Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 25, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 219

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

Carbon tax

J. Johal

S. Malcolmson

Respect for renters

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Sullivan

Congestion

J. Yap

B. Ma

Removing interest on student loans

M. Elmore

S. Gibson

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 4 — Opportunity for Indigenous communities

E. Ross

J. Rice

D. Ashton

D. Routley

D. Barnett

B. D’Eith

J. Sturdy

N. Simons

J. Tegart

J. Brar

J. Rustad

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CARBON TAX

J. Johal: It is an honour today to talk about British Columbia’s carbon

tax.

[10:05 a.m.]

First introduced in 2008, the tax was to encourage individuals and

businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices in reducing

their use of fossil fuels. The concept is simple. A carbon tax is the

simplest method to price carbon. By making fossil fuels more expensive,

we can better reflect its societal cost. It’s a concept supported by

many economists and energy experts, who believe it encourages

conservation, efficiency and cleaner alternatives.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The introduction of the carbon tax is also an acknowledgment that

the cost of climate change is mounting. One only has to look back to the

past two summers and see the devastating impact of wildfires on our

province. The impact was significant on people and, of course, the

provincial treasury as well.

Globally, also, there is a growing consensus that climate change

is a clear and present danger to humanity. The numbers are quite

daunting. In the northern hemisphere, the last 30 years have been the

warmest since Anglo-Saxon times. Atmospheric concentrations of

greenhouse gases are at levels not seen in 800,000 years, and the rate

of sea level rise is quicker now than at any time over the last two

millennia.

There is a cost, of course. Since the 1980s, the number of

registered weather-related loss events has tripled in the insurance

industry. Inflation-adjusted insurance losses from these events have

increased from an annual average of around $10 billion in the 1980s to

around $50 billion over the past decade.

Human activity and consumption are most likely the main drivers of

global climate change, and human-induced warming trends of 2/10 of a

degree per decade have continued since the 1970s. One only has to look

at Asia today. The combined economic output of Asia will surpass that of

Europe and North America combined by the mid-2020s. Asia today

represents 60 percent of humanity. The demand for energy is going to

continue to grow, from cars to refrigerators. We will, of course, have

to produce more energy, and it will have to be cleaner.

When the B.C. Liberal government introduced the carbon tax in

2008, it was based on four founding principles. The tax would be

broad-based. The carbon tax would apply to virtually all fossil fuels.

The tax would be phased in, as well, giving individuals, businesses and

industry time to adapt, innovate and reduce the impact of the tax. There

would be protection for lower-income households, which received an

annual climate action credit of $115 per adult and $35 per child. Most

importantly, the carbon tax would be revenue neutral. All revenue

generated by the carbon tax would be returned to individuals and

businesses through reductions to other taxes. None of the carbon tax

would be used for expenditure programs.

The philosophy continued from one government to the next. For

example, measures taken to make the carbon tax revenue neutral in 2017

included major tax cuts for individuals, including a 5 percent income

tax cut on the first $70,000 British Columbians make and a $200 rebate

for northern and rural homeowners. For businesses, it’s meant a cut to

the corporate tax rate, a cut to the small business tax rate and

increasing the amount you can earn as a small business. This system was

created so carbon tax revenue was returned to businesses and individuals

to reduce their tax burden. This meant that carbon was being taxed, not

economic growth.

There’s no doubt British Columbia has a role to play when it comes

to fighting climate change, but it has to be done in the context of

other jurisdictions and the impact it will have on B.C. families.

Families in Washington, Oregon and Idaho states aren’t paying a carbon

tax, and after April 16, the people of Alberta may not either. Those are

our immediate neighbours.

When businesses decide where to set up shop, paying the carbon tax

becomes one more factor on where they will open their business. That’s

why maintaining revenue neutrality is key to families and businesses.

Removing revenue neutrality from the carbon tax is a move that will

absolutely harm B.C. businesses and consumers.

Under this government, the carbon tax increases by $5 per tonne

each year to bring the carbon tax to $50 per tonne by 2021. Now, instead

of remaining a tax designed to encourage reduced reliance on fossil

fuels, it’s become a $6 billion tax grab. This includes a projected net

carbon tax revenue increase of $2.35 billion due to government changes.

Now, when government takes revenue neutrality away from carbon tax, it

becomes just another tax.

It’s a sentiment echoed by former Premier Gordon Campbell, the

original architect of B.C.’s world-leading carbon tax. He said: “Canada

should be leading the world with regards to climate. I am in favour of a

revenue-neutral carbon tax, not just a simple carbon tax. In British

Columbia, we adopted a multifaceted, revenue-neutral carbon tax, which

was a reasonable approach. If governments were interested in the climate

and not in a new revenue source dressed up in a new name, they would

make the carbon tax revenue neutral. That is an environmental

initiative.”

[10:10 a.m.]

B.C.’s revenue-neutral carbon tax, when first introduced, was

never a tax grab. The change is now being passed on to consumers and

businesses, adding yet another cost to doing business in B.C.

S. Malcolmson: Absolutely no argument with my colleague across the way about the

impact and the calamity of climate change. Long overlooked, it’s always

been the long emergency. We know it’s coming, yet on a day-to-day

level…. I’ve been a member myself of municipal councils that say this is

the work we want to do. Yet when the person that is a speaker at the

next public hearing is concerned about affordable housing or another

immediate “right in front of your face” calamity, somehow our

commitments to climate change continue to roll in the

background.

In British Columbia, more than anywhere, whether it is drought in

the Gulf Islands or calamitous wildfires destroying extensive property,

we know we cannot — we cannot — fail to act, and we must act faster. I’m

proud that British Columbia’s been at the forefront, and the carbon tax

brought in early by the former government is a point of pride. There’s

no question. As New Democrats, we’re building on this.

I’m also very strongly reminded of the advice that simply pricing

pollution is not the only way to combat climate change. We can be proud

in British Columbia, again, of having also used flex regs, flexible

regulations, that say this is the imperative: to reduce emissions in

addition to putting a price on them. This was extremely successful as a

way to combat acid rain in eastern Canada, where both pricing and tight

ratcheting down of emissions on a year-by-year basis is what saved the

environment there.

We must keep an eye, as it’s not only pricing pollution, but it’s

also demanding that pollution be reduced. Just last year the B.C.

government copied the Quebec government in just that sort of flex reg

approach to climate change by implementing a zero-emission vehicle

standard, which is a flex reg, to eliminate the purchase of gasoline

vehicles by 2040. But it doesn’t tell the manufacturers exactly how they

have to do that. It just tells them the goal they need to get to. We

need to do more of that work.

I’m proud that this government right now is using the carbon tax

revenue to actually go into green initiatives, where there is the

taxation, and then the investment is the place that we feel is the most

positive way to get true climate action from the carbon tax. Instead of

using it for tax breaks for the top 2 percent, as the previous

government did, we’re using all of it and more: $1 billion in housing

retrofits and $2 billion in public transit that gets people out of their

cars.

We’re spending it on many elements of the CleanBC program —

cleaner transportation, improving where we live and work. That’s

building retrofits, cleaner industry, reducing emissions from waste and

giving British Columbians the skills they need in order to benefit from

the opportunities in this very exciting industry that’s coming down our

track. These initiatives more than cover the kind of revenue that’s

coming in on the incremental increases to the carbon tax.

Now, we’ve got lots of examples right at home in Nanaimo of

affordable housing, electric vehicles, geothermal power at Vancouver

Island University. This work is already being done, and it offers great

opportunity and jobs.

My question, though, to the opposition: given that the previous

government agreed to the $50 carbon pricing in the pan-Canadian

framework, I wonder if the other members opposite confirm that they mean

to get rid of the carbon tax increase that was alluded to by your leader

in the speech to your convention last year. We are very concerned that

there not be any pulling back.

Given that both our parties agree to the 2050 reduction targets,

how would you achieve it? And if you object to spending the carbon tax

on building retrofits and transit, then what would you spend it on

instead?

J. Johal: I thank the member for her comments. I’m glad we can agree on the

fact that climate change is real, and we have to do something about

it.

[10:15 a.m.]

My comments earlier focused on the fact that we must remain

competitive, because ultimately this is about taxpayers and B.C.

families. You don’t see a carbon tax in Washington state, yet we have to

compete with them.

You also have to look within the global context of how far we are

compared to other jurisdictions. We have hydroelectric power, thanks to

decisions made by great leaders like W.A.C. Bennett. We play a

significant role in regards to dealing with climate change.

Once again, look at the context of GHG emissions globally. Canada

has about 1.6 percent of global GHGs. If you took B.C. Place today,

55,000 seats…. If that represented all the GHG in the world, 13,000 of

those seats would be China, and 11,000 of those seats would be India.

That’s 40 percent of humanity right there. British Columbia, out of

55,000 seats, would represent 76 seats. One coal-fired burning plant in

China is 20 seats.

We’re playing a role, but it has to be done in the global context.

We are so far ahead of other jurisdictions. We support the carbon tax,

but we also supported revenue neutrality when we introduced it in 2008.

Unfortunately, in 2017, the current government removed the carbon-tax’s

revenue neutrality. It also removed the requirement that the Ministry of

Finance prepare an annual carbon tax report and plan. This government

has also significantly raised the carbon tax in each successive year

since taking office and will be raising it again on April 1.

In addition, we know that of the $6 billion in revenue that the

government will be raising in carbon tax revenue, only about 15 percent

will be going back to the GHG reduction strategies in its CleanBC plan.

That’s a pretty small fraction. It makes me wonder why this government

isn’t using the vast majority of this money to pursue more innovation,

more clean technologies and to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It will just go under general revenue. Essentially you could call it a

tax grab.

In addition, while it’s clearly a good way to increase taxes, it’s

not the way to make life more affordable for British Columbians, which

has been a central theme for this government.

RESPECT FOR RENTERS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gives me great pleasure to speak about respecting

renters. For too long, I sat on the other side of the House and called

for respect, and renters didn’t get it. Finally we are seeing change to

respect renters in this province, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s about

time, because renters need help.

You know, 1.5 million people in British Columbia rent. It’s not

just a phase or a wacky time of life, as I know my colleague the Leader

of the Official Opposition argued. In fact, for some, it is their entire

life. It is a reality, because right now, given how things have gone

over the last 18 years, one in five British Columbians spends 50 percent

of their income just on rent. That means that they’re not putting it

away in savings. They’re not able to build up a stake for the

future.

In many cases, sadly, some are having to make decisions about: do

they take money from their food budget, or do they put it towards rent?

That’s the choice that renters faced under a long term, while I sat on

the other side, in opposition. That’s changing. We’re seeing a real

change now.

Now, renters need help in a number of ways. We need more rental

supply, and I expect that’s what my colleague opposite will argue for.

Absolutely, we need more supply of rental to increase the vacancy rate,

to give people more choices. We’re seeing that.

In fact, last year we had more new rental housing under

construction in B.C., in my understanding, than ever before. We also,

last year, had more rental starts than ever before. If you compare

figures, we’ve had approximately three times the rental starts and

rental places under construction in our short 18 months in government

than the Liberals had in their 16 years.

There’s a lot to be said about the work we’re doing to increase

the number of rentals: rental zoning; working with municipalities to

reduce the time it takes to get rental housing under construction; the

housing hub; working with faith groups, non-profits, private

contractors, etc., to get new rental housing built; and on and on it

goes.

We’re seeing a real change — 5,000 new units of rental housing at

universities, something I know my friends on the other side opposed year

in, year out. We’re seeing a real change. That’s something that I’m

really excited about.

But supply is one thing. We also need to make sure that we’re

seeing a real change when it comes to how renters are treated. That’s

why I’m so glad that we voted to get rid of what was called the

fixed-term-rent con. That’s what I called it, anyway. It was a game

where people would say: “I’ll let you live here for a year, and at the

end, you’re going to lose your house, or I’m going to double your rent.

How does that sound?”

[10:20 a.m.]

“Oh, you don’t like that? Well, maybe I’ll increase your rent by

30 percent. How does that go for you? If you look elsewhere out there,

there ain’t too many other places you can go to, so you’d better accept

it.” That was how the rules sat when my friends on the other side sat

here and I sat in opposition.

We got rid of the geographic area increase clause. It was a game

where a landlord would say to their tenant: “Well, you know, I see a

nice suite somewhere down the road going for 50 percent more than what

you pay. Yeah, it has a pool. Yeah, it has an ocean view. Yeah, it’s

brand-new. But hey, I’m going to tell you that they’re charging this

much, and you’re charging this much. I think you’d better be paying that

much. Let’s say $2,500. How does that go for you, for a one bedroom or a

bachelor? That’s what they’re paying down there.”

“Oh, what? You’re a senior? You’ve been living in your home for

ten years? Oh, you’re not paying that much? Well, too bad. Under the

rules that my friends in the Liberal Party set, I can apply to increase

your rent that much. You don’t want to pay that much? Well, I can find a

way to increase it just half that much if you sign today. Sign today, or

the deal goes.”

Unfortunately, too many people were scared into signing those

deals. They either lost their home — they lost their ability to pay the

rent; then they lost their home — or they lost their ability to buy

food. That’s what I faced, working in my community with people in this

struggle. We came here again and again pleading for action. We didn’t

get it.

Well, we’ve got it now. We got rid of the fixed-term rent con. We

got rid of the geographic area increase clause, which was used to bully

people. We’ve increased penalties, so if people cheat the system,

they’re going to pay a bigger fine. We brought in a compliance team,

because under the former rules, if you got caught taking money from your

renter, or if as a renter you got caught stealing from your landlord,

you were just told, basically: “Give the money back.” You know, we’d

have a lot more bank robberies in this province if the rules were just:

“Give the money back if you get caught.” Well, that’s how it stood for

renters.

There was something called administrative penalties brought in. It

was talked about all the time: “We’ll fine these guys.” You know what

they did? They fined a guy once, and then they said: “Give the money

back, and we’ll make the fine go away.” That’s how rules worked. That’s

how enforcement worked. That’s how disrespected renters were under the

former government.

You know the other thing? It’s not just renters who were

disrespected; it was landlords as well. That’s why we acted, as soon as

we got into government, to invest in the residential tenancy branch. Why

did we do that? It was because we needed to reduce wait times so that

people could get access to information faster and so that they could get

help faster. That’s on all sides. That’s landlords, and that’s renters

as well, because landlords also needed help, and they told us

so.

Instead of a 20-minute delay to get a response to a phone call,

you’ve got five minutes now. Instead of over 6½ weeks to deal with an

emergency, we’re down to four weeks now. Instead of 25 weeks, if you’re

trying to get your money back and you were stuck waiting under the

former government, we brought that down to 12 weeks. Should it be

faster? Sure, but you know what? Cutting it by over half the amount of

time under the former government — that’s pretty impressive. I’m pretty

proud of that.

We’ve increased the shelter assistance for elderly renters program

so that they can get support. We’ve increased the rental assistance

program for families and others struggling in low income. We also

brought in something called the renters task force — and I appreciate

the Premier and the Minister of Housing appointing me to be the chair of

that task force — so that we could get further action for

renters.

We eliminated the extra 2 percent the Liberals put on rent

increases every year. They said: “It should be 4.5 percent rent increase

for you this year.” We said 2.5. I know that my friend the Housing

critic opposite will probably argue for no rent controls at all and say

that they can charge you rent, 70 percent increase in a year, as I think

he told the radio a couple of months back, but we oppose

that.

We don’t think rents should go through the roof. I know that the

Leader of the Opposition argued for rents to go through the roof and

opposes what we’ve done. But we don’t think it’s just a wacky time; we

don’t think it’s just a phase. We think renters need respect and they

need action, and we’re delivering that.

I’ve got more to share, and I’m sure my colleague opposite will

have some interesting things to say. I look forward to

responding.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Monday morning statements are supposed to be

non-partisan, so let’s keep it that way.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: No, no, for everybody.

S. Sullivan: I am almost speechless after hearing my friend from the West End

just give me his theories on the economics of rental housing. A few

months ago he sent the market for rental housing into chaos by

announcing that he would be imposing rent controls.

[10:25 a.m.]

Rent controls? This is like 30 or 40 years after economists from

the left and the right have both agreed that it’s one of the most

certain ways to destroy rental housing. Are we in the ’90s? Where does

this come from? My god, as a renter myself, I am really worried about

where this is going.

I love the characterization of my friend, the hon. member from the

West End, to say how rent works. The rents go up because the landlords

say: “Hey, I think I’m going to charge this much money.” Is that how you

think it works? It is a product of supply and demand. And when you

interfere by artificially bringing in rent controls, it has been

demonstrated clearly, and economists on the left and the right agree,

that this is a very bad idea.

I’ll tell you who does believe it’s a good idea: politicians. It

is true. Politics is great. Politics likes rent controls, because what

it does is it saves and does support the people who are in. If you’re

in, you want rent controls for sure, for a while. What will happen then

is the landlords will then disinvest in the rental property because no

sane business person will accept subsidizing their business. You just

can’t do that. If you start losing money on your business, you take

action. You stop investing, especially if you’re told by the government

that your revenue is going to be fixed by the government. That’s not how

the market works.

Now, there is another way. If you want to create housing and

charge whatever rent you want, it’s government housing. You do that.

That is clearly…. There’s not enough money in the government to actually

to build housing for everybody and create rental housing. So we rely on

the market.

Ontario just got rid of rent control on new housing. Why would

that be? Because they want to stimulate the creation of

housing.

We see that people who are building rental housing are actually

getting out of it now. They are shocked to see this travel back to the

past of some bizarre idea where you can actually tell people that you’re

going to just cap the rent increases without having serious

repercussions on the whole industry.

Now, Seattle. What’s happening right now is that if you want to

rent out your place, you have to offer really good incentives — free

rent for the first few months. Some are offering flat screen TVs so

renters will come and actually rent their place. That’s how you get

control of the price of rental.

I, myself, am a renter, and I know where this is going. This is

not a good situation for people who want to rent in the downtown. It

will be good for the short term for people who are in, but they will

start to experience disinvestment, and we will start to see the

manufacturers, the creators of rental housing, get out. They’re going to

take their money where it can actually get a return.

It’s unbelievable that this is the fate of renters in our city and

our province. I’d love to see an economist…. Is there an economist who

would actually condone what you’re doing?

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I appreciate my friend on the opposite side. The B.C.

Liberal Housing critic has confirmed his party’s position. They want

unlimited rent increases. Fair enough, that’s a point that you can

take.

[10:30 a.m.]

He has said he opposes rent controls. The rent control is

something that we’ve had in place in B.C. for a long time. Under the

Liberals, it was 2 percent plus inflation. That was rent control. We got

rid of the inflation. The argument for getting rid of the inflation was

that there are quite a few folks who…. One, their wages don’t go up that

much every year. Two, if you’re on a fixed income…. I heard this from

seniors all across the province, and they’re going to be very interested

to hear the Liberals’ opposition to this. Their pensions didn’t go up 2

percent plus inflation. They’re stuck at inflation.

In fact, this last week I was home in the constituency, in the

West End. I had senior after senior come up to me and say: “You know

what? Thank you, because I can actually plan ahead. I can actually make

sure that I have food. And not every year….” The way they did their

budgeting…. They would show me. They’d say, “I figure I can continue to

be a renter for another two years. After that, I’m not going to be able

to eat, so I’m going to have to move into subsidized housing,” meaning

everyone else has to subsidize their rent. They’ve said to me: “Now I

can live independently. I don’t have to fear for losing my home, because

you acted to make rents more affordable.”

The other thing they said to me and I heard is: “We’re starting to

see vacancies increase. We’re starting to see options increase.” I

asked: “Why do you think that is?” They said: “I think it’s got to do

with the speculation tax.” They said they felt that telling folks that

they shouldn’t be leaving empty homes and empty condominiums and that

they should be rented out — that is increasing the supply of housing as

well.

I’ve seen that. I know my colleagues on the opposition side don’t

support the speculation tax. They oppose getting people to rent out

those empty homes and those empty condominiums. But my constituents want

those homes rented out. I can tell you, business people do as well,

because that means more people in the community supporting their

businesses. I think that’s a good thing.

There’s a contrast. There’s respect for renters, and then there’s

ignoring and disrespecting renters. We’ve seen what a long time of

ignoring and disrespecting renters looks like, and that means increasing

the number of people who are homeless. That means increasing the number

of people who are on the edge of homelessness because rents have

increased way faster than their ability to pay. It means renovictions

and people getting thrown out on the streets so you can slap a coat of

paint on and then double the rent.

There are a lot of really good landlords out there who don’t jack

up rents to unlimited numbers, but there are those who can game the

system. They got away with it, and they learned that there never was any

penalty when they did. Well, I can tell you about good landlords in my

community who’ve renovated their entire building. They kept their

renters in place, and they upgraded it. They’re people we should

support.

CONGESTION

J. Yap: I rise in the House to speak today on the subject of congestion on

our roads, which is a major inconvenience for travellers, a safety issue

for first responders and a drain on the economy.

Day after day, commuters idle bumper to bumper, not moving and not

getting anywhere at the George Massey Tunnel. They’re missing medical

appointments. They’re not getting their kids to soccer practice on time.

It’s taking them an hour or two to get home from work to be with their

family.

Or maybe they are truckers trying to transport goods to market.

They’ve got somewhere to be and a

schedule to adhere to. Instead,

they’re sitting in traffic and letting their employers down — through no

fault of their own, of course. What can they do? They’re

trapped.

This side of the House has been asking the opposite side for a

solution to this problem since about a year and a half ago. Back then it

was 80,000 commuters a day that were estimated to be stuck in this

gridlock. Today that figure is closer to 94,000 commuters a day. The

number has grown significantly.

This problem is getting worse. Motorists who use this busy

corridor need action. They need a solution. They plead for some movement

on this issue. Of course, there was a solution in place to replace the

structure, which, by the way, opened in 1959 as the Deas Island Tunnel.

It’s 2019 now. The Massey Tunnel has served its purpose for 60 years.

It’s old. It’s inefficient. It’s seismically unsound. It’s unsafe for

emergency personnel.

Drivers have had enough. They were told the bridge, the most

cost-effective and environmentally sound option to replace the tunnel,

was coming. There would be some relief on the horizon. But

unfortunately, as we all know, those plans are not in the works any

longer. The bridge project is dead.

[10:35 a.m.]

So what is the plan? We don’t know. The government has said it

won’t make a decision on upgrading or replacing this structure until the

fall of 2020, a year and a half from now. I already outlined how much

worse congestion has gotten in the past year and a half, so we can only

imagine what it will be like by the fall of 2020.

Deferring this issue that far into the future is unacceptable to

those living south of the Fraser who grapple with this situation each

and every day, and I would argue that this problem affects an even wider

swath of people. We know this route links people to our B.C. Ferries

system. There are people relying on those ferries for work, travel and

leisure.

We have folks trying to travel for business purposes who are being

held back by this congestion. We have families trying to visit each

other for spring break or summer vacation missing their sailing and

missing out on valuable quality time. I mean, what kind of welcome are

we giving to visitors to our province who are driving off that ferry in

Tsawwassen and into that parking lot of gridlock? It certainly doesn’t

give the best impression of beautiful British Columbia.

This traffic situation certainly is a major inconvenience for many

people. It impacts their quality of life in a number of ways. But most

importantly, I want to address the issue of safety.

This tunnel is seismically unsafe. That is a fact. I can’t tell

you the number of people who’ve told me that they get nervous every time

they have to drive through it. They’re hoping that, halfway through the

tunnel, an earthquake might not hit. They’re hoping someone doesn’t

ignore the rule prohibiting lane changes through the tunnel and hit

them. And God forbid, if they’re ever involved in something like that or

in close proximity to the tunnel, they are hoping emergency personnel

can reach them.

These are all incredibly scary prospects, and that fear is shared

by first responders as well. If there is a crash, emergency services

often struggle to get in or out of the tunnel. They’re also very

concerned about potential fires in the tunnel, which aren’t out of the

realm of possibility with a bad crash. So to tell all these people that

they have to just keep waiting for a solution, just be patient a little

while longer, doesn’t sit well.

To add insult to injury, while they’re sitting in that gridlock,

they can see that huge pile of sand from the preliminary work on the now

scuttled bridge project. There are no workers to be seen. As we know,

there could have been 9,000 construction jobs if that project had gone

ahead. No shovels in the ground. No heavy machinery. No pieces of

equipment. No noise. No activity. Just silence.

The other thing that they’re upset about is seeing the funds that

are going towards the study of a rapid train between Vancouver and

Seattle that would help people travel between those two cities in an

hour. My colleague the hon. member for Delta South has even joked that

people south of the Fraser might be better off moving to Seattle to take

that train to get to downtown Vancouver. But it’s no joke. People have

waited long enough. It’s time to do something here and now to relieve

this congestion.

B. Ma: I’d like to talk very specifically today about the issue of urban

congestion, as I recognize that rural and remote communities face and

experience transportation challenges very differently.

The issue of road congestion is really important to my community

out on the North Shore. As congestion continues to grow, it impacts

residents, commuters, businesses, student services and the quality of

life. The member opposite has identified many of these challenges

already. But on the North Shore and in many areas of Metro Vancouver,

the issue of traffic congestion is intricately connected to other issues

like land use and, in particular, housing affordability.

For instance, as housing unaffordability increases, people are

moving farther and farther away from where they were and thus spend more

and more time in their vehicles on the roads to get to and fro in their

daily lives. Increasing commuter traffic forms a huge part of our

increasing congestion challenges on the North Shore, and that is

actually a perfect example of how this happens.

[10:40 a.m.]

According to the integrated North Shore transportation planning

project, or INSTPP, between 2011 and 2016 the North Shore grew by an

additional 2,900 jobs, but its population only increased by about 900

working-age people. So the other 2,000 workers are being imported, for

lack of a better term, from elsewhere in the region, and without viable

non-car alternatives, commuters often end up back in their cars, adding

to the already congested networks that exist.

Certainly, I think we can all agree that congestion has been an

ongoing issue for British Columbia and particularly the Lower Mainland,

not simply for the last year and ten months or so since the last

election.

Now, the thing that’s always fascinated me about transportation

engineering when I was studying at UBC is that it’s an engineering field

that is almost entirely reliant on attempting to understand and

mathematize human behaviour. Now, a piece of steel behaves in the same

predictable fashion over and over and over again, but the same cannot be

said about humans. What we do know, however, is that humans make

decisions, at least from a transportation perspective, by weighing the

pros and cons of a number of factors.

“If I leave at 7 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m., I’ll beat the rush.”

“If I take the Port Mann Bridge instead of the Pattullo, I’ll avoid the

New Westminster traffic.” “If the bus costs me $2.85 and gas, insurance

and car payments cost me $10 a trip, it’ll be cheaper for me to take the

bus. However, the bus takes me 30 minutes longer. So how much is my time

worth?”

Time, route and mode — those are three ways that people change

their transportation behaviour in order to suit their commuting

environments. So when you add lanes to a roadway, when you add lanes to

a bridge, you actually end up inviting people to change their time of

travel, their travel route and their mode to find the most efficient

option, according to their tolerances for each kind of

inconvenience.

“Well, actually, traffic isn’t too bad at 7:30 a.m. anymore. I’ll

sleep in another half hour.” “Actually, New Westminster added a few more

lanes through the city. I guess I’ll take the Pattullo Bridge now.”

“Well, actually, maybe driving now saves me an hour over the bus, and

I’m willing to pay the extra money that it takes to get back into my

car.” Before you know it, the roads are full again.

What we have seen, time and time again, in growing urban areas

around the world is that this means we never actually see our roads

clear of congestion. It is a concept known as the law of congestion or

induced demand, and it is a very well-understood concept amongst those

who study urban traffic. It is, unfortunately, also a very difficult

concept to communicate to the public and politicians looking to make

political gains — quick wins, perhaps. They are trying to make political

gains with bad decisions that will take advantage of that

misunderstanding by promising monster highways that only ever make

things worse.

Brent Toderian, who is an international consultant on advanced

urbanism, said that across the world, city builders who understand the

complex relationship between land use, car infrastructure and road

congestion struggle to communicate it in a simple way that resonates

with the public.

It’s now well demonstrated in transportation demand management

research and practice that you cannot build your way out of traffic

congestion by building roads. In fact, the opposite is true. The more

freeways and car lanes you build, the more people drive and the more

congestion and other negative results there are.

What do we do then? We can’t simply allow people to languish in

worsening congestion. Instead, we must start to work to build the

housing that people can afford.

J. Yap: I thank the member opposite for those comments and agree with her

closing statement that we can’t allow commuters to be languished in

gridlock. I think all of us in this House want to do what’s best for our

constituents.

Constituents in Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley, drivers all

across the Lower Mainland are being burdened with this congestion

problem at the George Massey Tunnel, the worst traffic bottleneck in the

entire province of British Columbia. It’s travellers using our ferry

system. It’s people across B.C. and beyond. It’s local motorists and

commercial truckers, business people and vacationers. The common thread

is that their precious time is being utterly wasted in traffic —

languished, as the member opposite said. Important appointments are

being missed, and quality time with loved ones — evaporated.

[10:45 a.m.]

All of the studies and information-gathering that needs to be done

has been done. The people want action. They want their time back. They

want to stop idling and polluting the environment. They want to be

reassured about their safety on this stretch of road.

What they don’t want is to wait until the fall of 2020 for

answers. I fear some people will not wait, people like the CEO of London

Drugs, who has said, publicly, that he’s considering moving either the

head office, the distribution centre or both from Richmond. The massive

delays at the tunnel impact about half of their 900 employees who live

south of the Fraser. Some of them have quit because they can’t handle

the terrible commute any longer.

The congestion also hampers the flow of goods to and from London

Drugs, which increases their costs to do business. What happens when

costs increase? They get passed on to consumers. That’s a major company,

a major local employer that’s considering leaving the area because of

this gridlock at the George Massey Tunnel.

I’ve already noted how at least 9,000 jobs could have been created

had the bridge project gone ahead, but now we see that many more jobs

could be on the line if employers start uprooting their businesses and

moving elsewhere. They need a firm commitment that a solution is coming.

They need to know that their contributions to our economy are valued and

will be protected.

In closing, I will continue to advocate for this tremendously

important tunnel replacement in whatever form it takes to proceed in a

timely fashion for the good of British Columbians, our economy and our

environment.

REMOVING INTEREST ON STUDENT LOANS

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak about the step of our

government eliminating interest on B.C. student loans. Budget 2019

eliminated interest on B.C. government student loans, which resulted in

debt relief for up to 200,000 people. As of February 19, 2019, this

year, all B.C. student loans stopped accumulating interest.

We heard from the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training, who made the announcement that we “should be opening doors for

people, not making it harder to get ahead…. Students spoke, and our

government listened. For too long, students graduating from

post-secondary institutions have been saddled with high levels of debt.

Our government is committed to making life more affordable. That’s why

Budget 2019 eliminates interest on all B.C. student loans going

forward.”

This happened because for many years, students have been

advocating for interest-free loans in B.C. — for many, many years.

Instead of worrying about growing debt, students can focus on learning

and graduates can put their energy into the next steps in their

life.

We heard from Cristina Ilnitchi, who’s the vice president of

external affairs at the Alma Mater Society, that the elimination of

interest on B.C. student loans has had an immediate impact on students

who are burdened by debt. Students have been asking government to reduce

interest on provincial loans for years, and we welcome the fact that the

provincial government has recognized that action was needed to alleviate

the difficult financial situations students face during their studies

and after they leave their studies.

I’ve met with many students. I know students have met with members

from all sides of this House, raising concerns and asking for support to

make education accessible and affordable, so I’m very pleased our

government has taken this step. It’s benefiting about 200,000 B.C.

student loans that are outstanding, representing about $1.24 billion.

Borrowers will collectively save about $22 million in interest payments

on these loans in 2019-20.

We’ve heard, as well, from Santa Ono, the president of UBC, that

this is a good-news story for post-secondary students. Post-secondary

education and opportunities go hand in hand. Eliminating interest on

B.C. student loans and continued investments in additional tech-related

spaces is welcome news for many UBC students.

The elimination of interest on student loans means that low- to

middle-income students are not paying thousands of dollars more for

their education than their peers who can pay up front.

[10:50 a.m.]

Not only will eliminating interest on provincial student loans

benefit current and future students, but the impact will be felt by

borrowers who are still paying off their student loans and accruing

debt. A typical undergraduate borrower has $11,200 in B.C. student loan

debt and $28,000 in total student loan debt, including both federal and

provincial loans, which is certainly a crippling amount for students to

face after they’ve completed their studies — and to carry that forward

and to repay that after they’ve graduated. Eliminating interest on the

provincial debt will save a typical borrower $2,300 over the ten-year

repayment period.

This announcement comes after years of advocacy from student

groups throughout the province, including the Alliance of B.C. Students

and the B.C. Federation of Students. It’s a positive step forward to

make education and training more affordable and accessible, as too many

students were left behind for too long.

S. Gibson: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the statement from the

member for Vancouver-Kensington. As the opposition co-critic for

Advanced Education along with the member for Surrey South, I’m pleased

to have the opportunity to respond to the member, speaking in general to

the access to higher education. I do want to acknowledge a helpful

conversation I had with the member for Vancouver–False Creek regarding

the subject.

Pursuing post-secondary education provides immeasurable benefits,

both to our province as a whole and for individuals. British Columbia

gains so much from skilled and educated workers entering our workforce,

contributing to the vitality of our province. Individuals gain relevant

education — I want to emphasize that — but also important life skills as

they prepare for meaningful work, being responsible citizens, making

important financial decisions and managing deadlines, among

others.

B.C. offers myriad careers for skilled workers, whether in the

trades, tech — a number of opportunities available through companies

based in this province. Some really motivated students may even start

their own business. Now, as a former entrepreneur, I can affirm the

excitement of having your own business — stressful but

exciting.

Before I was first elected to this place in 2013, I had the

privilege of teaching for many years at the University of the Fraser

Valley. It was always exciting for me to be a part of the training of

the next generation. I also taught at Trinity Western University and did

contract teaching at Douglas College in New Westminster and at the

Justice Institute, so I have some appreciation for the challenges that

face students today.

I do acknowledge the remarks made regarding the challenge students

have today — increased costs and a rapidly changing and uncertain

economy. I think, too, this applies both to young people straight out of

high school as well as those folks going back and pursuing

post-secondary as mid-term career changes emerge for them.

I can relate to this, as I earned degrees both as a young man and

also when I went back and did a couple of grad degrees when I was

working full-time in my later years. I know the complexities of working

full-time — virtually full-time, often — and taking a university

credential. The member is correct in acknowledging that affordability is

an issue that we need to address.

People who have just left post-secondary education face many

responsibilities and challenges. One option to help could be credit

counselling to help students navigate their way through the financial

myriad that will face them — provide resources to those students to help

them manage their money wisely in order not to get into some difficult

credit situations.

[10:55 a.m.]

Many students work sometimes almost full-time. In my case, that

was the case. I even worked nights briefly. I worked nights, I would

sleep in the evenings, and I’d go to school during the day. I wouldn’t

recommend it, but it can be done.

Trades provide paid relevant experience as part of the

apprenticeship program — very exciting. I think gaining work experience

complements the acquisition of an academic credential. Heuristic work

provides important experience and references a student can bring forward

to a potential employer.

Importantly for the subject at hand today, we want to work with

students to ensure that the financial burden at completion of the

education is manageable.

Higher education continues to evolve, and the students need to

change with that. With these changes come new challenges but also new

opportunities for learning and personal growth. It’s our job as members

of this House to ensure that we give students the best support we can.

Our province deserves nothing less.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the remarks from my colleague from

Abbotsford-Mission.

Before our government took this step, B.C. government student

loans were charged the highest interest rates in Canada, at prime plus

2.5 percent. The old government resisted calls to do anything about

student debt in interest rates — well, right up until their pre-election

budget.

We heard from students that they were facing a crisis of

affordability, with high tuition fees and difficulty making ends meet

not only in terms of student loans, compounded with the crises of

affordability of housing, child care and a real crisis of affordability.

Our government took immediate action after 16 days and eliminated the

2.5 percent. Now we have eliminated interest on B.C. student

loans.

The previous government has been out of touch with British

Columbians. Let’s hear what the Leader of the Opposition said. By

eliminating student loans, he claimed…. He was the previous Minister of

Advanced Education, now the Leader of the Opposition. He claimed that

“students in their early years may get a little carried away with how

much they’re borrowing. We want to make sure that they have access to

financing. But there’s got to be a right way to go about it, and that’s

probably not the right way to go about it.”

He tried to backtrack, but really showing how out of touch, I

think…

Deputy Speaker: Member, just let’s keep it non-partisan.

M. Elmore: Yes.

…with the concerns and challenges that students were facing, in

addition to…. We heard often students rent. We heard that characterized

as a wacky time. We really see what the previous 16 years have brought

us and the contrast in terms of our government moving forward to take

action and address the needs and provide affordability for students. So

I’m very pleased about that.

This decision to eliminate interest on B.C. student loans is all

about making life better for people, opening the door to opportunity so

that everyone can reach their full potential and not be saddled with

crippling debt that many students have face. That’s the reality in terms

of needing to upgrade and get ahead and contribute fully in our

province. In addition, our government feels that higher education should

open doors for people. We shouldn’t make it harder for people to get

ahead. We know that students graduating from post-secondary institutions

have been saddled with high levels of debt for too long.

Our government is taking action to support students and support

British Columbians.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 4

standing in the name of the member for Skeena.

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

proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priorities of the motion

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 4 — OPPORTUNITY FOR

INDIGENOUS

COMMUNITIES

E. Ross: It is an honour to introduce the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for

Indigenous communities in British Columbia.]

[11:00 a.m.]

When I was first elected councillor and chief councillor, I

learned a valuable lesson very early on, and that is that an elected

chief councillor in the north has little at their disposal to deal with

issues related to poverty. The most horrible of all has nothing to do

with affordability. It has everything to do with substance abuse,

domestic abuse, violence, suicides and many other issues — not just from

my own observations and experiences but also reports from Aboriginal

organizations all across Canada.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

This has been a story of First Nations across Canada for

generations, but there has been a solution in place for the last 15

years, and it has nothing to do with government programs or schemes. I

know this because when I was first elected, our council made every

effort to apply for public programming and appeal to different levels of

government for help. It was then I realized that government can only do

so much, because you can’t simply legislate poverty away. If that were

possible, we would have passed a law against poverty a long time

ago.

What the Haisla did discover was that economic opportunity, a job,

is the fastest, most efficient way to lift an Indigenous community — and

any individual, for that matter — out of poverty. Ever since 2004,

elected chief and councils have been creating a new story, and the

progress and the results that we’re seeing in the communities and at the

individual level are astounding. And it’s still an evolving story in

B.C.

Naturally, anything worth fighting for, like the future well-being

of current and future generations, will be met with differing opinions

and controversy, but most of this is based on fear and misinformation.

We are currently seeing that with the proposed construction of the

Coastal GasLink pipeline. Despite the fact that all 20 elected

councillors have signed on to the project agreements along the

670-kilometre length of the pipeline, there are attempts by a few, a

small minority, to stop the project altogether.

Quite often those who object are non-Aboriginal people that have

no connection to the land and could care less about what happens to

Aboriginals, let alone the people living on the pipeline route, as long

as they win by opposing any resource development whatsoever. Once a

development project has been derailed, outside influences declare

victory and then vanish without any regard for the consequences. Left in

their wake are First Nation communities and non-Aboriginal communities

who now must somehow pick up the pieces and try to heal deeply inflicted

wounds. We have seen this before, and we’re seeing it now.

Members on the government side, when they were in opposition, were

firmly against LNG and didn’t even consider coming to our communities,

let alone our First Nation communities, to support LNG. When the Haisla

and 20 other First Nations were working on the Pacific NorthWest LNG,

MLAs on that side were still signing anti-LNG petitions and failing to

recognize that 22 First Nation leaders were working as hard as they

could to resolve the technical, environmental, social and economic

aspects of the LNG opportunity.

I sincerely hope that every single member of the government caucus

now supports, strongly, LNG and the Coastal GasLink pipeline and all of

the LNG projects in Kitimat and B.C. and will fight tooth and nail for

it, just like the Haisla did and the previous government did.

What about those First Nations who signed on to Kinder Morgan and

who are trying to find the same solutions to the same problems that the

Haisla were trying to solve and are trying to reconcile along with the

communities beside them? It seems that it’s just politics to support one

pipeline but then oppose another. The elected councillors that have

signed on to Kinder Morgan are doing so because they see an opportunity

for the people to resolve social issues.

This government, by aligning themselves with foreign governments

like Washington state and all the foreign money flowing south from the

border, like the Tides Foundation, could succeed at keeping Canada out

of world energy markets. But it will do so at great cost, including a

sacrifice of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Indigenous communities

throughout British Columbia, as well as all communities and British

Columbia as a whole.

J. Rice: We’re deeply committed to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Members, please come to order.

Proceed, Member for North Coast.

[11:05 a.m.]

J. Rice: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We’re deeply committed to reconciliation, and we have taken

concrete first steps. We’ve made reconciliation with Indigenous

communities a cross-government priority. We’re providing stable,

long-term revenue streams, such as our new agreement to share gaming

revenue, so that First Nations can invest in the services and

infrastructure their communities need. This, in turn, supports

self-determination, strong communities and strong families. By

respecting and recognizing rights, we’re making tremendous advancements

— for example, with the fish farms in the Broughton

Archipelago.

These agreements demonstrate that when we work

government-to-government with First Nations, we deliver results that

benefit everyone. We’ve signed agreements with the shíshálh, Blueberry,

Tahltan, Nisga’a and other First Nations. By respecting and recognizing

rights, we’re making tremendous advancements, such as treaties and

agreements that create opportunities for industry to engage with nations

as nations pursue economic development for their people, as the member

just spoke about.

All of this work means more certainty for First Nations, for

government and for industry. We’re committed to finding new ways of

working together to secure consent to recognize the rights, interests

and aspirations of Indigenous peoples in decision-making.

We’ve made an historic $50 million investment to preserve and

revitalize Indigenous languages in British Columbia. We’re the first

province in Canada to invest in on-reserve housing to address Indigenous

people’s critical need for better, more affordable housing. We’re

investing over half a billion dollars in the next ten years to build

over 1,700 affordable units.

We brought in new legislation to help Indigenous communities be

more involved in child welfare decisions. This is helping to keep kids

out of care, safe in their home communities and connected to their

cultures.

We’re providing Aboriginal friendship centres with ongoing funding

for the first time ever. Our investment in these important centres is $6

million over three years.

Together with many of the nations in the Broughton Archipelago, we

engaged in a groundbreaking process that delivered recommendations to

restore wild salmon stocks and create an orderly transition plan for the

fish farming industry and impacted nations.

In partnership with the First Nations Leadership Council, we are

co-developing new legislation to implement the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples. We will share provincial gaming revenue

with Indigenous communities to support self-government — strong, healthy

communities and services. This funding was a central part of our recent

Budget 2019.

The old government refused to recognize the existence of First

Nations’ inherent rights, and they refused to implement the UN

declaration. They also refused to share gaming revenue with them,

something the First Nations’ Gaming Commission has been advocating for

over a decade. They provided gaming funding to local colonial

governments. Why wouldn’t they provide gaming funding for First Nations’

governments?

Instead, they took a cynical and primarily transactional approach

to working with First Nations and only went to them when they wanted

something, like when they wanted an LNG terminal in Prince

Rupert.

This tit-for-tat, transactional relationship was developed with

area First Nations. We started to see revenue flowing and projects on

reserves funded not because it was the right thing to do; not because

people needed supports, and it’s government’s job to support its

citizens; not to right decades of colonialism and oppression; only

because the former government wanted something from First Nations —

namely, their land and resources.

Compare that to the funding we’re providing First Nations

communities with the rural dividend grant: money, funding for clean

energy and food security projects, diversifying First Nations’ economies

and not relying solely on a boom-bust one, such as LNG.

When Indigenous communities asserted their inherent rights,

instead of working in partnership, the previous government

systematically fought First Nations in court, wrongfully arguing against

their inherent rights.

D. Ashton: I just want to point out to my peer on the opposite side that

Penticton, the city I was so proud to represent, actually negotiated a

contract with our casino with the Penticton Indian Band to share

revenues — a first in the province.

[11:10 a.m.]

A quote. I’d like to start off with two. “After decades of social

engineering, ineffective federal governance, self-governance and

billions of dollars of federal spending, everyday life in many First

Nations continues to be deplorable” — Globe and Mail , as of

recently. And the second one: “There is nothing government can give you

that it hasn’t already taken away from you in the first place” — Winston

Churchill.

First Nations want to get away from government funding and

government bureaucracy. They want to get away from dependency. They want

to be able to develop their own economics and their own economic

development, to utilize the resources that are theirs, to work with

other bands and others in society to make a difference for their

communities and make a difference for those in the surrounding

areas.

I have to look no further than the successes of where I live — the

Osoyoos Indian Band, Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian

Band. An example, Osoyoos Indian Band: wineries, a resort,

manufacturing, retail businesses and tourism. Westbank First Nation:

retail and commercial development, commercial entities. Penticton Indian

Band: logging, working with a very well-known resort in the area,

commercial development, residential development and, just as important,

a real emphasis on the environment. One of their coups d’état is

bringing sockeye back to the Okanagan Valley. They created a hatchery

and a native fishery, and that’s being enjoyed by all.

Let’s look at some of the big opportunities that First Nations

have. My peers in government today were quite offside when I first came

in this House about the concept of LNG — until now. We’ve all been able

to see the benefits. Those benefits are going to flow to everybody in

this province. But there are other opportunities, which I’m sure that

good enthusiasm should take place on, with other natural resources and,

specifically, other pipelines that will not only benefit First Nations

but will benefit all in British Columbia and in Canada.

Let First Nations’ voices be heard democratically, as ours are.

Let’s let First Nations not walk behind us or in front of us but beside

us, as the rest in Canada, so all of us can benefit from what this

wonderful province and this country that we all call home have to

offer.

British Columbia and Canada are built on natural resources. There

are opportunities. I think, really, democratic voices have to be heard

in this society. Yes, there are going to be some that are opposed, as

there always are. We see that at our home, when we’re elected. Some are

for us, and some are against us. Some don’t vote.

When the democratic voice comes out and it’s said that this is

what we want to look for and this is what we want to do, not only for us

but, again, for the people around us and for the benefit of society and

all, let’s listen to those voices. Let’s not throw up more walls. For

years and years and decades and decades, bands and First Nations have

been met with constant bureaucracy and constant push-back. And credit to

the government. There’s been an opening that is going to allow First

Nations to go forward. But let’s all benefit from that, not just the

bands, not just some of those, unfortunately, who have benefited too

much in the past. Let’s share that wealth and give the

opportunity.

Just as some of the examples that I’ve given…. In my lifetime in

the Okanagan Valley, I’ve seen those First Nations blossom. I’ve seen

kids I grew up with that came from troubled families and that were

troubled themselves turn around. They’re working. They’ve got

good-paying jobs. They’re enjoying life. They’re making a huge

difference. What I see is they’re giving back to their community, and

that’s really something I think needs to be focused on. When people are

lifted up and given that opportunity, they just don’t stick it in their

pockets and go buy something nice. They give it back to their community,

and that’s what development and opportunities give.

So as we march forward in the House and the debates that we have

in here, let’s give those bands that opportunity that many of us have

had the opportunity to enjoy. Specifically, let’s utilize those

resources that we have in this province for the benefit of

all.

D. Routley: It gives me real pleasure to rise to speak to this motion,

although I wasn’t sure exactly where it was headed when I first saw it

on the order paper, so I’ve prepared a rather general

response.

When I think about the proposition of the motion, that First

Nations peoples in British Columbia need to benefit from real

opportunity…. I am confused why the member wouldn’t spend his five

minutes speaking to his own motion celebrating the steps that this

government has taken.

[11:15 a.m.]

When I go back to the member’s maiden speech in response to the

clone speech, the opposition’s adoption of most of the policies that the

B.C. NDP government has implemented over the last 634 days…. I look to

statements that he made. He says that “solutions to problems that

couldn’t be fixed without economic development” are what are needed. He

says that “positive impact can happen when government, business and

First Nations work together in goodwill and agreement.” He refers to two

recent agreements that were signed under the government that he

represented.

I’d like to point to a few agreements: the shíshálh Nation, the

Blueberry First Nation, the Southern Dakehl Nation Alliance, the

Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw agreement, the Tahltan Central Government

agreement, the Nisga’a Nation sharing mineral tax revenue from Brucejack

goldmine, the Tsilhqot’in Nation government collaborating on emergency

management and providing greater clarity and certainty on activities in

Chilcotin-declared title territory, the Malahat First Nation agreement,

the Maa-nulth First Nation agreement and the Halfway River First Nation

agreement.

All of these agreements are to create economic opportunity and to

provide real benefit to the members of those nations. But they do more.

We are the first province in Canada to invest in on-reserve housing —

the first province to do that. The steps we have taken to bring new

legislation to help Indigenous communities be more involved in child

welfare decisions. These are significant answers to problems that have

vexed this province and First Nations for generations. Now we are

partnering with First Nations to bring solutions that they are defining.

We are in a supportive role. That is what this B.C. government should do

and should have done over the past 15 years before the B.C. NDP

government took over.

We are providing Aboriginal friendship centres with ongoing

funding for the first time ever. We are sharing gaming revenue with

First Nations for the first time ever. These steps empower First Nations

to find solutions that suit them, according to their community, their

region, their special circumstance. We are not defining for them how to

solve problems. We are standing with them, supporting their

solutions.

The member who moved the motion said in his maiden speech in this

House: “You really have to experience these issues firsthand before

understanding how committed First Nation leaders are to finding their

own solutions to their own problems. In my opinion, ‘reconciliation’ is

not a political word. Reconciliation, in my view, has to affect the

average person’s situation to be truly successful.” Well, giving free

post-secondary tuition to all British Columbians who lived in care as

children, predominantly First Nations, is a real step to support the

solutions that the member had referred to so many days ago.

I’m confused that the member would make a statement, like he did

today, that we cannot legislate poverty out of existence. He represents

a government that legislated poverty into existence and that took

supports from British Columbians. This government, in fact, is

legislating solutions, not defined by us but defined in cooperation and

partnership with First Nations. That should be something the member

would celebrate.

One year, ten months and 16 days ago, when the election occurred….

When the member’s former government’s throne speech was read one year,

eight months and 24 days ago, they were adopting many of the steps that

have been taken by our government in the short 634 days since the

election. So I’m confused why the member’s motion wasn’t meant simply to

celebrate the great work that has been done, and that’s what I’m here to

do. I invite the member to celebrate the solutions he’s called

for.

D. Barnett: On behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am

pleased to address the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House

support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British

Columbia.”

[11:20 a.m.]

Before I begin, I would like to clarify something that my

colleague from North Coast mentioned here in her speech. The rural

development fund was developed by the previous government, and a lot of

First Nations at that time took advantage and did great things from the

rural development fund. I would say more than 50 percent of the funding

went to Indigenous communities.

Many of us in this House served in local government before serving

at the provincial level of government. I am one of them, having served

as mayor of the district of 100 Mile House for 17 years. I found it to

be an invaluable experience, because you become well acquainted with the

needs and aspirations of the whole community, including First

Nations.

In all circumstances, Indigenous communities are always looking

for opportunities to help current and future generations. Resource

development offers those types of opportunities. Madam Speaker, it

should interest you to know that a significant portion of Canadians and

British Columbians are in favour of resource development projects — four

out of five, to be precise — while 61 percent are tired of nothing

getting built in this country. In fact, 63 percent of British Columbians

feel the national economy will suffer if we can’t build resource

projects. The biggest supporters, not surprisingly, are northerners and

rural communities like the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

For example, 86 percent support the economic benefits of the LNG

Canada export facility in Kitimat. Many of those people are First

Nations, including the 20 elected councils that have signed project

agreements with the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will see natural gas

flow 670 kilometres from Dawson Creek right to the coast. During

construction, these agreements also represent approximately $620 million

in contracting and employment opportunities for northern Indigenous

communities. This is a vital part of giving Indigenous communities the

opportunities they need to change lives and make for a better future for

everyone.

Even in Metro Vancouver, 67 percent of people foresee positive

economic benefits from pipelines. That’s nearly seven out of ten people

on the Lower Mainland who recognize that pipelines represent economic

opportunity. This begs the question: why, then, has our Premier aligned

himself with the government of Washington state to stop the Kinder

Morgan pipeline? Why would a Premier actively campaign against Canadian

jobs and attempt to extinguish economic opportunities with First

Nations?

Washington state hasn’t offered us anything in return. Seventy

percent of oil that flows into Washington state’s five oil refineries

comes from Alaska, and all of that oil is shipped along B.C.’s

coastline. The governor of Washington, who now happens to be running as

the Democratic candidate in the race for president, probably can’t

believe how lucky he is to have the support of the Premier of British

Columbia.

The fact is that economic opportunities and participation are a

central part of reconciliation with B.C. First Nations. Under the

previous government, B.C. became the first province in Canada to share

revenue from mining, forestry and other resources with First Nations. As

an unprecedented measure of progress, the previous government achieved

close to 500 economic and reconciliation agreements. This set our

province along a pathway to reconciliation with First

Nations.

The government, by standing in the way of resource development, is

pursuing a policy of the past to isolate and alienate First Nations from

participation in the economy. This is not sound public policy. If this

government is truly interested in reconciliation, in reducing poverty

and in giving future generations opportunities that ten or 20 years ago

were never dreamed of, then please support resource development and

Indigenous communities throughout this province.

B. D’Eith: I wanted to thank the member for Skeena for making the motion: “Be

it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous

communities in British Columbia.”

[11:25 a.m.]

What is real opportunity? Obviously, real opportunity is economic

opportunity. That’s simple. But what about the opportunity to get out of

poverty? What about the opportunity to rediscover language and culture

or the simple opportunities that come from recognition of rights and

title, which the former government wouldn’t do? Or the opportunity to

heal after the trauma of residential schools? Or the opportunity to work

in partnership with all levels of government and be truly consulted on

projects? This is all part of what I believe is true

reconciliation.

This opportunity only comes about with respect. That’s why I’m

very, very proud of this government’s commitment to reconciliation and

providing opportunities to our First Nations. In fact, every mandate

letter from the Premier directed every member, every minister, to look

through the lens of reconciliation to implement the key recommendations

of the United Nations declaration on Indigenous peoples — every

ministry. That’s really important.

The old B.C. Liberal government refused to recognize the existence

of First Nations inherent rights, and they refused to implement the UN

declaration. This is a declaration that’s been adopted by 148 countries

around the world. Our government is committed to adopting these

recommendations into the laws of British Columbia.

Now, while reconciliation won’t happen overnight, of course, trust

is earned. This is a generational issue that will take generations, but

we are starting down this path. I truly believe that our government is

moving forward, empowering our Indigenous peoples and ensuring they

actually benefit from the fruits of our labour in British

Columbia.

What the old government did was they actually…. All of the work

they did with First Nations was on a transactional basis. Our government

is looking at this from a broad basis. It’s every ministry. Every single

thing that we do is looked at through the lens of how we can move

forward on reconciliation. We’re working government to government — this

is about respect; that’s why respect is what you need, to move to true

reconciliation — to build healthy communities and create shared

prosperity.

I can’t possibly get to all of the actions that have been taken in

the last 18 months. I know some of my other colleagues have done that.

One of the things, the refusal of the past government to share in gaming

revenues with First Nations, was a really big one. We heard that in the

Finance Committee. Every First Nations leader said this was the single

most important thing that the government could do. Part of the reason

for that is local governments can raise taxes, provincial governments

can raise taxes, and federal governments can raise taxes.

But if you’re trying to build self-government in a strong and

healthy community through that stability, you need money, and you need

sustainable money. Sharing $3 billion of gaming revenue over the next 25

years is going to make a significant impact and really move towards

reconciliation.

Also, we’re investing $21 million over three years in

community-based training partnerships so that Indigenous people in over

40 communities can get access to training and education close to home.

Part of the opportunity is being able to work and being able to have

good jobs. That’s really important.

Another really important investment is in language. Language was

stripped away from our people during the residential school period. I

know I talked to a member in my community where her daughter was

teaching her, the elder, how to speak her language. That’s wrong. That’s

simply wrong. So this is important. This is important work, this $50

million. I’m very, very pleased with that.

Also, the $2 million for an Indigenous law program at UVic…. I was

a proud alumni of UVic law school, and I am so pleased to see that this

will help empower more Indigenous people to really benefit and get

opportunity from our system.

In closing, as I said, it’s impossible for me to go through all of

the wonderful things that have been done over the last 18 months. But

really, the opportunities will flow from the treaty work that’s been

done, the training that Indigenous students can get and funding for

self-government.

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise to speak to the resolution that this House

support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British

Columbia.

[11:30 a.m.]

This is something that is important to this province. It certainly

was important to the previous Liberal government, which made real

progress on these issues, and certainly in my riding of West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, where reside the Squamish Nation; the Lil’wat

Nation; and the Lower Stl’atl’imx Tribal Council, which consists of the

N’Quatqua, the Samahquam, the Douglas and the Skatin. All these nations

are important parts of our economy in the region and have certainly been

engaged.

The beginning of that, in many respects — certainly in my

experience — was around the planning and development of the 2010 Olympic

and Paralympic Winter Games, which generated a renewed engagement and

recognized that First Nations were critical partners in the successful

production of those games. Certainly, they were instrumental in planning

and hosting this incredible event. They participated in all aspects, and

there were developments that benefited not just the nations but the

region as a whole.

I’m thinking in terms of the Sea to Sky Highway improvement

project, which is, incidentally, coming up to its tenth anniversary very

shortly. This benefited communities. It benefited industry. It benefited

business and First Nations up and down the corridor, specifically with

regard to First Nations. There’s now, as you drive that corridor, a

recognition of First Nations place names, First Nations Indigenous

history, as well as, I think, a recognition of the vibrant future that

First Nations hold in the region and around British Columbia.

As well, what it did is provide an opportunity, through the

process of accommodation and consultation, for significant transfers of

land, both fee simple options and potential for addition to reserve,

from one end of the corridor to the other. There’s no question, as we go

forward over the course of the next couple of decades, that we will see

the Squamish Nation is the main developer. It’s currently the main

landholder in the Sea to Sky — in Squamish, in particular — and will be

one of the major development proponents in the region as Squamish

doubles in population over the course of the next couple of

decades.

It also set the stage for an Indigenous tourism and cultural

corridor up and down the Sea to Sky. It helped the nations put together

the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre. For those of you who haven’t

visited, you definitely need to. I would actually also argue that it

brought into place an $80 million investment in terms of the Audain Art

Museum, which, while not a First Nations initiative, has a tremendous

First Nations focus. If you haven’t visited and seen the display of

masks in the Audain gallery, that’s a must-see.

You know what? The whole resource sector in the Sea to Sky is

based on partnerships with First Nations. It’s based on both the energy

and the forestry sectors — without question, substantially supported by

First Nations and in partnership with First Nations. Tremendous

opportunities have taken place, specifically in the independent power

project sector, which is something that the current government has

definitely demonstrated they don’t support.

It has created almost $2 billion worth of investment in the Sea to

Sky — all in partnership with First Nations, all resulting in

employment, all resulting in training, all resulting in

capacity-building, all resulting in impact-and-benefits agreements, all

resulting in revenue-sharing — and, as well, provided an opportunity to

electrify three communities in the Lower Stl’atl’imx that have been on

diesel for decades and decades and are now on the grid. This has changed

the lives of people down in the Lower Stl’atl’imx.

Then there are area-based tenures, partnerships on the forest land

base, with community forests in Pemberton and Squamish. The Cheakamus

community forest is a partnership with the resort municipality of

Whistler. TFL 38 has been purchased by the Squamish Nation from the

province. It is a tremendous employer in a renewable sector, a renewable

industry for the Sea to Sky and for the province of British Columbia,

and they have a great future in British Columbia.

[11:35 a.m.]

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the motion that’s been

put forward before the House by the member for Skeena: “Be it resolved

that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in

British Columbia.” I think we’re pretty non-partisan on that. Yeah, we

all support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British

Columbia. I’m not entirely sure why it was started off with a statement

that basically criticized anyone who’s concerned about greenhouse gases.

It made it as if there’s some sort of division where there isn’t

any.

We all support economic opportunities for people in this province.

I think that’s been shown throughout previous governments, once we’ve

realized that we’ve got responsibilities to ensure that everyone has

opportunities for similar economic development. Some communities are

situated in a place where economic opportunities are different than

other communities. Some communities have opportunities to grow grapes.

Other communities may be on the coast, and they’re fishing communities.

But we have to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that the

conditions are good for economic development.

I believe that our government is taking large steps, bigger steps

than we’ve seen in the history of the province. I’m proud of those

steps. I think they indicate a real fundamental agreement not only with

the United Nations declaration but the recommendations in the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. We’re making steps towards creating the

conditions or ensuring that the conditions exist in our communities

where people have the economic and social capability to fundamentally

establish good, strong businesses. I’m really pleased that my community

has many examples of First Nations, Indigenous business

organizations.

Real opportunities are created with jobs. Real opportunities are

created with education. Real opportunities are created when families are

strengthened with services and supports that ensure children have food

in school and access to recreational opportunities — the opportunities

that we ask all our communities to be able to access. I think,

foundationally, if we look at the needs of communities to be strong and

successful, the conditions for good economic development need to be

there. That’s for every community, not specifically Indigenous

communities.

The specific issues facing Indigenous communities and the

development of business are obviously unique, with many overlaps as

well. But I am happy to say that, on the Sunshine Coast, both the

shíshálh Nation and the Tla’amin First Nation have members who are

active business entrepreneurs. They are owners of businesses. The Lund

Hotel, for example, is owned by the Tla’amin.

On the lower Sunshine Coast, fisheries, forestry — all sorts of

economic opportunities and economic enterprises — are well established,

and those are creating real opportunities. The tourism industry on the

Sunshine Coast is very well loved by visitors from near and far. I think

they show that Aboriginal communities are fully capable and fully

engaged in taking advantage of the economic opportunities that exist in

this province.

I say that a good foundation is good public services, good

communication systems. The Internet — we’re making sure that people have

access to high-speed Internet. That’s important for promoting

opportunity. I think that we’ve done a lot of things to ensure that

communities are not just resilient but are good growing grounds for

people who are interested in raising everyone’s boats, providing jobs

and providing opportunities.

I’m pleased that our government has redoubled the province’s

efforts to ensure that opportunity and real opportunity exist, whether

it’s in the resource sector, in the tourism sector or in the retail

sector. Those are all areas where people from all of our communities can

benefit from good active economies.

I’m happy to support the member’s statement. I think that this is

one where we can see ourselves agreeing that our support for economic

opportunities is bipartisan, tripartisan. I’m happy to support the

motion.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Tegart: I rise to speak to today’s motion: “Be it resolved that this House

support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British

Columbia.” I’m very pleased to hear the comments throughout the House

for support for Indigenous communities.

This is an issue I’m very familiar with, as the proud

representative of a riding that is home to a high number of First

Nations bands. Each has seen its share of successes and challenges, but

one thing remains the same: a desire for access for opportunities for

their members.

Economic development is often easier in populated areas in our

province, but in some of our very rural parts of Fraser-Nicola, it

remains a big obstacle. If you’re the Westbank Indian band, your

opportunities are a tad bit different than the Seton Lake Indian band. I

applaud the leadership at our band level, looking for opportunities

where their reserves are. Bands in these areas are just as eager to

build an economy and create more jobs for their people, but it’s often

easier said than done. That’s why partnerships are so important. We’ve

seen some great successes when local First Nations have partnered with

the private sector to achieve these goals.

One example that comes to mind — I spoke about it in the House

just before the break — is the Kanaka Bar independent power project in

Lytton. For 36 years, Kanaka Bar has partnered with Innergex to develop

the Kwoiek Creek hydroelectric project. The project is 50 percent owned

by the band. Not only do they enjoy a reliable source of power; they’ve

also gained long-term employment opportunities, tax revenue and a 14

percent annual return on investment, among other benefits. Bands

throughout my riding have seen significant benefit agreements with

industry in the area. Jobs, training and skills development are all an

important part of these agreements — leadership — working hard to ensure

good family-supporting jobs close to home.

We’ve also seen the positive economic benefits that can come from

First Nations sharing their culture, not only with their neighbours but

with international visitors. Aboriginal tourism has been growing in

British Columbia, attracting people from around the world to experience

the rich history of our Aboriginal peoples. Landscapes, cultures,

traditions, art, music, food and more are just waiting to be explored in

all corners of this province.

A number of First Nations entrepreneurs have responded to this

global interest, setting up a wide variety of tourism opportunities for

visitors. We have an incredible First Nations village in the Fraser

Canyon at Boston Bar, with a traditional longhouse, native plants and

how they’re used, pictographs and what they mean and symbolize, and a

gift shop selling First Nations designs, to name a few.

In Fraser-Nicola, I think about the Kekuli restaurant in Merritt,

which has become a huge draw for locals and travellers alike. It serves

First Nations foods inspired by the simple, fresh, homemade meals that

the owners grew up loving as children, often with a modern twist. The

cafe’s specialty is bannock served in a number of different

ways.

I think about Nlaka’pamux Creations, a new business venture in the

community of Merritt, featuring First Nations artists. This store

provides an opportunity for local artists to have an outlet for their

products, but they also hold classes, teaching people how to make dream

catchers and other First Nations art.

NVIT, when we talk about the value of education, is a campus in

Merritt to be very proud of. Started by five First Nations bands, we’ve

seen continued growth. Last year they offered free tuition to every

graduate in the school district in Merritt. It shows the value of

partnerships with government and with the local community.

These are just a few examples of the success stories in my riding,

but there is more work to be done.

[11:45 a.m.]

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

for Skeena, and I appreciate the member tabling this very important

motion. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House support real

opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.”

The key question is this: what is the most important step the B.C.

government must take to provide real opportunities to Indigenous

communities? The answer is very simple: true reconciliation in

partnership with Indigenous communities. The fact is the rights of any

community are way more important than any other opportunity.

The Indigenous communities want us to implement the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in B.C. The

implementation of the UN declaration in B.C. will open many doors for

real opportunities for Indigenous people.

The sad part of this motion is that the outgoing B.C. Liberal

government refused to recognize the existence of First Nations rights

for 16 years, and they refused to implement the UN declaration. They

systematically fought First Nations in the court, and they repeatedly

lost the case. As of today, nearly 150 other countries and the federal

refused to do the same.

Our government is moving forward on reconciliation in partnership

with Indigenous peoples. I’m very proud to say that we are co-developing

our new legislation with the First Nations Leadership Council, to be

introduced this year. The new legislation will establish the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It includes the right to

self-determination; to be free from discrimination; to access education,

health care and a fair share of social and economic outcomes. Many in

B.C. take these rights for granted. They are pathways to creating real

opportunity and shared prosperities for Indigenous peoples.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Our government honours and respects Indigenous rights.

Reconciliation remains the most important step for our

government.

Sharing revenue with First Nations is another step forward to

provide opportunity to First Nations. Again, the old government refused

to share gaming revenue with First Nations, even after First Nation

leaders said it was the single most important thing the province could

do for them.

Our government is taking action. Budget 2019 delivers on a key

government commitment to share gaming revenue with B.C. First Nations

communities. B.C. will share over $3 billion in provincial gaming

revenue with First Nations communities over the next 25 years. Like

every government, First Nations need stable, long-term revenue

streams.

This revenue can be used for things like child care, housing, road

upgrades and economic development. This, in turn, supports

self-determination, strong communities and strong families. Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia — all already share gaming

revenue with First Nations. Together with the Indigenous people, we are

doing the hard work to build healthy communities and create shared

prosperity to benefit all British Columbians.

I would like to conclude by saying that we want a better B.C. for

each and every person in this province. Therefore I support this motion

to honour and respect the Indigenous rights and to provide long-term

revenue streams to First Nations so that they can succeed, as other

people in the province succeed.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Rustad: I’m very pleased to rise and join this debate about creating real

opportunities for Indigenous people and Indigenous

communities.

I just want to correct the record. I find it interesting, this

discussion around UNDRIP. When the current federal government was first

elected, the very first meeting I had with them, which was the month

after they were elected, I took out a delegation of teams from the

former ministry I was responsible for. I met with the minister and said:

“How do we implement UNDRIP together? Let us sit down. We’ll work it

out. We’ll be a pilot. We can go forward in doing this.” Unfortunately,

the federal government never took us up on that opportunity.

I want to go on talking about this motion. I want to start by

saying this: under the B.C. Liberals, we had a 42 percent reduction in

the number of children living in poverty. There were over 30 percent

less children in care of the state under the B.C. Liberals than there

were under the previous NDP government. How did that happen? It happened

by creating real opportunities through a job, through economic growth,

through an economic focus of this government. Those were huge steps. For

the NDP, of course, facts are an inconvenience to their

narrative.

We’re in a situation where, when you look at First Nations across

this province, they want to be engaged economically. I met with many

First Nations since being on the other side of the bench — as well, of

course, as when I was with them. They all want the same thing. They want

prosperity for their children. They want an opportunity for their

nation. They want to see people lifted out of poverty.

I found it interesting. The five members from the government who

got up and talked about this…. I want to thank the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast. At least he mentioned the word “jobs.” None of the

rest of them even mentioned it. It wasn’t even part of the

narrative.

You look at it and what we did with First Nations and the

agreements that we signed. Whether it was for independent power

projects, which, of course, they would like to cancel, as they didn’t

think they should go forward; whether or it was LNG, which up until

recently, they opposed; through forestry; through mining; through

tourism…. We did it. We supported people through training and through

environmental stewardship. All of these initiatives, all of these

agreements, had one purpose in mind: respect, engagement, partnership

but, most importantly, a move to lift people out of poverty through

jobs, through employment, through finding those opportunities for

success.

On the LNG, just recently I had an opportunity to meet with the

chiefs of some of the Wet’suwet’en bands. They’re all excited about the

Coastal GasLink project. They don’t agree with the protests. They want

to see this, because they know the difference it can make. They know

what can happen for the people. I just sat down with the Cheslatta

Carrier Nation. They’re excited about their future. They’re excited

about the agreement that is coming to fruition through the work we did

and that the current government is now about to sign. Why? It’s respect

and recognition of the history, but most importantly, it builds a future

for their people — jobs, opportunity. People have a chance to look

forward.

Chief Dan George spoke at a rally just this weekend, and he talked

about that opportunity. He, unfortunately, has attended more suicide

attempts than, I think, anybody would ever want to see in their

lifetime, for sure. One is too many, and he has, unfortunately, had to

attend many. He wants to see opportunities for his people through jobs.

It’s what this government doesn’t get. They don’t have a jobs plan. They

don’t think about what that real opportunity means.

Many other chiefs that I talk to have talked about how they want

to lift themselves out of poverty, how they want to stop managing

poverty and start managing prosperity. That doesn’t come through gaming

revenue. That comes through jobs. That comes through economic

advancement. That comes through participating in our economy.

Other chiefs that I talk to have said the same thing. They’re

tired of saying no. They’re tired of their children and the kids in

their nation not having those opportunities. They want to partner. They

want to build. They’re working with companies. They want to work with

government to do this, not working with governments that are stopping

projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline, not working with governments

that are not going to put the kind of effort that’s needed to move

forward on things like Coastal GasLink.

We’re in a situation at a unique time. We’ve built 15 years of

history, particularly over the last four years, where we signed hundreds

of agreements. We advanced reconciliation in this province farther than

any jurisdiction in the country has, and we did it on a foundation of

jobs. We did it on a foundation of economic opportunities, out of

respect and recognition. That’s exactly what this government should be

looking at and what they’re failing to do.

On that note, I move adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Sorry. I move the motion, and they can vote it down if they

want.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada