Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 231

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cancer awareness and Canadian Cancer Society

E. Foster

J. Routledge

Global access to health care and Kelowna community walk

N. Letnick

Emergency management partnership in Bella Coola Valley

J. Rice

Patricia Lloyd

S. Furstenau

Cancer awareness and Canadian Cancer Society

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Tax policies and gas prices

J. Johal

Hon. G. Heyman

I. Paton

Social services and procurement process

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Simpson

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Simpson

S. Bond

Wages for Premier’s staff and community social services workers

M. Polak

Hon. S. Simpson

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Simpson

Petitions

M. Polak

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

S. Furstenau

A. Weaver

On the amendment

A. Weaver

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Hon. C. James

On the main motion

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

B. Stewart

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Members will know that this is the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil

Month. It’s part of their national campaign. As many people know, the

daffodil is very resilient, as are many families and many people involved in

the fight against cancer.

I wanted to acknowledge people who are visiting in the galleries today

and in the Legislature: Faye Wightman, who’s the interim B.C. and Yukon

executive director of the Canadian Cancer Society; Sandra Krueckl, the

vice-president of cancer control; Khairun Jivani, the director of cancer

control; and Jenny Byford, the B.C. and Yukon advocacy lead.

I know everyone in the House will be engaging here, in the

Legislature, today with the Canadian Cancer Society. We’ll have that

opportunity, and we want everyone in the House to make them

welcome.

M. Polak: Many in the chamber will have seen on television and other news

reports the activities of the guests I’m about to introduce. Naomi Baker,

her husband, Derek, and their lovely 10½-month-old daughter, Faith, have

been very active in promoting the ban of smoking in multi-unit buildings,

where it presents a risk of health not only to them as parents but also, of

course, to their young one.

The Minister for Housing and the Minister of Health have graciously

offered to meet with them later today. I’ll be presenting a petition. But I

also want to, in welcoming them here, invite you all to the Oak Room —

non-partisan, it’s in neutral territory — at 1:30, for MLAs who are

interested in hearing more about what it is that Naomi and her family are

proposing. You’re welcome to come and join us at 1:30 in the Oak Room. I

know that they’d be very pleased to see whoever has a moment in their day to

drop by for a few minutes and to have that conversation.

Would the House please welcome Naomi Baker, Derek Baker and Faith

Baker to the chamber.

S. Sullivan: Yes, in the House today are Simon Jackson and Jill Cooper. They are

the co-founders of Nature Labs. This is an incredible resource for teachers.

It’s an interactive, multimedia, experiential textbook, essentially, that

helps to teach children in a much more engaging way. I thank them for the

work that they’re doing for our young people. Please welcome them to the

chamber.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a longtime family

friend of mine to the Legislature. He’s also a friend of working people and

progressive governments right across North America and internationally. It

gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Leo Gerard to the

House.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two denizens of Davie Street,

two dukes of Denman, two buddies of Burrard, two pals of Pacific, my

constituents Eddie Abbey and Ron Stipp. Many know them. They worked very

hard in our community in the West End and, indeed, to build a better world

all across this country. Please give them a hearty welcome.

Welcome to your Legislature.

S. Malcolmson: I invite the members of the Legislature to extend a warm welcome to my

friends and artists in my home community, Dirk and Mary Ann Huysman. Great

to have Vancouver Islanders in the House.

N. Simons: One of the great pleasures of being allowed out of this building after

seven o’clock at night is to run into people. I did run into two

constituents last night. I want to make welcome to the Legislature Ken and

Maria Glaze from Powell River.

[10:10 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — COMMUNITY SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Safety Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Public Safety and Solicitor

General’s statutes amendment act, 2019. This bill proposes amendments to

the Community Safety Act and, in doing so, furthers this government’s

response to address public safety concerns such as gang and gun violence

and the opioid crisis.

The amendments will modernize the Community Safety Act to address

the current community safety needs of British Columbians, enhance

administrative fairness and minimize the administrative burden of the

act.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Community Safety Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 26 — FINANCIAL SERVICES

AUTHORITY ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Services Authority Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Financial Services Authority Act,

2019. This bill will establish a new regulatory authority for the

financial services sector in British Columbia, which will replace the

existing Financial Institutions Commission, known as FICOM. The new

regulatory authority will be known as the B.C. Financial Services

Authority.

This bill establishes the new authority as a Crown agency that is

self-funded, operationally independent and accountable to the

Legislature through the Minister of Finance. The mandate of the

authority will also be expanded to include the pension and mortgage

broker sector, ensuring that the authority is a fully integrated

regulator. This new structure aligns with international best practice

for financial regulators.

The proposed legislation will ensure that the new B.C. financial

sector regulator is more able to effectively regulate the pension,

mortgage broker and financial services sectors in British Columbia to

protect consumers from undue loss and unfair market conduct and prepare

it to meet the regulatory challenges of the future.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Financial Services Authority Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we begin the two-minute statements, if I just might

mention that one of the things that’s been very noticeable is, for the last

two speakers, it’s usually very, very difficult to hear what they’re saying

because of the side chatter. So if we could all just be mindful of that.

Thank you.

CANCER AWARENESS AND

CANADIAN CANCER

SOCIETY

E. Foster: April is Daffodil Month, a time for all of us to support people

living with cancer and to commit to the ongoing search for a cure. We

honour this month by wearing a daffodil pin. It’s a simple gesture that

symbolizes our support for and solidarity with those who may be fighting

the most important battle of their lives or for those supporting loved

ones suffering illness.

This initiative was started by the Canadian Cancer Society. This

national, community-based organization of volunteers has taken on the

mission of eradicating cancer and enhancing the quality of life for

those people suffering with the disease. This organization has made

great strides in the progress of prevention, research and support of

those living with the illness. The Canadian Cancer Society is the

country’s largest national charitable funder of research into all types

of cancer.

[10:15 a.m.]

The society is also a great resource for providing people with

information on how to reduce their risk of cancer and offers multiple

support services for people with cancer, and their loved

ones.

Everyone has been touched by cancer. I lost my little sister when

she was 47 years old. She was a mother and a wife, with two small boys

and a great husband. She never smoked. She ate all the right foods. She

was never overweight. She wore her sun hat. It still took

her.

Then imagine my shock when, a few years ago, I was told that I had

melanoma. Luckily for me, it was stage 1 and very small, and a minor

operation took care of it. You may have noticed — some folks — my face

over the last few weeks. I actually had somebody ask me if I had

measles, but I was already inoculated. It’s a condition I have that, if

left alone, will develop into melanoma. So it’s all good. I have a great

dermatologist. I see him every six months.

Folks, many cancers are preventable, and many more are treatable

because of advances in medical science. I encourage everyone to get a

regular checkup and screenings and to cover up when you go out in the

sun.

In closing, I would like to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for

their hard work and dedication.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the previous speaker. Today I wear yellow in honour

of the Canadian Cancer Society’s daffodil campaign. The daffodil is

resilient. It survives our harsh winters and is the first flower to

bloom in the spring, a time of renewal and hope. During the annual

daffodil campaign, Canadians rally around this symbol and take action to

support groundbreaking research and to support programs that make life

better for those affected by cancer.

The Canadian Cancer Society is British Columbians’ primary source

for trusted cancer information. Every year their services help thousands

of people get the treatment, care and support they need. Here in B.C.,

the Canadian Cancer Society has a long-standing history of providing a

complementary role to the health care system and is an integral partner

to health care delivery. They help people like us learn more about our

diagnosis, locate community services, connect with peer support programs

and navigate the health, social and financial services

available.

Thus, they help improve quality of life, reduce emotional stress

and help those battling cancer to be more productive in their lives by

remaining engaged with their communities and workplaces. Many of their

programs help those most vulnerable in our communities who need

financial assistance with travel and accommodation to get the treatment

they need, programs such as their travel treatment fund and their

network of cancer lodges across the province. These are important

programs and align well with our government’s poverty reduction

initiatives and our goals to increase access to health care.

Today we wear daffodils in thanks for the relief offered to those

who’ve suffered in the past and in hope for those who are battling the

disease right now or who will be diagnosed in the future.

GLOBAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND

KELOWNA COMMUNITY

WALK

N. Letnick: Sunday, April 7 is World Health Day. Every year we recognize this

day to celebrate the founding of the World Health Organization and bring

attention to the subject of global health.

This year’s theme is universal health coverage. The World Health

Organization says the key to achieving it is ensuring that everyone can

obtain the care they need, when they need it, right in the heart of the

community.

Progress is being made in countries in all regions of the world,

but millions of people still have no access to health care, in part due

to war and other man-made calamities and poor economic conditions.

Millions are forced to choose between survival, health care and other

daily needs such as food, clothing and shelter. It is absolutely vital

that we continue to work toward ensuring quality health care in every

region of the world and increase awareness that we all have a role to

play.

That is, in part, why hundreds of British Columbians will gather

this Saturday, April 6, for Kelowna’s fifth annual walk up Knox Mountain

for health and world peace. Registration takes place between 9:30 and

10:30. Thanks to WestJet, we will give away two tickets on any of their

regular scheduled flights to a lucky participant. Last year’s winner met

with the mayor of the County of Hawaii, Harry Kim, to pass on the torch

of peace and health.

[10:20 a.m.]

The walk is only made possible with the organizing skills of Katja

Maurmann and the assistance of Gina Lang, the Kelowna Professional

Firefighters, SoLo Bars, Kelowna Community Resources, YMCA of Okanagan,

Natures Wild Neighbours, B.C. Fruit Growers, BC SPCA and, of course,

WestJet. I encourage all who hear this message to join us this

Saturday.

I also want to join the previous two speakers, Mr. Speaker, and

hope to see all members in the Rotunda today for a picture wearing their

daffodil supporting the Canadian Cancer Society. You never know. This

might be one tweet all members would be happy to like and retweet of

each other.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP

IN BELLA COOLA

VALLEY

J. Rice: For the resilient folks of the Bella Coola Valley, the fall of

2010 brought the floods of the century. The Bella Coola River flooded

much of the community, cutting off the only highway in and out of the

valley, as well as cutting off the airport. Ultimately, hundreds were

forced from their homes. For residents, these events feel like they only

occurred yesterday, not nearly a decade ago, and every fall is a time of

anxiety for my constituents.

The impacts of climate change are undeniable. In the last couple

of years, two of the worst flood and wildfire seasons on record tasked

communities and emergency management personnel to their limits. It

reminded us that emergency management is a team sport, and pulling

through these challenges requires all of us to work together toward a

common goal.

That’s why I was so honoured last month to be a part of a ceremony

that recognized the establishment of the Central Coast regional

emergency management partnership. This partnership brings the province,

the Nuxalk First Nation and the Central Coast regional district together

to share resources, information and expertise to plan for emergencies

and make the Bella Coola Valley safer. By coming to the table together,

partners can discuss the region’s unique needs and the management of

emergencies, as well as address potential gaps. In turn, emergency

management in B.C. will continue to benefit from the community’s local

experience, traditional knowledge and resilience.

This is the kind of partnership we, as government, want to

encourage so we can respond to the unique needs of communities. I hope

the Central Coast regional emergency management partnership will serve

as a model for other areas of the province so we can establish similar

partnerships.

I want to thank both the Nuxalk Nation and the Central Coast

regional district for working with us on this important project. We are

stronger when we work together not just in responding to emergencies but

in getting ahead of them.

PATRICIA LLOYD

S. Furstenau: Last year on Daffodil Day, I shared the story of my father, Peter

Furstenau, who died of cancer in October of 2001. Unfortunately, the

story of cancer did not end at that point for our family. As we were all

reeling from the loss, the worst possible news came three months later.

My father’s wife, Patricia Lloyd, my stepmother, who had been a loving

part of my life from the time I was seven years old, was diagnosed with

cancer.

We had just come through our first Christmas without Dad together.

Pat had begun to talk about doing some travelling, maybe getting a dog.

She was head librarian at Malaspina and had been integral in the design

of the new learning resource centre.

The news of the diagnosis was devastating. My stepsister Jessie

and I had to put aside our grieving and figure out how, between the two

of us, we were going to navigate this together.

Pat was such a pillar in my life and the most extraordinary mother

to her daughter Jessie. She taught us both that we could achieve

anything, and she modelled exactly that — following her passions and

mastering everything she set her mind to, whether it was weaving,

pottery or her interest in art history and museum curatorship. She was a

true Renaissance woman.

On her 51st birthday she was looking at charting a new path and

enduring the loss of her life’s partner with grace and strength. Within

weeks, the terrible diagnosis came. Pat died seven months and three

weeks after my father. In the space of 15 months, our family heard the

worst news twice and suffered the deepest loss twice.

The Canadian Cancer Society is working hard to change the endings

of these stories, and for that, I am truly grateful.

[10:25 a.m.]

CANCER AWARENESS AND

CANADIAN CANCER

SOCIETY

A. Olsen: I rise today also to join our colleagues from all parts of this

House, from all corners of this House, to speak to the disease that has

affected so many of us, if not all of us, in this place. Knowing that 70

people in British Columbia are diagnosed with cancer each day…. It

causes about 30 percent of all deaths in Canada. Indeed, it touched my

family and all of our families. It’s a reality that few of us can

escape. Whether it’s ourselves, our friends or our family members, there

are few of us who are left untouched. But we are making a

difference.

I’d like to join my colleagues who have celebrated the work of the

Canadian Cancer Society and know that we’ve made progress over the

years. In the 1940s, the survival rate of cancer was about 25 percent.

Now over 60 percent of Canadians diagnosed with cancer will survive at

least five years after the diagnosis.

Less than 1 percent of all new cases of cancer will occur in

children and youth under 20 years old. This is something that has

affected our lives. When I first met my wife, Emily, my nephew was in

Victoria General Hospital — an Angel Flight taking him over to get

cancer treatment in Vancouver.

I think today is a good day for us to all wear these daffodils,

which at one point came from the fields in Central Saanich. Now we wear

these daffodils to acknowledge the work that people are doing on this

disease and the millions of dollars that we donate to the Canadian

Cancer Society and the British Columbia Cancer Society to do this

incredible work that’s being done on behalf of all of our

families.

I raise my hands to the people that are working on this disease,

to continue the research and continue the care and love for our family

members. HÍSW̱ḴE .

Oral Questions

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

J. Johal: I’m sure that by now, there is a thank-you card in the mail from

Washington state governor Jay Inslee, because as of today, the

government has the dubious distinction of presiding over the highest gas

prices and highest taxes of anywhere in North America. Quite an

achievement, so thank you, NDP.

The NDP promised a year ago they would do something. They’re doing

absolutely nothing about gas prices, which hit $1.639 a litre this

morning. Thirty-five cents for a litre of gas is controlled by the B.C.

government. What are they going to do about it?

Hon. G. Heyman: Of course, we’re concerned about British Columbians’

affordability, and that’s why we don’t single out any one thing. That’s

why we’ve taken a full range of measures to address affordability for

British Columbians. That’s why, unlike the members opposite when they

were in government, we’ve taken significant portions of the carbon tax

and put them into a range of measures that will make life far more

affordable for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The NDP have raised taxes by about $5.5 billion. That’s $1,100 for

every man, woman and child in this province. That’s not

affordability.

The minister can say what he wants, but I’m sure the thank-you

card from Jay Inslee thanks the NDP for the millions in new tax revenue

for Washington state while they gouge B.C. families. Gas prices are at

$1.639 a litre — the highest prices in North America, once

again.

The Premier and this government are responsible for 35 cents of

the cost. Today’s high gas prices do not yet include the NDP’s transit

tax hike. More taxes are on the way — more taxes.

The NDP government controls 35 cents a litre of the price. What

are they going to do about it, once again?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member opposite, because he’s new in the House,

believes that he doesn’t have to deal with facts. But let’s deal with

facts.

[10:30 a.m.]

Under the old government, taxes on gasoline increased by 15 cents.

Under our government, they’ve increased by two cents.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: Oh, hon. Speaker.

Perhaps, also, the member opposite didn’t pay attention a year

ago…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …when the leader of his party….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, you’re out of order.

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member opposite didn’t pay attention to the leader of

his party when he said, just under a year ago: “I don’t see a need to

change the carbon tax plan at this point.”

I. Paton: We now lead North America on a list that nobody really wants to be

on, and 35 cents a litre of these high gas prices are because of this

Premier. Commuters from Delta are going to be paying more in NDP gas

taxes for the privilege of idling in the Premier’s personal parking lot

called the Massey Tunnel.

The Premier is responsible for 35 cents of the pain at the pump.

What is the deputy minister going to do?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I’m perplexed, because I don’t know where the members

opposite are getting their figures. I know what the figures are, and

we’re responsible for two cents at the pump.

Interjections.

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

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the members opposite no longer think, despite recent

reports that Canada and B.C. are warming at a greater pace than the rest

of the world, that climate change is an issue. Perhaps they’ve forgotten

they brought in the carbon tax.

Perhaps they don’t believe in the measures that we’ve taken to

give rebates to low-income people, to expand them and to expand the

rebates to moderate-income people to the point where, in July of this

year, a family of four will be eligible for up to $400 in

rebates.

I’ll simply say to British Columbians that by July 2021, those

rebates will go up to $500 for a family of four, so keep us

around.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Before I get started, I find it very rich that the government

talks about reducing their carbon footprint, but they don’t mind seeing

90,000 vehicles a day sit idle in fumes at the George Massey

Tunnel.

The agriculture industry is already under attack from the NDP and

can ill afford another hit from this tax-mad government with higher

costs to diesel and gasoline. Higher NDP gas taxes mean everyone will

pay more for groceries and other goods transported by truck. British

Columbians pay enough and deserve a break at the pumps.

Today we’ve been hit with the highest gas price in B.C. history;

35 cents is controlled by the Premier. What will he do about

it?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member opposite wasn’t paying attention to the member

for Kamloops–South Thompson when he was Transportation Minister and had

no problem keeping people idling in their cars because their government

wouldn’t invest in transit for British Columbians.

[10:35 a.m.]

The founder of gasbuddy.com says that this is not about carbon

taxes. It’s about gouging consumers and bulging profits because they,

unlike the members opposite, read the studies, like the one from Navius

Research that says: “Since 2010, refinery margins in British Columbia

have risen well above the Canadian average and are well above margins in

other global markets.”

So let me ask the members opposite: what would you like us to do

about it? Would you like us to do what the Leader of the Official

Opposition said? “Our party…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: “…is very much dedicated to the idea of: you respect the

marketplace when it comes to setting prices.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: Or would the members opposite join with us to expand rebates to

middle- and low-income British Columbians as we’ve been doing and as

we’ll continue to do?

SOCIAL SERVICES

AND PROCUREMENT

PROCESS

A. Olsen: Question period has been a mess this week. The official opposition

has been asking important questions but, unfortunately, conflating two

issues. The responses have been tragic, and the ministers are falling

back on the “16 years” narrative, which is getting pretty tired. So let

me try.

A number of weeks ago, my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head

raised an important question about how the procurement process had

changed at Work B.C. We were worried about the impact it could be having

on the non-profits doing excellent work in our province. We now have

learned that two multinational corporations took 22 percent of the money

for Work B.C. employment training contracts. That does not seem to fit

the “balance” the minister said he’d found.

The issue is the open procurement method, treating companies and

non-profits exactly the same despite the vast differences in how they

operate and their connection to the local community. The official

opposition has been raising legitimate questions these past few days on

how our community social service sector feels under attack by a series

of changes that this government has introduced.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Poverty

Reduction, and I’m taking this directly from a recent quote from the

executive director of Board Voice. Do we have any proof that an open

procurement method is the best way to select vital social care services

to our citizens?

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The procurement process…. Let me first step back and talk a little

bit about Work B.C., and then I’ll respond to the question, the

procurement piece.

We know that what’s been going on in the province…. We’ve had the

lowest unemployment rates in British Columbia for 19 months, the lowest

rates across the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, we’ll try this once more.

Hon. S. Simpson: The challenge with this, though, is that while lots of people, the

majority of people, in the province have benefited, there are groups of

people who have not realized that benefit — persons with disabilities,

Indigenous people, single moms escaping violence and others. So we’ve

restructured the Work B.C. program to more clearly focus on supports

over the coming years with those folks.

The new process, which came into place April 1…. We’re working

closely with the providers to make sure we have a smooth

implementation.

In regard to the specific question about the non-profits and what

that balance looks like, under the previous program cycle, which ended

on March 31, 49 percent of all the contract dollars went to non-profits,

and 49 percent of all the contract dollars went to for-profit

organizations. Under the new model, 57 percent of all the dollars are

going to non-profits, 39 percent to for-profit organizations, and 4

percent are going to a public institution that’s providing support. In

addition to those primary contractors, there are 130 subcontractors, and

71 percent of those are non-profits, which is an 11 percent increase

under the past model.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

A. Olsen: I’ll go back and review later to see if that was actually an

answer, but nonetheless….

[10:40 a.m.]

Now, let me pivot to another troubling issue regarding our social

service sector, the other part of the issues that were being conflated

this week. On the one hand, it seems that global corporations, rather

than local non-profits, are starting to take over more of the social

care in B.C. On the other hand, it seems that the government is indeed

favouring unionized workplaces with their low-wage redress

agreement.

I realize that this was a negotiated agreement between unions and

health care providers, but there is a legitimate question on how this

may impact the non-unionized non-profit organizations. I have family

members that have talked to me about this directly — how it’s impacting

them. We know it’s the case.

Non-profits already struggling are being hit twice in this

province. They’re competing against big multinationals. They are also,

potentially, facing disruptive wage discrepancies that are likely to

increase turnover and workplace tension. It is happening.

I want an answer here that doesn’t pivot to the last 16 years. I

want the Minister of Social Development to please explain why the $40

million low-wage redress agreement couldn’t also be applied to

non-unionized non-profits.

Hon. S. Simpson: Thanks to the member again. The member may want to disconnect the

history of the relationship of social service delivery in this province

from what happens today. We can’t do that.

The reality is that we have seen a sector that has been under

assault for an awfully long time. It’s a sector that we are working

closely with to build a future here, looking forward — a sector where we

start to build the framework around how we deliver services to people in

a whole array of areas, including around Community Living B.C. and in

those initiatives. We’re working with Board Voice. We’re working with

the Federation of Community Social Services. We’re working with the CEO

Network and a whole array of other groups to do that moving

forward.

It’s a work-in-progress. I’m very confident that the system is

getting stronger and that we are going to deliver the best, most

effective social service programs this province has ever seen. We will

overcome 16 years of debacle.

S. Bond: Well, nice try, Minister, but those organizations do not think

that you are listening, that you are working with them. They want a fix

to this problem, and they want it today.

Let’s be clear. Two days, three ministers and still not a single

answer — no one prepared to defend this government’s discriminatory wage

policy. Service agencies and thousands of workers across British

Columbia are not impressed. Here’s their reaction: “A large number of

service provider leaders watched question period and were hopeful that

action would actually come out of the questions that were asked.” Well,

we all know that that did not happen.

To the minister, they’re watching again today. Will the minister

finally stand up and admit that the wage policy decision that pays

non-union workers less than union workers for exactly the same work is

nothing more than discriminatory?

Hon. S. Simpson: What I will say to the member is that we are working closely with

the key organizations in the community. We are working with them on an

ongoing basis. We started that work back in July of 2017, I know, with a

sigh of relief from those organizations who had been neglected by the

previous government — a sigh of relief that we were engaging on the

issues that they found important, a sigh of relief that they weren’t

seen as simply somebody for a charitable support but were recognized as

critical suppliers of social services in this province.

That’s exactly what we’re doing now. That work is ongoing. We’ll

continue to work with those organizations to resolve issues on a whole

array of areas that we got left to us from the previous government. I

look forward to those discussions moving forward. It won’t be the

sanctimonious comments of the other side that drive that

conversation.

Interjections.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, frankly, Minister, that is exactly why these organizations

and workers…. That answer is exactly why they are calling this

government disrespectful and divisive — exactly why. Let’s make that

three days now that we have listened to ministers stand in this House

and dismiss not the concerns of this side of the House, whose

responsibility it is to bring these questions, but the significant and

urgent concerns of workers across British Columbia.

Frankly, it is time for the Premier to stand up and show some

leadership. He knows full well that when two workers stand side by side

and do exactly the same work…. When one gets a more significant raise

than the other, that is nothing but discrimination. He knows that, and

he should fix it.

The minister wants to tout his discussions with these

organizations. Here’s what they had to say after the answers this

week.

Interjections.

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

S. Bond: Here’s what Doug Tennant from Semiahmoo House Society said, “This

is ideologically driven and puts politics before people. It’s morally

and ethically wrong” — not our words, the words of Doug Tennant and

others that actually are concerned about this issue.

The government has a chance today. They can stand up, and they can

fix this mess. Ultimately, the responsibility for this discriminatory

wage policy rests with the Premier. We need him to stand up, tell his

ministers to fix it and end this practice today.

Hon. S. Simpson: The obligation of this side of the House is to work with those

service providers, to work with advocates, to work with people who have

lived experience and build solutions that create opportunities for them.

What it isn’t….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Members.

Member for Langley East, you are totally out of order.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. S. Simpson: What the responsibility of this side is not is to have to listen

to these kinds of comments out of a side that spent all of its time in

government ripping up agreements, cutting wages for workers, dismissing

people in that sector. The official opposition has not one shred of

credibility on this issue. We will work with people who care about folks

who are vulnerable. We will work with people who find that

important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: What we won’t do is respond to poli­tical game-playing by

this member and her colleagues.

WAGES FOR PREMIER’S STAFF AND

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKERS

M. Polak: Before I get to my question, I’m going to say this. Perhaps the

member…. I know what it’s like when you’re a minister, and things are

tense. You can say something that…. Maybe you didn’t hear some of the

pieces over here. He referred to comments that we’re making. They’re

comments we’re quoting from agencies. I hope the member will take that

under consideration.

There isn’t anyone in this House who believes that discrimination

is right and proper in any circumstance. I can only believe that the

reason we’re not getting any answers is because….

Interjections.

M. Polak: The reason we’re not getting any answers from these ministers is

because they absolutely know that what they’ve done is wrong. They know

that what they’ve done is wrong.

This all took place on April 1. Sadly, something else took place

on April 1 that I think just adds insult to injury. It turns out that

these social-serving agencies aren’t the only ones who support people.

They support vulnerable people. They support those who have very special

needs in their homes, outside of their homes.

[10:50 a.m.]

Those of us here have support people. The Premier has support

people. On April 1, the Premier’s director of executive operations was

given a 46 percent pay increase — a 46 percent pay increase, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to know why it is that they can find a 46 percent pay

increase in their kitty, and they can’t shake the piggy bank enough to

get money for non-unionized social service workers who deserve equal

pay.

Hon. S. Simpson: I was pleased to have the opportunity yesterday to meet with Mr.

Tennant, to meet with a number of his colleagues, to have a conversation

about the issues that are on the table around these issues and around an

array of other issues, the same as we’ve had conversations with the

Federation of Community Social Services. We’ve had conversations with

Board Voice. We’ve had conversations with a number of those groups over

the past months and over the past days. Those conversations are ongoing.

We will continue to do that work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: What the member on the other side doesn’t understand is that this

is about trying to find collaboration, find partnership and find common

ground. That’s the side that never found collaboration, never found

cooperation. They governed by ultimatum and dismissiveness, so they have

no grasp of what it means to try to collaborate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re doing the work. We’re working with the sector. I’m looking

forward to success moving forward.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Sorry, Minister. This isn’t about looking for collaboration. It’s

about looking after your friends. That’s what it’s about. It’s about

looking after your friends. Not only is this government looking after

their union friends over the non-union social service workers — that’s

what they’re telling us — they’re also really looking after their

friends….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

M. Polak: They’re really looking after their friends in the Premier’s

office. The 46 percent raise that I told you about earlier, Mr. Speaker

— that came a mere nine months after that same individual already got a

raise. Nine months, and then another 46…. And it doesn’t stop there. It

doesn’t stop there.

It seems the cash is pretty free-flowing in the Premier’s office.

He also, on April 1, added yet another senior political support person

in his office. Yeah. So able to find another $145,000 just for supports

in the Premier’s office, not able to find money to make sure that

non-union workers are able to get equal pay for equal work done by union

workers. That’s looking after your friends.

I want to know, these agencies want to know, when the Premier and

his ministers are going to end this discriminatory policy.

Hon. S. Simpson: What those agencies want to know…. More importantly, what the

people who receive services want to know and want to be confident about

is that we are moving forward to improve services for the people who

need it. The reason they feel strongly about that is because many of

them have long memories. And their memories include looking back to when

that side, when it was government, cut $22 million out of Community

Living B.C…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …a cut that led to services being cut, to wait-lists increasing,

to group homes closing, forcing people to be relocated. But at the time

that this was happening, when the member for Langley East was the

minister responsible at that time, he said: “Don’t worry about it. We’re

taking care of it.” Well, what they didn’t worry about was the 33 group

homes that closed.

We’re not closing group homes. We’re not cutting services to

people. We’re enhancing those services. We’re building the partnerships.

We’re building a stronger sector. I’m proud of that. I’m looking forward

to continuing to do that work for many, many years to come on this

side.

[10:55 a.m.]

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

M. de Jong: Margo Renpenning didn’t get a 46 percent raise; quite the

opposite. Who’s Margo? Margo is one of the thousands of people the

Premier has decided to discriminate against. Here’s what she said in the

letter she sent to me yesterday:

“Government has funded a low-wage redress amount for agencies in the

social services sector but has restricted the funding to unionized staff

only. This is a drastic departure from government practice for the past

12 years. As one of those….”

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong:

“As one of those individuals impacted by this decision, I cannot

begin to articulate to you the disappointment and heartache I am

currently experiencing. Not only do I work tirelessly each and every day

to care for and manage my own son’s medically and physically challenged

life, I work hard to care for my own family and ensure they are well

looked after.

“This decision by the provincial government is not only a slap in

the face to me; the decision is, simply put, wrong. I hope you will

ensure the provincial government revisits the issue and provides

low-wage redress to everyone, union or not.”

Margo doesn’t want rhetoric; Margo doesn’t want bluster. Margo

wants her Premier to stand up and explain why she is being discriminated

against and being treated like a second-class citizen.

Hon. S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, if we didn’t want rhetoric and bluster, somebody

else should ask the question.

Let’s be clear. Our government has settled with a wage structure

for 2-2-and-2 across the board for all workers in the sector, including

these workers. Let’s be clear. When you want to talk about the people

who are struggling and happy about things…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …think about the last 20 months. In the last 20 months, we have

taken the lowest-income people in this province and increased income

support rates by $1,800 for an individual and by $2,400 for a couple.

That was after more than a decade of that side turning their backs on

the poorest people in this province. I’m pretty proud of

that.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Polak: I rise to present a petition with 17,000 signatures asking the

government to ban smoking in multi-unit buildings.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call third reading on Bill 10. In

Section A, the

Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Jobs, Trade and Technology.

[11:00 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: I move third reading of Bill 10.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

S. Furstenau: I stand to speak to third reading. I want to start with a

summary

of the debate that we’ve heard in the House. This bill was introduced by

the Minister of Finance.

Deputy Speaker: Let me caution the member. This is third reading. The scope is

much more limited than second reading. I would like to let all the

members know.

I would like to remind the House that debate at third reading is

not common practice in our legislative process. Members may present new

viewpoints on the bill but must not present anew any comments that have

already been canvassed at second reading debate and at committee

consideration of the bill, as noted in Parliamentary Practice in

British Columbia , fourth edition, page 212. So please limit

your comments to something new which you may have, but the scope is

very, very limited.

Thank you, Member.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Indeed, I will be introducing…. My

comments will be focused on information that hasn’t been raised thus

far.

Related to what we’ve heard from the government — that this is an

amazing economic opportunity; that it will build a strong, sustainable

economy; that it will create jobs; that Korea is going to import 700,000

tonnes of LNG per year from this plant; that it meets the government

four conditions; that it’s good news for investors like Mitsubishi and

KOGAS; that it’s going to make heat pumps and zero-emission vehicles

more affordable; and that it’s going to fit within the climate framework

— I want to speak today, on third reading, about the stories that

haven’t been spoken of and what has been emerging, over the past number

of days, on the topic that is very much related to this bill: what is

happening vis-à-vis climate change.

The bill was introduced on Monday, March 25. On that day,

Chatelaine published an

article by climate scientist

Katherine Hayhoe that debunked the myths about climate change, pointing

out that there is scientific consensus that human activities,

particularly the release of greenhouse gases, have warmed the

planet.

She also points out that Canada is ranked as the tenth biggest

emitter in the world and that on a per-person basis, one Canadian emits

the same as 2.5 people in the U.K., ten people in Zimbabwe and more than

20 Yemenis. We are already contributing far more greenhouse gases than

our fair share globally. To introduce a bill that actually subsidizes an

LNG industry that will massively increase those emissions is the wrong

thing to be doing.

[11:05 a.m.]

Bloomberg, on the 25th, had a story titled “Fed Researcher Warns

Climate Change Could Spur Financial Crisis.” Why? It’s because losses

from natural disasters are magnified by higher temperatures and elevated

sea levels. In his paper, Glenn Rudebusch, who is San Francisco Fed’s

executive VP, states: “Many central banks already include climate change

in their assessments of future economic and financial risks when setting

monetary and financial supervisory policy.” We’re setting monetary and

financial policy with this bill, and I would argue that it is the wrong

policy to be setting at this time.

In the Guardian on the 25th, an

article about the former

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, is quoted as saying

that denial of climate change is not just ignorant but “malign and evil”

because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the

planet.

She goes on to say: “The evidence about the effects of climate

change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action is

indisputable” and that “climate change undermines the enjoyment of the

full range of human rights, from the right to life to food to shelter

and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed

least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate

change.”

I think we should also be calculating into our discussion and

debate of this bill: what are those impacts to the most vulnerable

people, not just in B.C. but around the world? Have we calculated the

cost of the loss of human rights when we subsidize an industry this

way?

Wired magazine had an

article on peak indifference on

climate change, in which the author points out that more and more people

are starting to be very worried about climate change because of the

recent waves of unsettling climate-related news. The problem is now

knocking on everyone’s front door: record-breaking heat and cold,

ravaging hurricanes, rampaging wildfires. It’s not distant, says Anthony

Leiserowitz, head of the Yale program that studies climate change

communication.

Also on March 25, the day that this bill was introduced,

ThinkProgress published an

article on how it is cheaper to replace most

coal plants with renewables, rather than keep them open. New research

finds that replacing 74 percent of coal plants with renewables would

immediately reduce costs. One of the arguments that the government has

made about why we should be subsidizing the LNG industry with this kind

of bill is that it will replace coal plants. Well, evidence came out, on

March 25, that it would be cheaper to replace those coal plants with

renewable energy.

Let’s remember that in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other parts of

southern Africa, people were suffering on March 25 from the devastating

aftermath of Cyclone Idai. The former first lady of Mozambique said

Beira is the world’s first city completely devastated by climate

change.

March 26 — what did we learn? We learned that the National

Observer published a piece asking why the Bank of Canada isn’t talking

about financial risks of climate change when other central banks around

the world — including the Bank of England and the European Central Bank

— are raising the alarm.

Last November Mark Carney, our former head of the Bank of Canada

and now the Bank of England governor, delivered a speech outlining

climate change’s devastating impacts and the financial risk from

delaying the transition to a low-carbon economy. We need to consider

those financial risks, as this is very much a financial bill.

This is Mark Carney: “If the transition is delayed and this

happens abruptly, financial stability risks will rise considerably.

Given this combination of immediate physical risk and prospective

transition risks, the Bank of England has become increasingly active,

consistent with our financial stability and prudential

mandates.”

There was a bright news item on the 26th. Our very own Harbour

Air, already a leader on reducing carbon emissions, announced that it

intends to electrify its fleet within two years. Innovation, a zero

emissions airline — what terrific leadership. We should take a page from

them.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair has been very flexible when we allowed the third

reading. Also, I described the scope of the debate, so I would caution

the member that these comments the member is making are much more

relevant to second reading.

In third reading, if we have any direct comment related to the

bill, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I would ask the member to

conclude.

[11:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: This is all information that has arisen since second reading. This

was not available at second reading. I am bringing forth new information

that we should be considering, as the members of this House, if we are

going to be passing this bill. I think it’s important for us to be

considering this.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair appreciates the member’s concerns. However, second

reading is over.

S. Furstenau: I am speaking on third reading of the bill and to the decision to

pass this bill related to the natural gas tax credits that we are going

to be giving, related to the changes in calculations, the cost of

natural gas, the administrative penalties and the natural gas sampling

and how we can understand those decisions in relation to what is

happening outside of this chamber at the same time.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think the Chair has made itself very clear. These

comments are not relevant to third reading. I would ask the member to

conclude.

S. Furstenau: I acknowledge the Chair’s position on this. I do think it is

important that we consider these informations, including a scientific

review of fracking. Let’s recognize how fracking is going to be

increased as a result of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: The member will take her seat. Thank you.

A. Weaver: I must say I am deeply troubled and deeply disturbed by the

precedent set today in this Legislature at a time when it is quite clear

from the standing orders as to the rules and regulations with respect to

reading at third reading. We have been following very clearly the rules

as demonstrated in the standing orders. I rise to speak to speak at

third reading against this same bill.

My colleague from Cowichan Valley didn’t have the opportunity to

bring forward this important information that has been brought to light

during the debate, important information that is required by members of

this chamber in order to make their decision, important information that

reflects on the very nature of the bill debating before us. The natural

gas tax credit. The changes in the calculations that are being put

forward.

It is only through a complete understanding of the complexities of

the nuances in this bill, in the context of the global picture, that we

are able to make an informed decision in this House. To have my

colleague shut down in debate because of an

interpretation that I

believe is flawed is simply outrageous.

I do apologize for my comments here, but never before have I, in

sitting here for six years in this chamber, seen what I believe to be

interference of a member’s right to enter a debate on an issue subject

to the standing orders that we have had guide this place for

generations. I continue, as to provide the important

information.

I see the House Leader for the government. They’re talking to the

Speaker. I would suggest that is out of order, as well, in this moment

here. So I continue.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair would welcome any comments related to, relevant

to Bill 10. Nobody is stopping anybody making those comments. I would

urge the member to limit those comments just to the bill.

Please carry on.

A. Weaver: These comments are to Bill 10. Bill 10, as has being articulated

here, introduces three things. It tries to repeal the LNG Income Tax

Act.

I would like to publicly note that right now, the House Leader of

the government is providing advice to the Speaker in the chair. In my

view, that is outrageous. That is not something that should be

happening. This is a non-partisan position. To see and witness the

Speaker getting advice being provided is surprising.

On to Bill 10.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. The Chair will again urge all

members who wish to speak on this bill in third reading: keep your

comments relevant to the bill. That’s all we are asking for.

The member wishes to continue? Please proceed.

[11:15 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I do wish to continue, and I do apologize for challenging the

decision there. But as I said, it’s troubling. I will continue on,

focusing solely on the bill.

The number of points raised in the bill…. As I pointed out, there

are three points in there. The first, of course, is the repealing of the

LNG Income Tax Act. The second is the repealing of the Petronas

agreement, the LNG project development agreement. We now know, through

the rather interesting amendment put forward by the opposition that has

passed, that the liquefied natural gas project development agreement

will not be repealed as part of this. We enjoyed watching those

deliberations, and interesting to see how that moved forward.

We also know that the B.C. NDP, in this bill, are trying to retain

the giveaway, the natural gas tax credit giveaway that is embedded in

the original LNG Income Tax Act. We have three aspects of this bill. We

have articulated in second reading time and time again….

I see in the gallery a young group of children, and I welcome them

to this place. I would suggest to them, as we continue to explore this

bill and the ramifications of this bill, that members in this House

actually think about their future. Members in the House actually

recognize that this generational sellout embodied in this giveaway is

not doing their future any good. Frankly, it is a betrayal of their

future.

As my colleague from Cowichan Valley tried to articulate, there

have been a numerous number of articles appearing that have highlighted

the reason why this bill and the actual elements in it are inconsistent

with the government’s goal to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It

is inconsistent to give away a tax credit to this industry that would

not otherwise be here in British Columbia, in a desperate attempt to try

to deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t. That’s it. That’s the only

rationale I can see behind this moving forward.

As my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who will speak

after me, brings forward information on the bill, I would hope that

members opposite, members in the B.C. Liberals, who have been saying for

so long that they do not believe that this giveaway is actually fiscally

responsible…. The member for Langley East was quite clear in that

regard. The member from Abbotsford. Not only was the member for

Abbotsford West clear; his deconstructing of the job narrative that was

supposed to be here was compelling. This government did not provide any

information to back its claims that this agreement embodied in this bill

would actually hire British Columbians.

In fact, just today I received an email from a contractor up in

the north who validated the concerns I raised about Boskalis hiring

temporary foreign workers. Today I received that email.

We are going to vote on a bill at third reading where information

provided at the committee stage was either not provided in entirety or

not delivered. We have yet to be given information. We were told in

committee stage that we had to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology questions before we get answers to the issues of how this

would affect jobs. Those questions were delivered to the Finance

Minister in committee stage, yet we did not get answers to those

questions. How is it possible that we could actually vote in favour of a

bill where the answers were not forthcoming to fundamental questions

raised by members of the opposition and by members in the Green Party at

committee stage?

It seems to me that if ever there was a reason to actually not

continue forward and vote on this, if ever there was a reason to

actually send this bill to committee for further deliberation and

debate, that information would be the fact that we didn’t get answers.

It’s for that reason that I move:

[That the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting all

the words after “that” and substituting the following:

“Bill (No. 10) not be read a third time now but that the subject

matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services.”]

On the amendment.

[11:20 a.m.]

A. Weaver: The rationale for proposing that this bill be sent to committee,

as put forward to you a few seconds ago, is that the information we were

trying to seek at committee stage was not forthcoming.

The information about jobs, the information about where the $23

billion was going to come from, the fiscal breakdown, was not

forthcoming. The information on contractors, who was going to be

contracting — not forthcoming. Information on emissions and whether this

initial final investment decision is actually a pathway to a four-train

system — not forthcoming.

It is only through the exploration of this matter further at

committee stage, it is only by bringing in expert testimony — the expert

testimony from people like Katharine Hayhoe, who my colleague from

Cowichan Valley tried to bring forward here…. She tried to actually

bring that information to this chamber, to allow members to actually

inform themselves prior to a vote.

The only means and ways that members truly will be able to

actually recognize the scale of climate change, the scale of what is

before us here with this bill, in terms of the generational sellout of

those young children and their friends up in the gallery…. It is only

through exploring this at committee stage that we will actually be able

to get to the bottom of whether or not this truly is in the best

interest of British Columbians.

We know that members of government’s caucus have not even been

briefed on the details of this bill, and we have, as three Green MLAs,

had to brief them on the details of this bill. It is sad that we have,

in this chamber, so many MLAs who have not spent the time to actually go

and get the information on what we’re debating before us.

That is why a committee, a legislative committee, exploring this

issue, bringing forward recommendations, deliberations on what is

supposed to be a big project for B.C. but is, in reality, the single

biggest point source of emissions that this country has ever seen, at a

time that this government’s claiming it’s championing climate change

policy…. This needs to go to committee.

I certainly hope members in the government will join us in

supporting this, for democracy is about seeking input. It’s about making

decisions based on evidence. It’s about going to the communities across

British Columbia — whether it be the farmers, the farmers in the Peace,

who came to us, who came to our caucus to brief us on the profound

issues they have with the way the fracking is happening on their

farmland, that they are considered second-class citizens.

The fact that the committee would be able to explore the views of

the youth of today — the views of the youth of today who today, across

this country, are getting ready for Friday. It’s another day of walkouts

in schools, another day of walkouts as youth point to the political

leaders and say: “You are ignoring us. You’re not going to have to live

the consequences of the decisions you are making. Yet we are, and you

are not including us. You are not thinking about our future in your

decisions.” You are thinking about your re-election. You’re thinking

about what it takes to score a tick box in a “I did what Christy Clark

couldn’t.” And you’re doing what you think is actually the best thing

that you can do based on focus groups, polling testing, etc., not doing

what’s right, not doing what’s principled.

It is sad. The saddest moment, for me, again coming back to why

this should be sent to committee, is I look to what was raised when I

was interviewed by CFAX this morning. I was challenged by Al Ferraby,

and I enjoy being challenged. I was challenged by Al Ferraby, who said:

“What’s this about you not wishing to participate in a vote?” And we

talked about that. He said: “What’s this about the member for Abbotsford

West with this phrase?”

[11:25 a.m.]

Well, I could talk about this later. But the point I’m trying to

make is that I’m hoping that, for the first time in the six years I’ve

been here, members in government, back bench, will reflect upon these

words, reflect upon those children in the gallery, as they stand up at

third reading and determine the future of this bill — the future of this

bill, which my colleagues, numerous times over the last few days, have

pointed out betrays our climate commitments, betrays future generations,

provides false promises to the people in northwestern B.C., who are

already seeing the temporary foreign workers coming in.

We know that the only way to actually get to the bottom of these

very important questions is through committee, because we did not get

the answers at committee stage. We need to send this to a standing

committee.

Again, wouldn’t it be a joyous occasion if members opposite, who

have criticized this deal for being fiscally irresponsible — we agree

with them that it’s fiscally irresponsible — if they then joined us in

voting to send this to committee, to allow the committee to actually

explore the level of fiscal irresponsibility embodied in this bill, to

challenge the claims, give us the chance to explore with the Minister of

Jobs, Trades and Technology what the real job deals are. Have there been

secret sweet deals signed with certain people about bringing in

temporary foreign workers?

With that, I’ll take my place and certainly hope that others will

join me in supporting this amendment.

S. Furstenau: I think in terms of supporting this amendment — absolutely. I

think that we have seen, very much, through the committee stage that

there remain several unanswered questions, and each day we see more and

more information coming forward that raises questions about the contents

of this bill and whether it’s a responsible thing for us to do as MLAs

in this House — to support this bill without actually having all of the

information, all of the implications, all of the relevant science

available to us.

For example, today the Toronto Star reported that Ottawa

considers the approval of B.C. methane rules, despite the fact that the

rules being proposed by B.C. are weaker than those federally. What are

the implications of that? Well, they’re very serious for this bill,

because this bill would increase the fracking that we will see in the

northeast and increase the production of methane.

What the

article tells us is that the federal government has

proposed accepting B.C.’s rules to cut the methane, despite an

independent report that says the regulations would be weaker than

Ottawa’s and that the province’s proposed rules aren’t as stringent as

the federal ones. A leaking well would be able to emit more than twice

the amount of methane than Ottawa will allow when its rules come into

effect, and the province would reduce the number of inspection and leak

detections that the federal rules require. So rather than three times a

year, we’d only have them inspected yearly.

I think that that is very important information. It should be

canvassed in committee. Every member of this Legislature should be

working with all of the relevant information in making a decision about

whether we are going to give a $6 billion subsidy to the LNG industry in

2019 when what we owe to future generations is a livable planet. What we

owe to future generations is an investment in a future that we can proud

to be leaving for them as opposed to one that we will hang our heads in

shame over.

We should be talking about whether the natural gas tax credits are

an appropriate tool to be using to be subsidizing an industry that

apparently can’t survive on its own two feet without government

subsidies at this time. Is this the right direction for us to be taking?

We should be canvassing that in committee. We should be canvassing that

with experts who can provide us with truly complete answers to these

questions.

What about the costs of natural gas? That’s a part of this bill.

We should be discussing whether or not the projected cost of natural gas

will even make this industry viable and whether it’s a responsible thing

for us to be putting taxpayer-funded credits to this industry at a time

when we don’t even know if this industry is going to survive.

We should be discussing whether the administrative penalties that

are being addressed in this bill are sufficient. We don’t have all of

the information. It is essential that we send this bill to committee so

that we can have what is our responsibility as MLAs in this chamber,

which is to make decisions with as much information and as much evidence

as possible and to deeply understand the implications of our decisions —

and I say goodbye to the students who are leaving right now —

particularly for future generations.

[11:30 a.m.]

I hope that we will have support for this amendment to send this

bill to committee, and I look forward to hearing from my colleague on

this.

A. Olsen: I rise to support the amendment from my colleague from Oak

Bay–Gordon Head to send Bill 10 to the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services.

During the second reading of this bill, we, I think, spoke and I

definitely spoke quite passionately about the environmental impact. In

fact, as a person that’s got young children, perhaps my lens is a little

bit…. I look a little further into the future than perhaps, I think,

some of the decisions, and particularly this decision being

made.

One of the things that I have a big concern with is that Bill 10

provides an income tax incentive to attract a facility that is going to

become the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in British

Columbia and in Canada.

We heard, in statements earlier, from members on the government’s

side of the House here, talking about climate change. I find it to be

challenging to hear, on one hand, the concerns of climate change — the

impacts that climate change is having on communities. Floods. We’ve

toured the province, and we’ve heard communities talking about floods.

We’ve heard communities talk about the impacts of climate

change.

In fact, it rained for just a very little, brief period of time

this week, and it was a joyful occasion. While I celebrate the sunshine,

I also recognize that we are hitting just the basement — the very base

level. We’re undercutting the lowest amount of rain that you could

possibly have. My son said to me: “Wow. That was the second time it

rained in 2019.” What the…? How is an 11-year-old boy counting the days

of rain? That’s what we’ve got — a narrative — in fact, the awareness of

the impacts of climate change.

We have to have the opportunity to substantively canvas this. I’ll

be talking about this again. I think that, as I go through the very long

discussions that were going on between members of the opposition and the

minister responsible for bringing this bill in…. On various aspects of

this, I’m substantively disappointed that at the committee stage of this

bill — which is in fact designed to help us get the information that we

need, the answers that we need, to be able to be convinced that this

bill is in fact what it says it is, that the agreement is in fact what

it says it is — so few answers were given.

In addition to that, not only did we lack the answers that were

necessary, we were invited to step outside of this debate and into

another debate to seek the answers to those questions. I find that to be

deeply inappropriate.

I find it deeply inappropriate that when there are four conditions

that are established for this industry to be coming to this province —

meeting our climate targets, real partnerships with First Nations, fair

returns for British Columbians and jobs for British Columbians, as the

conditions that are set….

Those specific conditions are canvassed in this bill during the

stage of the debate in which it is appropriate for that information to

become public information so that not only we, the 87 members of this

House, but indeed, all of British Columbians, are able to take a look at

the information that’s been gathered from this place and are able to

say: “Indeed, yes. That was a good decision that was made. It was a

thorough decision. I might disagree with the outcome, but I certainly

agree with the process. I certainly think that the information was

sufficient for them to make a decision.”

[11:35 a.m.]

We know that very few British Columbians are actually going to do

what I did and print off the pages and pages and pages of interactions

between members of the opposition and the minister and are actually

going to take the time to go through those conversations to understand

the level of frustration that was exhibited in this place.

When it comes to the questions about the use of temporary foreign

workers and where the workers are coming from…. We were, as opposition

members that were questioning the government’s agreement on this,

invited…. Very significant questions were made, apparently, on a

contract, an agreement that was signed by the Minister of Jobs, Trade

and Technology. We were invited to canvass that in budget

estimates.

I think that it’s important. In addition to that, when members of

the opposition were asking questions about the clean growth industrial

incentives, we found out, in fact, that June 30 is the earliest time in

which we’d know what the benchmarks are going to be. In fact, we found

out that that’s the first time that LNG Canada is going to fully

understand the benchmarks.

So when my colleague stands and offers an amendment to this bill

to send it to a select standing committee, I think that this allows us

to be able to bring together, in a single place — not in disparate

places, disparate rooms around this precinct, where we have to chase

information. If this deal is so good for British Columbians, then we

shouldn’t have to chase any information. It should be

forthcoming.

If this deal is so good for British Columbians, we would indeed

have heard far more of the members on the government side speak

vociferously, excitedly, in favour. But just the very bare minimum.

Just, I think, the minister of empires, it’s called. Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources — we’d expect that minister

to speak on behalf of this. Jobs, Trade and Technology — we’d expect

that minister to speak, and Trade. Those are the three ministers, in

addition to the Finance Minister, that we would expect to hear stand

and speak to this. So just barely above the bare

minimum.

I think that I’ll take my seat now, thankful for the

opportunity to speak to this amendment to send this bill to

committee so that we can indeed pull together the disparate

information that is seemingly out in a bunch other rooms in this

place and pull it together into one place and have a real, thorough

canvass of this project so that we understand what the benchmarks

are, what the actual outlay for the jobs is. In going back to the

conditions that the government has laid out to say that this is a

welcome industry in our province if we indeed meet

these….

Right now I think that it’s important that any thoughtful and

thorough process would allow for the information so that we would be

able to say yes. You know what? We might not agree with LNG. We

might not agree with the approach that the government is taking, but

at least we can be satisfied that they indeed have met the

conditions that they’ve set for this. At this stage, there is no way

for us. There is simply no way.

I spent last night reading through, and I can tell British

Columbians with a level of certainty that there is no way for us to

know if, indeed, the government has, in fact, met the conditions.

That, to me, is something that is a substantial reason for us to be

sending this to committee.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members for the discussion on the amendment. I

will be speaking against the amendment.

I certainly understand the passion of the members. They’ve been

very clear about not supporting this project, not supporting this

industry. I just want to speak to the issues raised directly on this

amendment, which related to the opportunity for discussion and the

opportunity for knowledge around the work that’s been done.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think it’s important to note that the four conditions that were

in place…. The discussion around LNG in our province has been a

discussion that’s been ongoing for a long period of time in British

Columbia. Certainly, from our perspective as government, we ran in the

election with the four conditions outlined that we felt needed to be

met. I think the member has outlined those: a fair return for British

Columbians, a true partnership with First Nations, that it met our

climate action direction — I’ll talk about that in a moment — and jobs

for British Columbians.

This is not a new discussion. This is a discussion that, in fact,

has occurred in our province for a long period of time. Our four

conditions were very clear, as I said, going into the election,

certainly after the election and leading into the discussions since the

Premier’s letter, which happened last spring.

Just on the piece around the climate action. I think it is a

critical piece, and again, I thank the members for their passionate

discussion around this. In fact, there was a lot of discussion around

this project and the need for this project to make sure that it fit

within our climate action plan that I’m very proud we developed and

worked on with our colleagues in the Green caucus. In fact, we did

develop a very clear plan that we will be held accountable for, that we

believe in, that we are going to carry out and show that by bringing in

over $900 million in this budget to actually implement CleanBC, and the

legislative emission targets include the LNG plant. So I think there

certainly have been many discussions ongoing on those pieces and the

other four conditions.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I expect the discussion to continue. I do not believe that this is

the end of the discussion. I expect that discussion to continue. But I

feel we’ve had a very thorough opportunity to be able to canvass the

issues, and I will be speaking against the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the motion is: “That the motion for third reading of Bill

(No. 10) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting

all the words after ‘that’ and substituting the following: ‘Bill (No.

10) not be read a third time now but that the subject matter be referred

to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services.’”

[11:45 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

NAYS — 76

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Thornthwaite

Paton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Larson

Foster

On the main motion.

A. Olsen: I’d like to rise to speak to third reading of Bill 10. I stand

today to speak at third reading to ask my colleagues to reconsider their

support of this bill.

Maybe we’ll just wait for them to all go for lunch.

Okay. I’ll reserve my spot and move adjournment of

debate.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, TRADE AND

TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $96,933,000

(continued) .

Hon. B. Ralston: If I might, I committed to provide an answer to a questioner, one

of the critics, at the conclusion of yesterday’s proceedings. Let me say

the following.

The federal government is leading efforts with industry to

influence decision-makers in the United States to find a solution for

the softwood lumber impasse, particularly through the Canadian embassy

in Washington and a number of other avenues that are directed by the

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland. Provincial

officials are in regular contact to ensure that British Columbia’s views

are known.

I think it would be fair to say that because of the complicated

trade agenda in Washington, of necessity, it has to be a coordinated

effort to ensure that Canada speaks with one voice on this important

issue, since many communities across British Columbia and Canada depend

on the forest sector for their economic well-being.

Certainly, as was referenced in the question, softwood lumber is a

vital and important resource here in British Columbia, intrinsic to our

economic well-being and our future. For that reason, we work very

closely with the Canadian federal government on those issues. But if I

might say, just in terms of personal participation…. I think that was

the direction of the question. I participated, as I said yesterday, in

the recent federal-provincial-territorial teleconference of Forest

ministers. Nonetheless, I was on that call.

[11:10 a.m.]

I have met with the U.S. consul general here in British Columbia,

stationed in Vancouver, Katherine Dhanani. I met with her on October 26,

2017, and on February 13, 2018. At those meetings, I have expressed the

concern of British Columbia on a variety of trade issues but certainly

softwood and also the steel and aluminum tariffs.

The deputy minister met with the director for Canadian affairs at

the U.S. Trade Representative on June 21 and 22, 2018. The assistant

deputy minister and the executive director of trade policy met with the

counsellor for economic affairs, Mr. Stuart Dwyer, on March 22, 2019.

I’ve also participated, by invitation, in a teleconference led by the

Canadian ambassador to the United States, Ambassador MacNaughton, in

April 2018.

The file is being closely monitored. I think everyone understands

the importance of this sector to British Columbia’s economic future. We

take it very seriously. I know, certainly, the Premier has publicly

stated it’s his highest priority on the trade file.

B. Stewart: Thank you for that update. Probably one of the most important

trade files that we face today in British Columbia is the softwood

lumber agreement.

I’d like to know more about the minister’s and the ministry’s

plans for increased trade in light of the issues that he raises —

softwood lumber, aluminum, steel — and the concerns that British

Columbians are feeling with trade and the new USMCA agreement. So if the

minister could, perhaps, elaborate on what the Ministry of Jobs, Trade

and Technology is going to be doing to help increase trade with the

United States.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m pleased to be able to respond to that question. In terms of

strategic importance, the United States continues to be our number one

export destination.

[11:15 a.m.]

The connections between Canada, British Columbia and the United

States are manifold at many levels, whether at the civil society level,

the level of personal friendships, business connections, institutional

connections through universities, inter-company connections.

Of course, I think everyone recognizes that British Columbia,

Canada and the United States are intertwined in many ways.

Notwithstanding the trade disputes and notwithstanding the position

taken by the U.S. trade representative on some of the important files,

such as softwood lumber and the steel and aluminum tariffs, we continue

to pursue business opportunities in what is still the largest market in

the world. I think the member would understand that and acknowledge

that.

We have a series of offices staffed by representatives. That was

first established in 2007. Those offices are strategically focused to

promote British Columbia’s sector strengths and build relationships that

can advance British Columbia’s economic interests in all regions of the

province. The member may be familiar with Will Fox. His group has been

providing those services to British Columbia since 2011.

The U.S. trade investment representative team includes seven

independent contractors. They were a proponent of a successful

request-for-proposal process and were awarded a contract for the period

of July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2020. They have offices in Boston, serving

the New York-D.C.-Boston corridor, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Los

Angeles, Sacramento and Seattle. This member, more than most, would be

familiar with the services provided by trade and investment

representative offices, but let me just say for the record that those

offices assist B.C. businesses to connect with new U.S. importers,

business partners, venture capitalists and investors.

For example, I travelled to the 2018 BIO convention in Boston and

was supported by the representative there. At that convention, I was

able to speak to and work with the over 50 British Columbia life

sciences companies who were there at that convention. It’s the leading

life sciences convention globally, and it’s important that British

Columbia be there. The local life sciences community was quite

enthusiastic about the fact simply that I had chosen to come and

participate in the conference, and they expressed that to me

directly.

That’s a very important sector. British Columbia has a very

dynamic life sciences sector, and Boston, particularly, is a global hub

for life sciences development. We also toured and met with

representatives at the Canadian incubator — for example, the company

Aspect Biosystems. The young CEO, Tamer Mohamed, who’s certainly a

rising star in life sciences in British Columbia and globally, was

invited to spend some time at that incubator accelerator in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, so we visited there as well.

That gives, I think, a little bit of a flavour, but let me also

say, more broadly, about the Cascadia corridor initiative that British

Columbia has a trade and investment office which advances the Cascadia

Innovation Corridor initiatives, in partnership with the state of

Washington and Washington state organizations, including the University

of Washington, and Microsoft.

Microsoft, given that they have a large operation in Canada, in

Vancouver, and of course are headquartered just south of the border in

Redmond, a suburb of Seattle, is particularly enthusiastic about the

possibilities presented by the Cascadia corridor. They are, I think,

enthusiastic boosters and proponents of British Columbia as an

investment destination. They have certainly chosen to expand and

continue to expand their operations here in British Columbia. For

example, their location here is leading the development of the HoloLens

technology, which is a new technology that is creating a new platform

that has global application.

[11:20 a.m.]

The primary focus of that U.S. team that I mentioned, led by Will

Fox, is focused on assisting B.C. businesses in priority sectors,

including technology, ICT, digital media, life sciences and

agrifoods.

There is perhaps more that I could say on this question, but I

know that the Chair drew to my attention that there are, apparently,

time limits in the rules. So I want to respect the rules, of course. I

see the Chair nodding appreciatively. I’ll wait for the member’s next

question.

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I know it is a considerable topic. The issues that the expansion

that’s taken place in the United States, with those offices spread

across…. What I’m really interested in is the plan that the ministry has

about dealing with softwood lumber.

Now, I say that meaning that we raised that yesterday. My

colleague, the former minister, knows that this is a particularly

troubling issue. We have over $4 billion in exports with the U.S., in

terms of our number. The industry seems to be surviving with the duties

that are on there, but we know that that story doesn’t necessarily play

out particularly well. In some cases, the United States — they’re tough

negotiators. We have a new trade agreement. We have steel and aluminum,

which you mentioned yourself.

What I’m interested in is, besides these kind of feel-good type of

meetings, what is the decisive, pointed direction that the minister and

his ministry are taking to protect jobs in the forest sector in British

Columbia and dealing with this recurring trade dispute, and what actions

are they planning to take in the next year?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m sure the member didn’t intend this, but he did use the words

“feel good.” He, more than many, having worked as a trade representative

for British Columbia himself in Beijing for three years, would know the

value that’s undertaken by those market presences. Let me give some

specific examples of the value and new investments that resulted through

ongoing trade and investment representative support.

[11:25 a.m.]

Industrial Light and Magic continues to make investments into

British Columbia. Industrial Light and Magic expanded into a secondary

building across from its initial Gastown location, creating an

additional 150 jobs in British Columbia.

A global technology company, Pixomondo, expanded their Vancouver

studio in Gastown. The Vancouver office has now reached 70 staff, and

the founder and CEO says the company is open to the possibility of

adding an animation crew in British Columbia in the near

future.

British Columbia’s trade and investment representatives in the

U.S. supported a delegation of 22 participants — these are industry

participants — and exhibitors at the March 2018 Seafood Expo North

America, the largest seafood trade exposition in North America.

Participating companies, including such as Hub City Fisheries from

Nanaimo, have already, all together, reported signed deals with

international buyers totalling just under $9 million.

There is value to that. I’m sure the member didn’t intend the

broadside attack on the work of trade representatives that his comments

might otherwise suggest.

Let me say that in dealing with the softwood lumber dispute, as in

the past, as in 2006 and 2007, when the dispute was ultimately resolved,

it took the process of litigation. There are currently five legal

processes — under both the WTO process and the NAFTA process, the

current NAFTA process — ongoing. As in the past, until those issues are

resolved legally…. I would say at this point, parenthetically, that we

are advised and we are confident, given the track record of these

disputes that go back to the 1980s, of a legal victory in those

processes. Only then, as in 2006-2007, will the Americans be willing to

come back to the table.

As much as one might wish the process was more speedy, it is in

that litigation process. There is no incentive for the Americans to come

back to the table and negotiate it, as much as we might wish that that

would be the case.

I would say again that we are working very closely with Canadian

representatives in Washington, at the Canadian embassy, and monitoring

the file. They have a very detailed evaluation and process of lobbying

and reaching out to individual members of Congress and individual

American senators on this file and on the big files, such as the steel

and aluminum tariffs.

Although the member in his question has, I think, implied that

CUSMA — I think that’s the Canadian nomenclature, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico

agreement…. It has not been ratified by the American Congress. Indeed,

the position taken by Minister Freeland on behalf of Canada is that

there is, at the least, very strong resistance, if not total refusal —

maybe I’m putting that a little bit too strong, but certainly

substantial caution — to ratifying the agreement on the Canadian side

while the steel and aluminum tariffs remain in place. Certainly that has

public support from industry — certainly I know from the aluminum

industry here in British Columbia and from the steel industry

generally.

Those tariffs, under

section 232, are designed for a situation I

think last used by the United States in relation to sanctions with Iraq

or something like that — or Iran. I can’t quite remember. They were

never designed legally to be used as a routine method of negotiation,

but I think everyone appreciates that the approach of the current

incumbent of the American White House is very unorthodox, and that’s

what we’re left with.

On those files, we appreciate the position taken by Minister

Freeland on behalf of Canada. A united approach is an important one. I

think we are all better served by that united approach.

[11:30 a.m.]

That is not to diminish, in any way, the importance of the

softwood lumber dispute and its impact on the British Columbia economy.

That remains our highest trade priority.

B. Stewart: Well, I didn’t want to diminish the good work of the trade

representatives by suggesting that the meetings were unimportant. The

relationships are extremely valuable. I can attest to that.

What I really want to talk about is softwood lumber, Minister. I’m

just wondering. I see, reported in the Times Colonist today,

that Minister Freeland and Mike Pompeo were having discussions about the

introduction of CUSMA, as I’ve been corrected on saying, not what the

people down south are calling it. The point about it is the fact that

she is suggesting, and there seems to be some softening on their part,

that steel and aluminum tariffs have to be resolved before CUSMA can go

ahead, with Canada accepting that.

Specifically, we have trade outside of dealing with Canada that we

control. We control the importation of products coming in from the

United States, such as wine and other things like that. We saw the

effectiveness of the wine embargo in Alberta last spring about this same

time. We have many other products that we supply indirectly. I know that

it’s maybe unprecedented, but certainly, we have the Columbia River

treaty and things like that that can confer benefits to the United

States.

The fact that we’ve got something that is as valuable as softwood

lumber that constantly is under fire, like the Pacific salmon treaty

that was resolved a number of years ago…. What specifically are we doing

to take a stand? Are we taking a hard stand, or are we going to be just

kind of going along with Minister Freeland and what the federal

government says in order to try to find resolution here?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just let me reiterate that I think…. I hope it’s clear, and I

think it is clear that the government values the unified approach led by

theirs. We have worked — as a government, as provincial governments

across the country — carefully and methodically with the government of

Canada. A unified approach is important and the most effective method

forward in this dispute.

We want to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. It’s a very high

priority, the highest priority for our government. The matters are in

five separate legal proceedings under the former NAFTA, which still

continues in force, and the WTO. When those legal processes are

resolved, then, perhaps when we are victorious, we will bring the

Americans to the table and resolve this dispute.

[11:35 a.m.]

I think the time now is for firm resolve, for discipline on the

Canadian side. A united front is the most effective way for a relatively

small country, 38 million people, against our much larger, in population

and economic size, partner to the south of us. That’s the way that we

will prevail. It’s the most prudent approach, and that’s the one that

we’re following.

B. Stewart: Just further on that, I appreciate the idea of firm resolve and a

united front. I think that that is important. I do think that if other

provinces feel the same way as British Columbia about the importance of

softwood lumber, maybe they would consider some of….

I know there are tariffs that have been imposed by Canada on U.S.

goods and services. However, the provincial jurisdiction of liquor

authority still rests with each one of them. And if you don’t think that

Ontario and British Columbia and maybe Quebec matter, you should look at

the volume that that represents to the U.S. producers.

Without going further on the U.S., I want to talk a little bit

about your recent trade mission that involved visiting Korea and Japan.

I want to just kind of find out about…. I did see the agenda, and I just

want to understand what opportunities were created out of that and if

forest products with both Korea and Japan were on the agenda and if

there were any outcomes that you can speak to on that.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me first deal with the import of the question that the

minister has posed about the trade mission just two weeks ago to Seoul

and Tokyo. The Minister of Forests was in Japan and Korea with a number

of forest companies in December, and that is an ongoing relationship. He

has the primary responsibility for promoting the file, although the

Minister of State for Trade did have some meetings related to the

promotion of B.C. wood products. After I finish my response, he’ll add

to it.

Let me just say…. The member has talked about diversification,

about trade challenges. Of course, we are acutely aware of that. Indeed,

in my meetings with federal Minister Carr, who now heads up a ministry

that has been renamed Ministry of International Trade Diversification,

with which we associate ourselves, to diversify Canada’s export outreach

throughout the world — not necessarily away from but in addition to our

primary markets. So that was the basis on which we ventured

there.

I could probably give a couple of examples of what I would

describe as a success in this area. In January 2018, the Premier and I

and the Minister of State for Trade and the Minister of Tourism

travelled to…. Pardon me, the Minister of Tourism wasn’t on that leg of

the trip, but we did travel to Tokyo. We met with the leadership of

Fujitsu, which is a major company, global company, and the leader of a

division in that company, Naoko Yoshizawa.

She heads up that division focused on artificial intelligence and

their work there. They also have a quantum-like product they call an

Annealer. After that meeting in January 2018…. Obviously, this is a

complicated internal decision for a company like Fujitsu, but a decision

was made — very unusual for a Japanese company — to take that whole

division of the company and move it to British Columbia.

The basis…. I’ve met with Miss Yoshizawa several times, most

recently….

[The bells were rung.]

I note the bells are ringing, so we’ll have to suspend

that.

I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:43 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