 new, incremental child care spaces were made in the last two

years. But the Minister of State for Child Care then sent out a

clarification to the press that after two years of trying, only 2,055 of

those spaces were actually open and working. In other words, 80 percent

of those spaces have one little problem. There are no children in them

and no workers staffing them, because they aren’t open.

I can add something that was given by freedom of information. In

the start-up fund, 1,178 spaces were supposedly created. This helps

previously unlicensed providers to get licensed, but the

freedom-of-information request told us that half of them are not new at

all, because they were operating before as unlicensed spaces — meaning

they are converted spaces, not created ones. So after two years of

government programs doling out really vast amounts of money, only 1,466

working spaces have been created, 14 percent of the 10,400 spaces

claimed.

Why aren’t the spaces operating? It’s because providers can’t find

staff. But although the budget will increase spending on child care by

$88 million in the coming year, to the magnificent sum of $675 million,

there wasn’t a penny extra in the budget to solve this enormous problem.

All together, the government will spend 4 percent of its child care

budget in this year on its biggest problem, the shortage of

labour.

In the three budgets of this government, it will spend nearly $1.7

billion on child care alone, and it cannot open more than 1,500 new,

incremental spaces or find enough workers to staff them. This is

mismanagement, in my view, on an epic scale. The government’s program is

not delivering for parents. When they find out, they will be really

unhappy, and the opposition and the people of B.C. will soon be able to

hold them accountable for it.

R. Leonard: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. I’d like to

acknowledge that we have actually accomplished a lot, and we know that

there’s still much more to do.

I’d like to share a few expressions of support for our

government’s work to create accessible, affordable, quality child care —

from women who recognize the opportunities a better child care system

has created for them to grow careers and have better family life with

their children.

[10:30 a.m.]

Natasha and John have twins. Natasha is a social worker. She’s the

primary caregiver, in part because she earns less than her spouse, but

also because her boys are her top priority, especially during their

early years. But she also wants to work to keep current, build her

skills and maintain her job security. They went through a roller-coaster

when she went back into the workforce after her maternity leave, finding

a child care provider they could trust. They wanted trained ECEs,

criminal record checks. They wanted the boys to feel safe and happy.

They started with a shared nanny and wait-lists for licensed care, then

cobbled together one day here, one day there.

Today, thanks to the prototype child care centre, she’s working

part-time and loving her mommy days with the boys. John has the freedom

to focus and grow his business. They can afford to build up the boys’

education savings and are even saving to buy a travel

trailer.

Then there’s Kimberly, a child psychologist at CYMH, which is

child and youth mental health. She’s grateful her two children are

finally in newly opened child care spaces at SFU after two years of

being on wait-lists. We know just how in demand child psychologists are.

On finally being able to return to work so the children she serves get

the help they need, Kimberly says: “It’s a win-win for

everyone.”

For single moms like Sarah, the affordable child care benefit has

given her the financial freedom to go back to school, to retrain for a

new profession. On Friday, I met a longtime early childhood educator

whose daughter grew up to follow in her mother’s footsteps as an ECE and

is now pursuing a degree in social development.

Another described how there are three generations of women in her

family, all with careers working with children. These working women

obviously take pride in their work as ECEs, and the tide is turning as

we recognize the value they bring to our economy.

By bringing fees down for parents, building more licensed spaces

and working to increase the number of qualified early childhood

educators while better supporting those already working in the field, we

are taking the first important steps towards universal child care. In

doing so, we’re going a long way to creating a more fair and equitable

society.

Women deliver the next generation. They deserve to share in the

prosperity of this province.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the member for Skeena.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TITLE

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First time I’ve said that — “Thank you,

Mr. Speaker” — to you. Welcome to the chair.

I’ve listened to people in this House talk about hereditary chiefs

having jurisdiction because they were the plaintiffs in a court case

named Delgamuukw, which was just one of the landmark court cases that

were decided in the Supreme Court of Canada. I read the principles of

Delgamuukw, and I never saw this principle that elected chief

councillors were only restricted to on-reserve issues and vice versa in

terms of hereditary chiefs.

But let’s take this logic for a second, and let’s say this logic

is true. Everybody knows another landmark court case called Haida, the

Haida court case that was decided in 2004. First Nations won this court

case, but nobody really knows that my band, the Haisla council, elected

chief and council, intervened in that court case. We argued one of the

relevant points, and we won.

So using this logic, does this mean that the Crown has to consult

and accommodate elected chief councillors only? That’s silly, because

court cases do not decide on jurisdictional representation. They decide

on principles that all First Nations can utilize, especially when you’re

dealing with Aboriginal rights and title, and especially when you’re

dealing with the infringements of Aboriginal rights and title under

section 35 of the constitution.

There’s another principle that people fail to mention. It’s the

idea of jurisdictional representation, and it actually contradicts what

people are saying about the hereditary chiefs having jurisdiction over

Crown lands or rights and title. It doesn’t make any sense, because in

these court cases, it’s been established that Aboriginal rights and

title is a communal right. It belongs to the community. It doesn’t

belong to the elected chief and council. It doesn’t belong to hereditary

chiefs. It doesn’t belong to individuals. It doesn’t belong to any

special interest groups. It belongs to the community in

question.

It only stands to reason, then, that the community should be able

to decide who represents them in their Aboriginal rights and title

issues. In most cases, First Nation communities have been comfortable

with their leadership structure. It’s never become an issue, especially

in the last 14 years, 15 years, when we’ve been dealing with Aboriginal

rights and title successfully, not just in LNG pipelines but in

forestry.

[10:35 a.m.]

Peace in the woods was actually established 12 years ago when the

B.C. government established forest and range agreements. That was the

result of Aboriginal rights and title case law.

There are countless numbers of agreements between First Nations

proponents and governments that address all areas: mining, tourism,

forestry, LNG pipelines, Trans Mountain. Aboriginal rights and title is

serious business, and it should be treated like that. Not only does it

define our roles as First Nations, the Crown, or to a lesser extent, the

proponent. If it is not abided by as a road map, it can get out of hand

really quick. I think we can all see, by watching news, what I’m talking

about.

This is a real shame, because from my perspective as First

Nations, after decades of fighting, we won the battle. We won. We won in

2004 with the Haida court case on the duty to consult and accommodate.

That principle got elevated with the Tsilhqot’in court case, where

governments were even forced to do a higher standard of consultation and

accommodation.

But what do we do with it? What do we do with these hard-fought

principles? They’re useless if we don’t use them to address what’s

happening in Canada to Aboriginals. They’re useless if we don’t address

what’s been labelled as Canada’s shame. That means the highest amount of

Aboriginals in prison, the highest amount of suicides per capita, the

highest amount of children going into care, the highest amount of

unemployment.

If we don’t take these wins, and we don’t fix the next generation

of Aboriginals coming up, we’ve all failed. As legislatures, as

politicians, as Aboriginal leaders — we’ve all failed. To take us back

20 years in time will be a shameful achievement on all our behalf,

because at the same time, you’re going to drag back Canada.

I see that there’s celebration by politicians in B.C. and Canada,

talking about the demise of Teck. That is to celebrate the economy

declining in Canada and to see those investors go to the United States.

What country do you represent? Why do you ignore the 14 First Nations

that have actually supported Teck for the reasons I just

mentioned?

There’s one principle of case law that everybody else seems to

forget. Aboriginal rights and title principles are meant to be on a

go-forward basis. It’s not meant to address the past in general. It’s

supposed to make sure that whatever happened in the past doesn’t happen

again. We’ve got to observe the honour of the Crown.

We’ve got to make sure that Aboriginal rights and title is upheld

section 35 of the constitution. We’re one of the only countries in

the world that have Aboriginal rights and title recognized by the

constitution. This makes the document, the United Nations declaration on

the rights of Indigenous people, irrelevant and actually combative to

the process that Canada has put in place since

Section 35 would not have even made a difference if we did not

breathe life into it with these court cases. I’m talking all of them,

not just one read in isolation. I’m talking about Mikisew Cree,

Gladstone, Haida. To take one principle out of one court case, take it

out of context and use it for a political agenda or use it for an agenda

to shut down Canada or shut down pipelines is irresponsible. It’s

reckless. It’s going against the wishes of Aboriginal leaders who do not

want to see the descendants suffer through the same social ills that my

generation did or my parents’ generation did.

We’ve got a chance to use Aboriginal rights and title to fix

what’s wrong with Aboriginal communities, and these Aboriginal

communities will do it on their own terms. They will not do it through

government handouts.

[10:40 a.m.]

N. Simons: I just want to thank my colleague opposite, from Skeena, for his

insight. I always appreciate that.

It’s been far too long for provincial governments to recognize the

inherent rights of Indigenous people, including the inherent rights and

titles of the nations of British Columbia. Part of that challenge was

met with the unanimous passage of the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act. The next and more complicated challenge before

us continues to be finding ways to work together to transpose those

values that are within that legislation, within the declaration itself,

into practical terms in this province.

Significant progress toward this goal has already been

accomplished by Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders and Elders and

good, well-minded community members supported by other citizens who are

progressive in insisting that our relationship and our treaty-making

process needed a fundamental, different approach. That change in treaty

policy has already produced results, reconciling inherent title with

Crown title through treaty and other government-to-government

agreements. There are examples of where agreements have been made that

begin to address title in a fundamental way, and I point to the Heiltsuk

agreement, the Carrier-Sekani pathway forward agreement and the shíshálh

Nation foundation agreement.

The path to where we are today has been frustratingly slow for

Indigenous people, and that slowness has bred understandable resentment.

Compounding that has been successive governments’ unwillingness to

address the socioeconomic gaps that create even greater divisions within

our province. That’s finally started to change too. Along with our

government’s hope to create relationships that go beyond its legal

obligations, it’s creating real opportunities for the restoration of

governance authority, the support of self-government and engaging in

true government-to-government partnerships.

How rights and title will be recognized, negotiated, codified or

otherwise determined takes time. Previously, that’s been used as an

excuse not to engage in other efforts to address the negative impacts of

colonialism. That’s why I’m particularly pleased with so many

initiatives that we’ve undertaken collaboratively with Indigenous

communities.

Besides passing legislation supporting the United Nations

declaration and laying out a path for future discussions, our government

and Indigenous leaders have been working and leading the way on other

initiatives. There’s a long list of these initiatives that we’ve

undertaken since the last time we had an opportunity to do

so.

We’ve recommitted to improving the child welfare system by

expanding the tools available to nurture and strengthen families and by

devolving authority back to Indigenous communities. For the first time,

Indigenous communities will have a share in revenue from gaming

activities. The approximately $3 billion over the next 25 years will be

a resource for communities to invest in themselves. We’ve developed a

new Environmental Assessment Act that incorporates the United Nations

declaration, which could provide clarity to all parties interested in

resource development around the issues of rights and title. We’ve

invested in building homes in Indigenous communities to address the

shortage that’s existed for decades. We’re the first provincial

government to invest in on-reserve housing.

Our K-to-12 education curriculum now incorporates Indigenous

knowledge and perspectives, something that we as adults all know too

well was sorely lacking when we went through school. Our province has

the first Indigenous law degree program in Canada, at the University of

Victoria. We’re funding friendship centres and — something that Elders

in the shíshálh always emphasized — supporting language. The province

has allocated $50 million to help communities revitalize Indigenous

languages, and 17 Indigenous languages have been approved to be taught

in British Columbia schools and six more in development.

Finding a common footing on rights and title will take time, but

while leaders talk, the rest of us will continue to work at reconciling

the impacts of colonization out of a desire to ensure all British

Columbians have the ability to lead healthy and productive lives. As the

recently re-elected Chief of the shíshálh Nation, Warren Paull, said:

“We’re not going anywhere. You’re not going anywhere. We better find

ways that we all get along.”

E. Ross: UNDRIP — basically, talking about how UNDRIP recognizes rights and

title. It’s already been recognized in

section 35 of the constitution.

It’s been defined by all the case law. We didn’t need it. In fact, if

anything, there’s no clarity to it.

Now, when you’re talking about the clarity, you’re talking about

an action plan that’s yet to be developed. But how do you do this when

it actually contradicts, in most places, the case law — or in some

cases, undermines it?

[10:45 a.m.]

I, for one, am tired of initiatives that create jobs and

opportunities for political leaders and lawyers for the next 20 years,

when Aboriginal leaders are suffering. I don’t believe in

that.

We’ve already got a road map. The member from — I don’t know where

he’s from — actually mentioned the other day that we have a successful

pipeline with an environmental assessment certificate, with permits.

That was done under Aboriginal rights and title. That’s the certainty

and clarity that we achieved over the last 15 years of consultation and

accommodation.

We have peace in the woods under the forest and range agreement

that was developed 12 years ago under rights and title. Why do you throw

in UNDRIP, which was actually designed by committee by foreign

representatives based in New York? Who says that New York has any

interest in what Aboriginals are facing today? And why are you taking

advice from the United Nations when we’ve already got our own road map,

and it’s been proven?

Our First Nations are digging themselves out of poverty not

because of the handouts, not because of government programs. It’s

because we’re making our own way through the economy.

Everybody has a definition of reconciliation, but no­body

actually goes back to the case law to recognize what they said in case

law. And I agree. I agree with the member’s statements in saying that

we’re all in this together. Actually, that came from case law. That’s

where that saying came from. The judge said: “We better figure out how

to reconcile title with the Crown, because let’s face it, we’re not

going anywhere.”

But there’s something else that was said: “When adequate

consultation has taken place, Aboriginal rights and title concerns must

be balanced against competing societal interests.” I think everybody

forgot about that or didn’t even read it. This is the role of

accommodation. By the way, when you’re talking about competing societal

interests, you’re talking about First Nations too, because we make up

the society that enjoys the hospitals, the roads, the infrastructure. So

we make up the larger society too. But if you don’t abide by this

principle, you’re going to divide First Nations and the greater society,

which is First Nations combined as well.

The caribou recovery plan in the northeast is a good example of

what happens if you don’t abide by this principle. The government might

walk away feeling good, but it leaves behind a society that’s divided.

That might have lasting effects that cause further division. If this

goes the way it’s going….

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to finish. Are you going to cut me off? You

can cut me off as your first time you cut off somebody.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MSP

R. Glumac: As of January 1 of this year, the province of B.C. no longer

charges British Columbians MSP premiums, saving individuals up to $900 a

year and families up to $1,800 a year. We were the last province in

Canada to charge MSP premiums. Every other province moved away from this

regressive form of taxation many years ago.

Now, it’s important, I think, to acknowledge this: elimination of

MSP fees has resulted in a $2.7 billion tax cut to the people of British

Columbia. This is not only the largest tax cut in the province’s

history, but also the elimination of an extremely regressive form of

taxation.

I think it’s important to take a moment to understand regressive

taxation, because this is the form of taxation that was heavily utilized

by the previous government and utilized in such a way as to not make it

easy to know that you’re actually paying these taxes. Regressive

taxation is a form of taxation that disproportionately affects

lower-income earners more than higher-income earners.

As an example, let’s take MSP charged to a family making $40,000 a

year. They would be charged $1,800 a year. That’s 4.5 percent of their

income. MSP charged to a family making $400,000 a year was also $1,800 a

year, or 0.45 percent of their income.

Interjection.

R. Glumac: That is not wrong math, Member.

The member from the opposite side is saying that that math is not

correct. Well, I urge that member to take a closer look at their

numbers.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s a ten-times-higher rate of taxation for the lower-income

family than the higher-income family. Regressive taxation was the

hallmark of the previous government. In fact, even when they cut income

taxes, they did it in such a way as to give the greatest benefit to the

highest-income earners. The top 1 percent saved 5.1 percent on their

income taxes, while the bottom 10 percent only saved 1 percent. That’s a

five times benefit….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member. Hon. Member, please refrain from partisan comments.

Thank you.

R. Glumac: Well, that’s not partisan. That’s fact. A five times….

Interjections.

R. Glumac: No, I’m just saying that’s fact — a five times greater benefit to

the top 1 percent than the bottom 10 percent. At every opportunity, the

previous government made taxation even more regressive.

Just a definition for the members opposite, who are confused about

what regressive taxation is. There’s a definition: tax applied

uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners

than from high-income earners. That’s a fact.

So when you take, for example…. Let’s look at an illustrative

example — somebody making $60,000 a year, what they were charged in

provincial income tax in 2016 versus today. In 2016, their provincial

income tax was $1,714, and today, it’s $1,416. That’s a reduction of 17

percent.

Now, when you consider changes in MSP premiums, you consider the

early childhood tax benefit, you consider the B.C. childhood opportunity

benefit, all forms of taxation — carbon tax, sales tax, fuel tax…. When

you take all of these taxes into account, the net provincial tax in 2016

added up to $4,238, which drops to $2,212 today. That’s what

affordability looks like.

That figure doesn’t account for other savings, such as bridge

tolls or reduced ICBC premiums, which are coming into effect next year.

Child care fees, if you have children in child care. That’s just the

taxation alone that we’re talking about. A family earning $60,000 a year

saved an average of 48 percent on their net provincial taxes between

2016 and today. That’s what affordability looks like. Eliminating MSP

premiums is just one part of our government’s efforts to make life more

affordable for British Columbians.

When we talk about removing a massive tax cut of $2.7 billion, you

have to look at how you still balance the budget. Two of the last

provinces to eliminate MSP premiums were Alberta in 2009 and Ontario in

1990. Ontario introduced an employer health tax of up to 1.95 percent of

total wages paid by businesses, and this is what B.C. did as

well.

In our case, employers with payrolls of less than $500,000 do not

pay the employer health tax, which means 85 percent of businesses in

B.C. are exempt. This threshold is increased to $1.5 million for

non-profits, based on each location, rather than through the entire

organization. The Finance Minister has also announced the government

would cover net costs for public sector bodies like school districts,

health authorities and post-secondary institutions.

Eliminating MSP premiums will also save approximately $50 million

a year in administrative costs. Our government is very proud to have

found a way to eliminate MSP premiums while maintaining a balanced

budget. It’s just one way we’re making life more affordable for British

Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: I now call on the member for Kelowna–​Lake

Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome to the chair. It’s the first

time I’ve had a chance to address you in that position. Indeed, you look

really good up there.

I also would like to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for

his introductory comments. It wouldn’t come much as of a surprise, I

imagine, to anyone in the House that I must disagree with much of what

he said.

Interjection.

[10:55 a.m.]

N. Letnick: The facts. Well, the facts are that the EHT is there as a

replacement tax — the employer health tax — to replace exactly what the

member has talked about.

If he’s talking about regressive taxes, the EHT…. I should

actually call it the NRT — the NDP regressive tax. The NRT actually is

quite regressive, because if you’re operating a business in British

Columbia, which I believe many of the members, at least on this side of

the House, have done, then you would know that, at certain points, you

have to pass on all those extra costs somehow, or you reduce the number

of people that you employ, or you go broke, as I’ve seen. People send us

letters saying that they can no longer operate businesses in British

Columbia thanks to the employer health tax.

You know, when I was…. Before I became an MLA, I had a number of

businesses. I can tell you that having a tax prior to income — it’s

basically a payroll tax prior to even calculating your net income —

means that you have to pay the government on that payroll. Whether

you’re doing $50,000 in profit, $50,000 in loss or $100,000 in profit,

it really doesn’t matter. You still have to pay the government that

amount of money.

That makes you less competitive relative to the big guys, because

the big guys have a lot more assets to share all those expenses over. As

a small business operator, if you didn’t meet the lower threshold of the

employer health tax, then, basically, you need to pay more per person

than the big guys do. It makes you less competitive. So actually, the

employer health tax is hurting small businesses in British

Columbia.

Also, when I was in local government, and I know many members of

this House were in local government, when the provincial government

would download a tax onto us, we only had one choice, really. You pass

that on to the local ratepayers — you pass that on to the taxpayers — or

you reduce services. No one likes to reduce services. It’s a very tough

thing to do in a municipal government — to reduce services. What you end

up doing, really, is putting your other priorities aside so you can make

sure that you give to the provincial government the money they need. So

you either get reduced services or you get higher taxes.

Then you have the third area, which I again had some experience

with. That was leading a hospital as chairman of a hospital board. In

this case, the employer health tax once again impacts people trying to

deliver health services in our province. Those regional health

authorities have been faced with double-dipping for a year, and now

they’re going to have to pay those extra costs.

What are they doing to do? Well, they’re either going to have to

curtail the services that they’re providing to British Columbians, or

they’re going to have to, perhaps, look at other ways of collecting

money. I’ve seen just recently, in the last week alone in my regional

health authority, that they’re going after local district hospital

boards to start funding things that they call capital which really

should be funded by the general taxpayer. This is one of those

strategies that they’re looking for on how to make ends meet once the

replacement tax has come in — this new regressive employer health

tax.

And you factor that into all the other taxes that the government

has come up with over the last couple of years: employer health tax, of

course, is the key one; Victoria gas tax; Vancouver gas tax; Airbnb tax;

luxury vehicle tax; tobacco tax — three times; PTT surcharge; foreign

buyer tax; additional school tax; speculation tax; photo radar; carbon

tax; parking tax for TransLink; development cost charges, TransLink;

property tax, TransLink; cannabis tax; income tax hikes; corporate tax

hikes; ICBC unlisted driver premiums; ICBC learner premium; B.C. Hydro

crisis fund levy; per-trip ride-share fees; vaping PST; sugar tax;

Netflix tax; and a new income tax bracket.

Over 23 new or increased taxes, and this member for Port

Moody–Coquitlam has the gall to tell us that they’ve reduced taxes for

British Columbia. He has some nerve and should take those comments

back.

R. Glumac: I’ve listened to my colleague in opposition talk about the

employer health tax and MSP. I understand that he just doesn’t

understand the difference between progressive taxation and regressive

taxes. This member in opposition is only familiar with regressive

taxation. That is all his government understands. So when it comes to

understanding the difference between how a tax affects lower-income

individuals versus higher-income individuals, that member and all

members on that side simply do not get it.

[11:00 a.m.]

The member talks about 24, 23 new taxes, and I commend the member

for being able to count that high. It’s impressive to be able to do

that. But what they aren’t able to understand is that changing tax

policy to become fair to British Columbians means making changes to the

taxes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We also eliminated many taxes. One big tax we eliminated is the

MSP premiums, one of the largest tax cuts in B.C. history. We also

reduced provincial income tax. We also added new tax

benefits…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

R. Glumac: …such as the B.C. child opportunity tax benefit.

You can count taxes to create the misleading impression that

British Columbians pay more, but it just isn’t true. It’s like changing

your diet to be a more healthy diet. Some food is better than other

food. Eliminating $2.7 billion in regressive taxes is better for British

Columbia. It’s one of the many things we’re doing to make life more

affordable here.

Don’t forget we’re also introducing the B.C. access grant — $3,500

for people going to post-secondary education. We’re also taking interest

away from student loans, to save $2,300 for students. We’re introducing

affordable child care benefits of up to $15,000 per year and a child

care fee reduction initiative — up to $5,400 per year. We’ve eliminated

tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, which saves commuters

$1,500 a year. We’ve provided rebates of up to $6,000 for electric

vehicles and $2,000 to replace your heating system.

Making life affordable — that’s our goal.

Hon. S. Simpson: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 2, standing

in the name of the member for Nechako Lakes.

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

with Motion 2 without disturbing the priority of the motion preceding it

on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — FOREST INDUSTRY

AND LAND

BASE

J. Rustad: I move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize that the forest industry

operates on 22.5 million hectares and this land base needs to be

preserved as a working forest.]

Across this province, I think lots of people are proud of what we

have as a province — 95 million hectares in size. About 65 million

hectares of that is forested, and our forestry operations work on about

a third of what is considered to be forested in this province. It’s

critical in terms of the future of our forest sector and the future of

over 140 communities around this province that the forest industry has

the ability to be able to carry on operating on this land

base.

Last week there were more than 1,000 people that came out to the

lawn of the Legislature to deliver this message to government, to say:

“We need a working forest. We need our land base protected.” The

Minister of Forests himself got up and thanked these people for being

out there and presenting this issue. The Minister of Forests stood up in

this House and presented a petition signed by over 8,000 people asking

government to act on this, to create this ability for our forest sector

to thrive.

Today the B.C. Forest Alliance sent out a press release that says:

“They call on government to establish a working forest. More aid for the

forest industry and community is needed.” I’ll read into the record here

the press release they put out. “The B.C. Forest Alliance is calling on

the provincial government to protect the current harvestable land base

and establish a working forest that will sustain the forest industry now

and into the future.”

The quotes in here are from Steve Venus.

“Last week over 1,000 people showed up on the front lawn of the

Legislature because they’re deeply concerned about their future in

B.C.’s forest industry. These are hard-working people, and they

represent a petition with 8,000 signatures calling on the government to

ensure there is a predictable long-term fibre supply.

“The rally was held on the same day as the release of the 2020

provincial budget. Unfortunately, B.C.’s NDP budget had little

assistance to offer the struggling forest sector.”

[11:05 a.m.]

And a quote here from Carl Sweet.

“Throwing a few million dollars at the industry is a band-aid

approach. We need long-term solutions for a struggling

industry.”

He goes on, saying:

“Securing a long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base is

what we need. This will create opportunities for new investment. It will

also give workers the opportunity to become more skilled and therefore

more competitive in global markets.

“B.C.’s Forest Alliance is looking forward to government’s reply to

the petition. In the meantime, the alliance will continue to advocate

for a sustainable and renewable working forest.”

I come from a forestry community, as I think many people do,

certainly on this side of the House. Forestry is such a key piece of so

much of our economic development. That rally, I think, is well worth

noting because it’s rare to see those people actually get that fired up

and come down and be passionate — working for and trying to move towards

this working forest.

The example we saw just yesterday, the example of the caribou

protection up in the northeast of the province, taking away from that

working forest without any solid science to support it and certainly

with no engagement with the public and the people up there…. The deal

was made long in advance. Afterwards they went: “Oh, there are some

people protesting. Maybe we should go out and do an engagement.” That’s

not the way to do these types of things.

Then the Minister of Forests stands up and says: “This will be the

blueprint for how we’re going to do 21 other caribou areas around the

province.” The forest industry looked at that. If that approach was

taken in all of those areas, those 21 areas the minister has talked

about, it means a $20 million cubic metre hit annually to the annual

allowable cut in this province. About 40 percent of the Interior forest

industry would disappear, including Revelstoke and so many other areas

that would be heavily impacted.

It’s time this province and this government recognize the

importance and the need for a vibrant, healthy forest industry and

recognize that it cannot be continually chewed away to meet special

interest groups and special interests by this government. It needs to

have a working forest — a stable forest that can supply those jobs, that

can supply that fibre for this generation and generations to

come.

This province relies so much and has seen so much benefit from the

forest industry. Without that secure fibre, without that secure land

base, there will not be the investment that we need to see for the

renewal of the forest sector for the next generation of people that want

to call forestry their livelihood and want to continue to see those

benefits come to the province.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to respond to the motion introduced by the

member for Nechako Lakes, asking for preserving the land base for a

working forest.

Forestry workers are fully aware that the idea of legally

designating a working forest has been around for more than 20 years.

Members of the opposition — including the member that is now proposing

the motion, in his time as minister — clearly had every opportunity to

implement this type of legislation during their 16 years in

government.

But the truth is that the previous government didn’t do anything

during their time in government. So it is not surprising to me and to

the forestry workers at all that the member for Nechako Lakes finds it

convenient now to talk about this very important issue when he is

sitting on the opposition benches. This is pure politics to make some

critical points, and that’s basically it.

The reality is the people who depend on B.C.’s forest industry are

hurting and have been hurting for a long, long time. They need our help.

Our thriving forest sector has provided good, stable jobs for many

families going back generations. However, over the last number of years,

the mountain pine beetle, wildfires and the softwood lumber dispute have

reduced the timber supply and forced mills to close their doors or scale

back shifts.

These changes didn’t happen overnight. Forestry workers and their

families have been struggling for a long, long time, including the 16

years under the previous government. The reality is this. The previous

government oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs and the permanent

closure of dozens of mills. That is their record.

[11:10 a.m.]

When they were in power, they decided to ship B.C.’s natural

wealth elsewhere, and they failed to do the hard work to prepare forest

workers and communities for the end of the mountain pine beetle harvest.

It’s very interesting to complain in this House and do something to the

government, but in 2015, his government refused to act on a consultant’s

report that predicted the close of 13 mills in the Interior. Under their

watch, big companies would make deals in private, with no consultation

at all.

For too long, there was little to no oversight. That’s why we are

doing our due diligence. We want to make sure that our forests are being

managed in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. We are

putting people first. That’s why we have been growing markets for B.C.

wood products at home and abroad through innovation. Last year, for

example, the Minister of Forests and senior executives from forest

companies promoted B.C.’s innovation, innovative wood products, during

the trade mission to China and Japan.

When it comes to growing the market at home, we want to make sure

that more logs are processed in B.C. In other words, B.C. logs should

produce B.C. jobs. Budget 2020 takes another step forward, providing $13

million over three years in new funding to begin developing

opportunities for B.C.’s bioeconomy and revitalization within the forest

sector. Budget 2020 also provides new funding of $65 million per year

towards wildfire and emergency response management and prevention. This

increases the total funding to $519 million over the fiscal

plan.

Our government will continue to defend the thousands of people who

rely on the forestry sector for their jobs and livelihoods — not like

the opposition, who didn’t do anything during 16 years and now stand up

in this House and question the actions of the government which are being

taken right now to make life better for the forest workers.

D. Barnett: Last week was budget day, when the provincial government lays out

its fiscal plan for the coming year and identifies its top priorities.

After a careful review of the budget document, it is quite clear that

forestry isn’t a concern of this government at all.

Despite the worst crisis in the forest industry in over 40 years,

there was no mention of a comprehensive strategy to halt the layoffs and

get out-of-work forestry workers back to work. Yes, there was no new

money for forestry in this budget. As a matter of fact, the ministry’s

budget has been reduced 11 percent, or just over $100 million. Nor was

there any mention of communities that have been devastated by the

forestry crisis.

This is typical of an NDP government that has written off rural

British Columbia. It has also written off forestry and the working

people who helped build this province. There is a reason why 1,000

forestry workers showed up on the front lawn of the Legislature on

budget day. They are severely disappointed in a government that doesn’t

consider them a priority anymore. This is a government that sat on the

sidelines for nearly eight months during the strike at Western Forest

Products as 3,000 people were directly out of work.

Thousands more were impacted indirectly, especially small business

owners. People lost their trucks; people lost their homes. Marriages

broke up. All the while, the Forests Minister, the Labour Minister and

the Premier just sat back and twiddled their thumbs. The parties in the

dispute were clearly at a stalemate in negotiations, yet the NDP, a

party that once represented working people, refused to lift a

finger.

[11:15 a.m.]

The company was asking for arbitration. Local mayors, community

leaders and just everyday folk were yelling at the top of their lungs.

This strike appears to be over, but the damage inflicted over the past

eight months will continue to hurt communities all along the coast for

years.

In the absence of the NDP, people took matters into their own

hands. People like Rona Doucette and Tamara Meggitt saw what was

happening to families who were struggling to even put food on the table.

So they started Loonies for Loggers to support families impacted by the

forestry worker strike. When the call went out, the rest of the

community responded. Businesses, schools and everyday folk gave

generously.

Loonies for Loggers even helped families struggling with cancer

and provided them with fuel cards for their trips to and from cancer

clinics. That’s how bad the situation has become. Make no mistake. These

are hard-working people with great pride in their communities. The

Loonies for Loggers mobile truck even learned to park on side roads.

That’s because many people didn’t want to be seen accepting help in a

time of need.

Is this what you call responsible government? Let me tell you that

people in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin are suffering just as much as

those down on the coast. Mills have shut down completely, many workers

suffering crippling layoffs. All hope that someday the industry will

recover. What did the government do? It cancelled the rural dividend

fund, a $25 million program that was supposed to help small rural

communities diversify their economies.

The members on the other side can deny it if they want to. The $69

million forest worker program, cobbled together with existing programs

like the rural dividend fund, has done little for the vast majority of

forestry workers who are ineligible for assistance. The fact is that

this money represents an early retirement program when most forestry

workers still need a job. If you are an out-of-work forestry worker on

the coast, you are quite simply out of luck, because only eligible

workers in the Interior qualify.

When programs dedicated to rural B.C. fall victim to government

cutbacks, it becomes obvious that the NDP has simply written off rural

B.C. Oh yes, they have $1 million to hand out free symphony tickets to

folks in the Lower Mainland, but when a family in Williams Lake or 100

Mile needs help, they will get nothing from this government. We have a

Premier who would rather play fiddle and watch the forestry industry

burn than deal with a real economic crisis.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for Nechako Lakes for bringing this

motion forward today around preserving the working forest. I think — as

one of my colleagues earlier commented — this concept isn’t new. It’s

been around for 20 years. What’s new is that all of a sudden, the

opposition, who were in government for 16 years, are interested in it

now. My question to them would be: why was this not a priority when they

were in government?

I looked through the records to see if there was any legislation

ever brought. Nothing came forward. Maybe the member from Kamloops might

have more insight on that than I do, but I haven’t seen it. So I do find

it interesting that they’re interested in this topic now when they had

the reins of power for many, many years and chose not to do

anything.

I think all provincial governments, no matter who is in power,

should do their best to balance climate change, protect our wildlife and

keep people working. That’s the balance that we try to strike as a

government over here. It’s the hard route. Some would say: “Just cut it

all down.” Some would say: “Don’t cut anything at all.” We’re taking the

hard route, which is sitting down with communities and organizations to

find the right path — a balanced approach on how we deal with these

critical issues.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: I know members love to heckle, and they have a lot of things to

say.

I think the most important thing is that when workers came here….

I’ve been in the Interior a lot. I’ve spoken to communities; I’ve spoken

to mayors. I’ve spoken to workers; I’ve spoken to contractors. The

member from Cariboo said that people are struggling. Yeah, people are

struggling. I spoke with contractors in her community who said: “We know

it’s not you guys who created this problem. This is a problem that has

been created by folks who left you with this problem.” They said that to

me — contractors in her community. They’re saying: “Let’s figure out a

path forward.” They want to have a conversation about contractor

sustainability.

[11:20 a.m.]

How do contractors actually make it? They’re being squeezed and

squeezed. They talked to this government for many, many years on finding

a path forward so that they can address the sustainability of their

sector. Guess what: deaf ears. Now they care about the contractors. When

they show up in rallies, they love to show up in trucks and take a

picture with them. Where was that work when they were asking for it for

so many years?

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: The member has got a lot of heckles. I appreciate that’s he’s

going to have an opportunity to speak, and I look forward to hearing

what he has to say.

The challenges, particularly in the Interior, didn’t come

overnight. I think there’s an understanding that this happened over a

lot of time. We’ve got climate change. We’ve got pine beetle. We’ve got

unfair tariffs. We’ve got these fires that have just devastated

communities. We are in a tough, challenging situation, and it has been

compounded over years and years. It’s a small snowball that turned into

an avalanche.

Members can dispute that if they like, and I look forward to

hearing that, but what we have to do now is to find out: how do we get

through this challenge ahead? Part of the solution is transitioning to

high value and not high volume. We’re starting to take some of those

steps.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Kahlon: I have to address a couple of things that were said. The member

from Cariboo said that there’s nothing being done. Well, she should

maybe talk to some of those workers who have lost their jobs. What she

will hear is that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who’ve

applied for the pension bridging program.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member for Delta North has the floor.

R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Yes, $69 million was put forward to address this. Workers are

getting pensions, the bridging program, right now. They’re getting

support right now. In fact, we have over 500 people who have applied.

Contractors are getting work because we’ve provided dollars for

contractors to get access to work in their communities to keep their

members working.

When I hear the member for Nechako Lakes say that the province did

an agreement with special interest groups…. Those special interest

groups happen to be First Nations communities. Saulteau and West Moberly

are not a special interest. They’re not special interest groups; they’re

First Nations communities. He was a former minister of Aboriginal

affairs. Perhaps the reason why their government was not able to make

any meaningful progress was because of a view like that: calling them

special interest groups. They should be ashamed of

themselves.

Also from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who says no one has

been helped…. She should talk to people in her community. She should

actually read the budget: $69 million — all by the province; no money

from the federal government. I hope that they come to the table and put

some money to it. Because communities are needing it, we’re going to

continue to work to support them.

D. Clovechok: Listening to the member across the way just now, I would suggest

that he check Hansard . That individual didn’t talk about…. My

colleague didn’t say “special interest groups.” So check

Hansard .

As you’ve heard from my colleagues already — you’ll hear from more

after — I am in complete support of the motion on the working forest.

Forestry is part of the history of this province. It’s who we are. The

first mill ever to open was right here in Victoria in 1847. It’s not

just a provincial resource sector; it’s an employer. For many people,

it’s a calling. It’s a way of life for many. Entire communities have

been born from mills. Generations have worked and continue to work in

these mills and in these operations, and they’ve contributed to local,

provincial and federal economies.

It’s not just about dollars; it’s about people. These guys talk

about people, but I don’t see where their policies come around people at

all. It’s about workers, their families, their communities and the

dozens of ancillary offshoots that this sector supports. Yet over 10,000

jobs right now have been lost, and you can see the ripple effect that

this is having — from closures, curtailments, the slowdowns. It’s

hurting communities where I live.

One member said they’re doing their due diligence. Well, tell the

families that are now without, that are trying to figure out: how do I

feed my kids? Tell them that. It’s astounding, for me, to see the

inaction of this government, their minister and their parliamentary

secretary. It’s astounding, to me, that they’re doing nothing to address

these issues.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’d like to spend some of my time highlighting four of the

operations that are in my riding that have this community connection,

that employ well over 1,000 women and men where I live. Downie Timber

and Selkirk Cedar in Revelstoke have been in operation for 55 years.

Independently family-owned and operated, they specialize in western red

cedar. It’s beautiful. It employs over 300 people, which is a sizeable

portion when you consider that the population is 8,000 in Revelstoke. It

prides itself on using the whole log and every log, even burning the

bark for energy that powers parts of the mill and local

buildings.

Then in Golden, Louisiana Pacific is another operation we have — a

long-standing history in lumber. It goes back to 1893. Focusing on

engineered wood products, Louisiana Pacific operations recently received

a three-year safety award by the Engineered Wood Association,

celebrating safety and operation excellence in the structural panel and

engineered wood industry.

Then there is the Canfor mill in Radium, which has faced

curtailments but is currently going strong and hiring full-time

positions, well-paying positions that translate into jobs in my

community. The effect of these jobs and what they provide cannot be

overstated.

Finally, Paper Excellence, down in Skookumchuck, employing

hundreds of people. Yet the forestry sector is made up of real people,

and that’s what I want to talk about really quickly — real lives that

are worried sick about being the next one being chopped by this

government and their lack of action around forestry.

We’ve welcomed rallying folks right here in Vancouver with the

trucks. They’re not being listened to. I hope their message is heard

loud and clear. There are over 120,000 men and women across the province

that directly need this industry.

If I might quote from the B.C. Forest Alliance: “Throwing a few

million dollars at an industry is a band-aid approach. We need long-term

solutions for a struggling industry. Long-term solutions securing fibre

supply on the harvestable land base are what is needed.”

This side wants that. That side doesn’t know how to do it. They’ve

ragged the puck for months and months. People are hurting in this

province, and they sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. So I

support my colleague’s motion here today.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for Nechako Lakes for the

motion.

It’s a pleasure to stand up and talk about forest policy in a

province that has been quite decimated over the past 16 years, before

this government took control, with forest policy being essentially

disintegrated — literally disintegrated, as the production lines and

chains between logging, sawmilling and the pulp and paper industry were

broken by this government.

Right now people across B.C. are suffering. Families across B.C.

are feeling the effects of market, of pine beetle, climate, of all the

other pressures on forests. But essentially, the part that government

controls…. They’re suffering from a seed that was planted some 18 years

ago, when the previous B.C. Liberal government endorsed the deregulation

of the forest industry and the disconnection of communities from the

fibre and the land base.

These families know that this didn’t happen overnight, but this

previous government, the B.C. Liberal government, seems to want people

to believe that. You can’t have it both ways, to the members opposite.

You can’t have it both ways.

On July 16, 2008, the Auditor General of British Columbia noted

that the previous government had allowed the removal of private lands

from TFL 19 and TFL 25 for Western Forest Products. The Auditor General

determined that this was done without sufficient regard for the public

interest.

So here’s a former government member speaking for the former

government that essentially gave a $200 million gift to Western Forest

Products and took all of that operating forest land base out of

production. Now they have the gall to move a motion, which I agree with,

that we should protect the forest land base, the working forest —

absolutely. But it’s simplistic. What’s being offered is

simplistic.

[11:30 a.m.]

It is being offered without any regard to the fact that we are on

a new landscape on the land base of British Columbia. Since the

Tsilhqot’in decision and with the adoption of UNDRIP by this government,

we can’t simply dictate to communities, to regions and to First Nations

how these forests will be used. This government understands that in

order to have a sustainable forest industry, we have to sit down with

the players.

The members opposite would care to describe the various players in

the industry as special interests if they don’t agree with them, but

they are all special interests. Industry has a special interest.

Environmental considerations have special interests. First Nations have

the most special interests. No government can ignore those

things.

They can sit in opposition and try to make political points by

saying things that are absolutely meaningless and impossible to

implement. But the fact is that government’s role is to balance the

public interest between the industry, environmental consideration,

climate change and social supports — the socioeconomic decisions. Most

of those decisions were removed from the toolbox of the Forests Minister

through deregulation. It has led to this bizarre situation, over the

past year and a half, where our government has had to actually legislate

the opportunity for the Forests Minister to act in the public

interest.

Just think about that for a second. We had to pass legislation to

allow the Forests Minister to act in the public interest. That is

absolutely insane. What happened in B.C. over the past decade and a half

is equally insane. It was a tactical and purposeful dismantling of an

industry.

Before the previous government came to power, the high point of

raw log exports was one million cubic metres. It is currently over six

million. They sat by and watched hundreds of mills close — dozens of

major mills, 30,000 jobs, communities decimated.

Who did nothing? They did…. Actually, it might have been better if

they’d done nothing, because what they did was deregulate. There was an

average of around 17 or 18 deaths in the woods before they did that

deregulation. In the years afterwards, that climbed to 47. That’s the

human consequence of what happened. We are doing better in balancing the

public interest.

M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak to the motion that “this House recognize

that the forestry industry operates on 22.5 million hectares and that

this land base needs to be preserved as a working forest.”

There is no doubt that forestry is an economic driver in this

province, which is home to over 140 forestry-dependent communities.

Thousands of hard-working people rely on the forestry sector to support

themselves, to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

Yet British Columbia’s forestry industry has lost 6,600 jobs between

2017 and 2018. Our province has seen ten permanent or indefinite mill

closures with over 100 weeks of operational downtime.

Many people were looking in the budget for some hope, for some

solutions, but they were let down, with zero dollars in actual funding

to contribute. This provides little or no comfort to forestry-dependent

coastal communities that have suffered the irreparable damage due to the

eight-month strike at Western Forest Products and for 450 workers who

are now, at Paper Excellence in Crofton, facing those job losses due to

a recently announced 30-day curtailment.

The people on Vancouver Island are suffering. The Western Forest

Products strike has taken its toll on the families on Vancouver Island.

People are losing their vehicles. They’re falling behind in bill

payments. They’re barely able to support their families. They’ve been to

my office. They’ve shared their stories. They’re feeling desperate, and

they’re looking for some kind of help.

[11:35 a.m.]

I was so proud to support the workers when they paid out of their

own pocket last week, after months of having no income, to come down

here to Victoria and demand some respect. They held the rally outside in

support of jobs and common sense, asking for protection of the working

forest in perpetuity.

It was a long list of supporters, like Port McNeill mayor Gabby

Wickstrom. Those workers and their families showed up, and they demanded

to be heard. They took their message straight to the Premier’s front

door, that message of hope for a future.

Just like the 250 logging trucks that formed a convoy in downtown

Vancouver…. Those from rural B.C. took it to the heart of Vancouver

during the UBCM meeting last year. They came with those voices, wanting

to hear, hoping that government would hear them.

The sector is in crisis. The policy changes that have been

implemented by this government have wreaked havoc on the entire sector

around British Columbia — policies that were imposed on our communities

without consultation. The entire industry is feeling the pressure, and

the NDP have made British Columbia home to North America’s highest

production costs.

The government needs to make amends by engaging with the forestry

companies and the unions and start regaining some industry

competitiveness. This should include immediate reduction on stumpage

fees, which have significantly contributed to the shift

curtailments.

In the 1990s, the NDP government strangled the forestry industry

with red tape, and they made us the highest-cost producers of timber in

the world. They added $1.8 billion per year in the forestry sector’s

production costs, and now here they are doing it again.

There were nearly 60,000 direct forestry jobs in 2016 under the

previous government, and today that number has dropped to 50,000, with

more indirect jobs being affected as well. It’s absolutely unacceptable

that the NDP is making such tough times by creating such uncertainty,

such red tape. It’s disrespectful to every one of those families who are

being affected.

We came up with a five-point plan last June for recovery of the

forestry sector for those dependent communities, and to date, that plan

has been completely ignored. The forestry sector is critical to our

provincial economy, and immediate action is needed to save the industry,

to help those families, to help those workers across the province who

are hurting right now. There are increasing health issues, mental health

issues, arising from the lack of work and support from this government,

and it will take years for them to recover.

Throwing some money at the industry is a band-aid approach, like

my former member said. They need some long-term solutions. They need the

ability to secure a long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base.

That’s needed.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak on this motion. It’s

been interesting sitting here listening to the debate from both sides of

the House.

I do want to say that when we did first come to B.C., the place we

moved to was Nanaimo. I can tell you that in those days, Nanaimo was

definitely a forestry-focused town. Most of the jobs that existed there

came from around the mills.

I can also tell you that when I was on the B.C. Teachers

Federation executive, I had the pleasure to travel around the province,

and I saw the impact of our vibrant forestry sector. But I can also tell

you that as time went by and I visited many of those places, what used

to be vibrant villages, towns, centres, were no longer that

vibrant.

I visited communities in North Island, visited communities in the

Interior and recently had the pleasure to visit Mackenzie and some of

the places in the Interior that are really, really suffering as a result

of what has happened in the forestry sector. Listening to our colleagues

across the way, you would think that it all started yesterday or the day

the NDP got elected. We know that’s not how it works.

[11:40 a.m.]

Before I actually go into that, I also want to share with you some

of the stories my constituents tell me about what the forestry sector

added to their lives. As we all know, many of the people who came from

the Indian subcontinent ended up working in the mills in the early days.

I have a very dear friend who tells me how their accommodation was so

bad that they had to keep the fire going all the time. It was an open

fire in their shed that they called home. Often they would light fires

outside in the snow, as well, just to get that extra heat from the

outside.

We know that those from the South Asian community have played a

critical role in our forest industry. I would invite members who are not

aware of those contributions to visit the museum. There are wonderful

exhibits there telling the stories of the hard work done by those

communities.

I can tell you that many who retired from the forestry sector —

retired on good pensions and had decent-paying jobs — were able to send

their children to school. Those children are now our doctors and

engineers and nurses and electricians and plumbers, and all of that was

due to the jobs they had in the forestry sector. I think that for them….

They hold the forestry sector close to their hearts because of

that.

We know now, today, that that is not so for many people. Yes, the

families that came out last week are feeling the pain of what has been

happening to the forestry sector over the last couple of decades. We

also know that under the previous government, over 30,000 forestry jobs

were lost. There was the permanent closure of dozens of mills. That’s

their record. That’s why it was so amazing to me that here in the House

today…. Listening to the debate, you would think they have been the

biggest champions of the forest sector that parliament has ever seen. We

know from their track record that that is not so.

Over a number of years, I’ve spoken both here and in a different

House about our natural resources and how we need to use our natural

resources to grow good-paying jobs right here in British Columbia for

our children. When we ship our natural resources overseas, what we are

shipping overseas is our children’s future as well. Those decent-paying

jobs, the value-added jobs, disappear with that as well.

That is one of the things that happened under the previous

government. There was a huge escalation, almost like a hockey stick, of

raw logs being shipped overseas. That’s not just…. Just

imagine.

P. Milobar: There’s just so much to unpack on this topic. It’s going to be

tough to fit it all in, in five minutes, but I’ll give it my best

shot.

It was interesting hearing the member for Surrey-Panorama talk

about forestry as if it was a concept that only exists in the interior

of British Columbia. There’s a great…. Much volume of our overall forest

industry is actually in Surrey. I’m not sure if the member for

Surrey-Panorama knows that or not. Certainly, when the fake $69 million

bailout program for the forest industry happened, it only was for the

Interior. It seemed to forget Teal-Jones. It seemed to forget forestry

workers in Maple Ridge that were impacted by the forestry crisis that’s

been created in British Columbia.

It’s good that we can rise in this House to make sure the members

from Maple Ridge and Surrey understand that forestry is actually a big

employer in their communities as well. We’ll keep standing up and

defending those workers’ rights, because their MLAs don’t seem to

recognize that.

The $69 million program I referenced was nothing more than a shell

game. In rural communities, the rural dividend fund has been a mainstay

over the last several years for communities to be able to diversify

their economy, to be able to grow and expand away from being solely

forestry- or mining-based communities.

[11:45 a.m.]

Unfortunately, the answer this government had for the forest

sector melting down was to suspend that program, to suspend that program

and then to be told: “Oh no. That’s okay. We’re going to roll the

applications over to next year.”

I think most people, with a statement like that from the Forests

Minister, would assume that that means the program was coming back this

year. Otherwise, why would you roll forward the applications that had

already been submitted? And $35 million worth for a $25 million fund, I

would point out. But in this year’s budget, the rural dividend fund

doesn’t exist, yet again. So the very fund that rural B.C. relies on to

try to diversify their economy doesn’t exist.

The previous speakers talked about raw log exports. The rules

around raw log exports are very clear. You have to find a local

purchaser first, and you have to prove that there is no local purchaser

for that log before it’s allowed to move anywhere outside of the

province. Those rules have been in place for quite some time.

In the Interior, less than 2 percent of the cut, by the

government’s own numbers, is actually logs for export. So that is

nothing but a red herring of an argument, when you talk about Interior

forestry, when they talk about raw log exports. But again, you’d have to

understand forestry and understand that forestry actually is impactful

in your community to know those types of figures.

Now, here’s a quote from the B.C. Forestry Alliance: “Throwing a

few million dollars at an industry is a band-aid approach. We need

long-term solutions for a struggling industry.” That’s because in this

budget, there was no support for forestry.

I would point out…. The government can point back at 16 years all

they like, but this is not happening in Saskatchewan. It’s not happening

in Alberta. It’s not happening in Washington. It’s not happening in any

of our neighbouring jurisdictions. Only in B.C. and only with these

policies.

I’m going to read out a post from Facebook from the mayor of

Clearwater. I’ve only substituted out individuals’ names with our riding

names, to not cross.

“I am absolutely shocked by the Forests Minister’s response to the

MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson’s question in Tuesday’s question period

in the Legislature.

“The Canfor-Interfor tenure transfer was presented to the minister’s

office on November 7, 2019, over three months ago. If the minister’s

staff have not put it on his desk by now, then that is a failure of his

and our Premier’s leadership. I have called or emailed the minister

three times since last Friday. No response. I have communicated with the

parliamentary secretary from Delta North many, many times. He says he’ll

get me answers, but he does not.

“If I call Chief Loring of the Simpcw Nation, I get a response. We

have a good chat. I get answers. We have had many conversations in the

past few weeks.

“I talk to Interfor. I get answers. Canfor calls me to give me

answers.

“Our MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson talks to me all the time. We’ve

talked several times since these comments were made by the Forests

Minister.

“I think it’s safe to say we are all frustrated and disappointed by

the minister’s attitude. The people of the North Thompson are not pawns

in his political game of chess.

“This is so disrespectful to all those who have struggled since

Canfor closed.

“This is so disrespectful to all the loggers, contractors and their

employees and all of the outside forestry workers who have been

significantly affected for over a year now.

“This is so disrespectful to all the Canfor employees that have been

put through the ringer by EI, CRA and any other organization that has

seen fit to rob them or send them into a depression.

“This is so disrespectful to all those retail businesses that have

had to cut jobs, to let their employees who are also their friends

go.

“This is so disrespectful to our Simpcw First Nation neighbours, who

have worked so hard with Canfor and Interfor to put some silver lining

on a very crappy situation by making a deal none of them love but all of

them can live with.

“This is so disrespectful to all of those who are trying to move

forward.”

He ends it with:

“We’re done being patient and nice. Do your job.”

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion moved by the

member for Nechako Lakes around the importance of the forest industry

and our working forests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We all know, and I think we all agree, in the House, that forestry

is an integral sector of British Columbia’s economy. We know that there

are a lot of people who depend on B.C.’s forest industry who are

hurting.

Our thriving forest sector has provided good stable jobs for many

families going back generations. We know that over the last number of

years, in the context of the challenge of the impact of climate change —

specifically, the mountain pine beetle infestation and record

wildfires…. Compounding that, our softwood lumber dispute has reduced

timber supply and triggered a wave of mills to close their doors and

also scale back shifts. These changes didn’t happen overnight, but

certainly, we know that that doesn’t lessen the hardship that forestry

workers and their families are facing now.

[11:50 a.m.]

Our government’s top priority is to ensure that people get the

help they need with their lives to support their families, to plan for a

good future in our province and to support contractors, businesses and

communities that are impacted. That’s why we have designated $69 million

to support Interior forestry workers, contractors and

communities.

We know that that support is happening, and these are important

steps. But we need to look forward in terms of how we ensure, moving

forward, that we have a strategy to ensure we have a healthy and

sustainable forest industry that meets these challenges of climate

change but also brings together industry, First Nations, unions and

governments to find solutions. We know that these problems didn’t happen

overnight, and the old government oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry

jobs and permanent closure of dozens of mills. That’s the

record.

We know that the strategy for our forestry industry, in the

previous government, could be characterized as high volume. We saw

record export of raw logs and a disconnect, in terms of the connection,

previously, that was held between forestry resources being harvested in

communities, processed in communities, providing jobs for local people

who live in those communities, adding value in those communities. So

that was a characterization that was ended under the previous government

and has contributed towards the challenges we’re seeing

today.

We know that the previous government knew of some of these

impending challenges. In 2015, there was a report looking at the impact

of pine beetle. The previous government was also asleep at the switch.

And they’ve failed to try and get a softwood lumber deal with President

Obama and left it to us to undertake and sign a deal now with President

Trump, which is where we’re at.

Going forward we have significant commitments in our 2020 budget —

over half a million dollars — to look at managing wildfires and

reforestation in our economy. As well, we have our strategy to go from

high volume to high value, to ensure that we look at innovation of a

wood-first program to look at how investing in manufactured and

high-valued wood products can build our economy here. That’s for the

future. We have an interior forest sector renewal plan, a coast forest

sector revitalization initiative. We have to balance that, as well, with

an old growth strategic review and look at integrating it with a joint

caribou recovery plan.

We have to bring these components together and ensure that our

strategy for our forest sector is integrated, it’s supported, there’s

collaboration, and we’re looking at how we ensure that we move from a

high-volume to a high-value strategy, that we ensure there are jobs for

British Columbians moving forward, that it’s balanced with these

competing challenges that we have here today in British Columbia,

ensuring that our forestry industry will be successful and continue to

address these challenges.

We want to ensure that we increase the efficiency so that…. With

the previous emphasis on high value, there was a lot of waste in terms

of wood fibre. We want to ensure that we can utilize and increase

efficiency to ensure that all our resources are used

adequately.

M. Bernier: I’m noticing we have just a few minutes left, but I appreciate the

few moments that I have to actually address this important situation.

I’m grateful for the motion that was put forward today.

Let me start quickly by just reading a quote from the B.C. Forest

Alliance. Now, people know last week the amount of families, the people

that showed up on the front lawns of the Legislature with an

8,000-person petition to stress to this government that their voice

needs to be heard.

[11:55 a.m.]

The B.C. Forest Alliance also is quoted as saying: “Securing a

long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base is what we need.

This will create opportunities for new investment. It will also give

workers the opportunity to become more skilled and therefore more

competitive in the global market.”

Unfortunately, the government is basically doing everything other

than that. They’re hurting these companies, and we’ve heard the impact

that it’s had on the families themselves. Now, almost every single

person in the NDP stood up today and actually said: “Well, you know,

don’t worry. We know they’re hurting. We’re listening.” The problem is

they’re listening, but they’re not hearing the issues. They’re not doing

anything to actually resolve the problem.

It’s absolutely a slap in the face and a disregard, actually, for

one of the most important industries in our province, an industry that

actually is part of the founding of British Columbia, what built this

province. It’s an honourable job. It’s an honourable profession and an

industry that we should all be supporting. But when we’re seeing some of

the stresses and the impacts that government policy has had on this

industry, it’s important that they, the government, recognize that. So

don’t just stand up and say: “We know people are hurting.” They have the

power and the opportunities to do something about this and actually help

people.

All the people and the families and the companies are wanting

right now is government to acknowledge that they can do better. Now, I

look in my riding. I have two mills operating right now. They’re

struggling, but they’re working. We have hundreds of people in my riding

right now that are employed in the forestry sector, and the number one

thing that comes into my office right now is people who are fearful —

those that are still working — fearful for their jobs, fearful for what

this will mean for their families if a mill shuts down.

Now, we know that members on the other side are on record saying

there are too many mills in B.C. Well, when they have that attitude

towards such an important industry, that’s why people are worried.

That’s why families are wondering: “Is this an honourable profession

still? Is this a profession I should be encouraging my children to be

involved in? Or should I be encouraging them to move to a different

province to try to actually find employment when they know that the

government of the day is not supporting them?”

Government needs to do better. They have the tools. They have the

opportunity to help these families that they themselves have

acknowledged right now, under their watch, are hurting. All we’re asking

for on behalf of all of those families and those companies is that they

do their job and that they help them get through, keep their employment,

and continue to do something that they’re very, very proud

of.

With that, noting the time, I move adjournment of the

debate.

M. Bernier moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Fraser moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2020: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada