Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 148

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Petitions

J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 25 — Change to terms of reference for

Agriculture, Fish and Food Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

D. Barnett

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Clovechok

L. Throness

E. Ross

S. Bond

A. Wilkinson

T. Redies

M. Lee

A. Weaver

R. Sultan

Estimates: Legislative Assembly

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of

Supply

Funds granted for public service

Funds granted for capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements

Hon. C. James

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 35 — Supply Act, 2018-2019

Hon. C. James

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Supply Act, 2018-2019

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 35 — Supply Act, 2018-2019

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Supply Act, 2018-2019

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 23 — Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning)

Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Bill 25 — Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act,

Bill 26 — Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act,

Bill 27 — Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Bill 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing Act

Bill 31 — Cannabis Distribution Act

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment

Act, 2018

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act,

Bill Pr401 — Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver

Act

Bill 35 — Supply Act, 2018-2019

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

L. Throness

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology

(continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

B. Stewart

S. Bond

S. Thomson

J. Johal

G. Kyllo

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Petitions

J. Rustad: I have a petition signed by 254 residents in my riding, asking that

the government extend the hours of operation of the Francois Lake

ferry.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call government Motion 25. That’s on the order paper in my name, so both

official opposition and Third Party House Leaders are aware of it.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 25 — CHANGE TO

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that:

[In addition to the terms of reference previously provided to the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food by the

Legislative Assembly on April 24, 2018, the Committee shall examine,

inquire into and make recommendations regarding how to restore healthy

and abundant wild fish stocks in British Columbia.

In particular, the Committee shall conduct consultations to examine

the health, habitat and management of wild Pacific salmon and the

sustainability of wild Pacific salmon industry in British

Columbia.

The Committee shall prepare a report on the results of those

consultations no later than November 29, 2018, and report as soon as

possible to the House, or following any adjournment, or at the next

following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair

shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued estimates debate on the

Premier’s office. In Committee A, I call the continued debate on the

estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In

Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of

the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

[1:35 p.m.]

After the estimates of the Premier are completed, I will also call

estimates Votes 1 to 9. After that, there will be the supply motions by

the Minister of Finance.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: The Premier asks us always to be out there making new friends. I like

making friends in the hallways of the building here, which I did

today.

I made friends with some really wonderful people from Richmond. I met

Mandy Leongoich Xiang — she’s the daughter-in-law of this family — and Xiang

Xial Xiang, the son. They’re both from Germany, living in Germany now as

engineers. The whole family are engineers, including the father of the

family, Don Xiang Xing. He was an engineer here in British Columbia and

Alberta. They lived most of their lives in Calgary. His wife was with him as

well, Xiu Chu Xing. Both of them now live in Richmond.

We toured the building. We got to meet a few people. I was able to

emphasize that indeed, this is their House, and that they are always welcome

here, as are all the people of B.C.

Can the members please help me welcome to the precinct this lovely

family from Richmond.

[1:40 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:41 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,305,000

(continued) .

D. Barnett: To the Premier: first of all, thank you, Premier, for allowing us

to be here and ask you a few questions, and thank you for Rick Hansen

Day.

I’m going to go back to the estimates of November 23, 2017. In

2017, I said I was a little frustrated, and I’m still frustrated. I’m

frustrated over…. Back to the wildfires of 2017. We still have

devastation. We still have issues. You made a commitment that you were

here to help us, and I believe it. But some of the bigger issues we have

are getting answers from your ministers on some of the issues that we’ve

asked questions on. Of course, it’s back to the staff. We have the

greatest staff in the world out in our regions. But we have many

questions that haven’t been answered.

I will continue to write letters and hope I do get some answers.

As we all realize, your ministers are extremely busy. We know that. But

we must also have the passion for our constituents who are frustrated.

When they have to wait a long time for an answer, they get even more

frustrated. And they’re very fearful, of course, because we’ve already

had wildfires, believe it or not, in 2018.

So I would just ask that you maybe see if you can’t speed up

processes for us when we do make these calls. It would be greatly

appreciated.

Back to the mitigation and rehabilitation from the 2017 wildfires.

I know that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources has a

budget of around $55 million for a three-year rehabilitation. I also

know that the Forest Enhancement Society this year is putting $137,000

into rehabilitation and restoration. Mr. Premier, I’ve done my homework,

and this is just a touch.

Out there on the landscape, we need, desperately, more funding for

seeding. We need more money for rehabilitation. If we don’t get the

seeding done quickly, of course, we’ll have an invasive problem called

invasive weeds. So I’m going to make a request, to ask: what is the

long-term plan and the short-term plan so that we can get some of this

rehabilitation work done quicker?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her questions. I know her steadfast

commitment to her community. She will know full well, because she was

there on the ground every day, that we did have an extraordinary season

in the last year, and we’re hopeful that we don’t see a repeat of that.

But when I think of the member for Boundary-Similkameen’s comments today

about floods that have arrived early and the fires that are following

quick on their heels, that sounds very familiar to last year.

Projections are that we’re going to have another dry summer, and that,

of course, causes great concern.

Some of the issues…. I know the member has canvassed this

extensively with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations. I’ll just add to that, that our objective is to see as

quickly as possible what we can get out of the forests, the burned

timber, get it to market. Once that happens, then the tenure holders are

obliged to replant. So when we determine how much of the burnt wood we

can actually get to market, how much then will be the responsibility of

the tenure holder, then we can take stock of how we deal with those

areas of land that were decimated and are potentially at risk of

invasive species, as the member knows full well.

It has to be a staged process. We need to know what the

obligations of the tenure holders will be before the province can step

in. We are doing our level best to make sure that we accelerate both

those processes.

In discussions here in the Legislature over the fall and into this

spring, I know the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the member for

Cariboo North and others have raised the concern that we need to get

this timber out of the forest as quickly as we can. That really falls to

the companies to do that, and they’ve been doing their level best, I’m

advised, to make that happen. There are tens of millions of dollars in

budgets. There are the moneys that are available through the ministry.

There’s the money available through the forest enhancement fund — $137

million. I think you said thousands, but I know it’s a bunch of

money.

That’s cold comfort to people like you, hon. Member, and your

neighbours who depend on the land base for economic activity, for

cultural purposes, when it comes to Indigenous peoples. That’s why we

asked our former colleague George Abbott, and Maureen Chapman, to go

quickly to respond to the fire season and bring forward recommendations

for government, whether it be at the executive council level or within

ministries. What can we do to be better prepared? What can we do to

ensure that the recovery that the member so desperately wants to see

happen quickly can actually do that?

I know she will be relentless in that, and I respect her very much

for that. And I expect several more questions before we’re done

today.

T. Shypitka: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: I’ve got a couple of guests in the House here today from Cranbrook —

Tricia McLeod and her daughter, Elizabeth, who is 11. They are here for a

speech — arts provincials. She’s representing the school of St. Mary’s, in

Cranbrook. Apparently Elizabeth loves her politics, and she came to the

right place, I guess, here today. They had quite a trip getting here, and I

wish the House to give them a good round of applause.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: Yes, it is $137 million. I will correct my statement. Thank you

for that, and thank you for the answer.

[1:50 p.m.]

I appreciate the fact that this is a long process, and the report

that just came out from Mr. Abbott and Ms. Chapman is a very massive

report. One question I do have about that report…. The concern I do have

is that every single recommendation needs dollars and cents, and it’s

massive dollars and cents. When will the response to this report be

made, Mr. Premier? Who will be responsible for the funding of each one

of the components and recommendations?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, not all of the recommendations in the Abbott-Chapman

report require resources. But the member is quite right: many of them

do, significant resources. The action plan is anticipated by end of

October. To that, no resources have been attached to it at this time as

we work through those recommendations, but there are a number of other

initiatives. The member knows; we talked about some of them.

There are two others I didn’t mention. There’s the forest carbon

initiative and the low-carbon-economy fund, together with the federal

government. That’s about $140 million from them and $150 million from us

directed explicitly at using our forest for a carbon sink. The challenge

we have on reforestation is that the devastation was so extraordinary.

Seedlings take time. Seedlings have to be at a certain stage before they

can be viable in the forest. There’s a backlog, and we anticipate we’ll

be in a better position by 2020.

Planting will increase substantially in 2020 to fully implement

the low-carbon fund programs, but we need to get up to 300 million

trees. We’re in the realm of the 250 range now. You know; you live

there. You’ve seen it firsthand.

I will also say that although I visited the area many times during

the fire season, I was never able to get into the Chilcotin because the

smoke was so severe — from the air or on the ground. My colleague the

minister and I bumped into each other at the airport in Vancouver, where

oftentimes, as you know, productive meetings take place. We spent a good

20 minutes just thumbing through his iPhone at — as far as the eye could

see — the blackness and the barrenness of what was a vibrant forest in

your constituency.

I fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem. I don’t want the

member to think for a minute that we don’t realize the magnitude of the

problem. She will also know, as she’s already said, that we have

outstanding government employees that are on the ground. We need to just

make sure the dollars are there to back this up. The recommendations

that are actionable in the Chapman-Abbott report will be done as quickly

as possible.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I appreciate that.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s more than just planting trees. Of course, there’s grasslands.

We have the last good ecosystem of grasslands in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Our ranchers, of course, have lost an awful lot of their grazing areas.

I hope…. I haven’t heard yet how quickly seeding will be

done.

To the Premier, maybe you could respond to that — how quickly

we’re going to get the grasslands planted.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member again for her questions and her concern for her

community.

The forage land, the grasslands, are of course critically

important to our cattlemen, our cattle industry. Fencing is another

issue, of course, that has to be dealt with. The minister advises me

that ongoing discussions are talking place with the B.C. cattle

community in her constituency. We expect to be able to make progress as

quickly as possible, but there are backlogs of the raw materials that we

need to get the grasses back to an area where they can be forage land

again for cattle and other grazing stock.

Again, here we are now coming up to a year from the event, and the

member is still advocating for her community, as she should. I can only

reinforce that she continue to do that, and we will be mindful that the

broader community understands that these challenges will not be fixed

overnight. We are going from catastrophe to catastrophe. We went from

flood to fire and now back to flood — and hopefully, not significant

fire again. But as the member already said, there are fires burning even

now in the north and in the Interior.

Our commitment is to meet the needs of the community as they

arise. She has quite ably highlighted that this is not without

significant cost to the taxpayers, but it’s a cost that I believe all

members are prepared to make in the interest of recovery and restoration

in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Premier. One of the concerns I’ve heard in my riding,

around, is that the recommendations in the Abbott and Chapman report do

not get put on the backs of local government. It seems, when you read

the report, the recommendations say: First Nations, local government and

the provincial government. This is not a responsibility of local

governments. This is a responsibility of both the provincial and the

federal governments.

Mr. Premier, are any of these recommendations going to be put on

the backs of local governments?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll have to say to the member that certainly in the past there

have been cost-sharing arrangements between all levels of governments.

In my meetings with the mayor and council of Williams Lake, as well as

the regional district — Mr. Richmond and his colleagues — during the

crisis, we made it absolutely clear that we would look at ways to

stimulate economic activity outside of ensuring that interface areas

were appropriately logged so that we were removing fuel from communities

in the cities. But in the regional districts, that’s a bigger

challenge.

It’s not our intention to be downloading anything. In fact, it’s

our intention to be working with all levels of government — federal,

municipal and regional — to make sure that we’re working together with

the private land owners, with the cattle industry and other industries

that depend on access to Crown lands as well as to private lands, to

make sure that we can continue to get the Cariboo-Chilcotin back on

track to be an economic engine in the region when it comes to forestry,

livestock and so on.

We’re not starting out with any expectation that we will be

offloading onto municipalities — quite the contrary — but we need to be

working in partnership. In the case of floods this year — and my

colleague the parliamentary secretary knows this full well — the floods

are the responsibility of municipalities, and the fires are the

responsibility of the provincial Crown. The confusion oftentimes exists

within the public mind about who’s in charge here, and everyone’s always

looking for someone to offer that helping hand.

I think what we’ve learned in our short time in government is the

best way to proceed is to go with all levels of government together into

communities to make the case that we’re there for the long

term.

I’d like to think that we did our level best to do that in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin. We’re certainly doing our level best in

Boundary-Similkameen right now to address the flooding there, working

with the federal government. The Armed Forces were sent in at the

request of the PREOCs at that time. When the crisis is happening, I

think you see a high level of participation and cooperation between

levels of government.

The member mentioned Indigenous communities. Again, there was a

high level of anxiety about being told what and where to go and what to

do. The member will know full well the personalities and the communities

that were affected this past summer.

I think what we need to do as elected representatives is to show

the community that we are together — all levels, all political parties —

when these issues arise. I was particularly grateful to travel with the

Leader of the Opposition, the House Leader for the Green Party and two

local MLAs from the opposition side to Chilliwack, together, so that we

could say quite clearly, with one voice, to people who were facing

potential catastrophe and crisis, that we were not going to be fighting

amongst ourselves; we were going to be working together for

outcomes.

I believe, and I know the member would agree, that shouldn’t just

be the case when the crisis is happening; it should be there while the

recovery takes place. I commit to continue to work with the member and

her community to make sure we get success in the future.

D. Barnett: To the Premier, thank you. I would like to, through you, Mr.

Chair, invite you to come on a tour with me. There are many places I

would like to take you. Really and truly, I think you would appreciate

the passion and the understanding of what people are living with. I

invite you to come to my riding. I will be the driver, and I guarantee

you I will get you safely back.

I’d like to change focus. As you know, the superintendent of real

estate will be making some major changes in the real estate industry in

this province. We, along with realtors — the B.C. Northern Real Estate

Board, the B.C. Real Estate Board and others — have been requesting to

the minister that this process be put on hold.

[2:05 p.m.]

There are many issues out there that have to be resolved. There is

much more work that needs to be done. There is not an understanding in

the real estate industry, both by the realtors and by myself. I was a

realtor for 26 years. To take away dual agency in rural British

Columbia…. We have enough economic situations with fires and floods. We

do not need more job loss. We do not need more anxiety.

Will the Premier please speak to his minister, who has the

authority — we make the legislation — to put the changes to the

superintendent of real estate on hold until we have an all-party

commission or something so that we can better understand and make

changes that are necessary in the best interests of all of British

Columbia — and, in particular, not to devastate the rural economy any

further.

Hon. J. Horgan: To the greatest extent possible…. I have a son getting married —

my gooder son. The good son’s not married; the gooder son’s getting

married this summer. Barring that, I would be delighted to travel in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin with the member, going to places I’ve not yet been. I

would be delighted to do that. So my people will talk to your people and

make sure that your driving record is clear and that you, indeed, will

get me back safely.

Firstly, I want to say that the possibilities of conflict between

realtors is not trivial. The member knows that. But I also appreciate

that small communities are quite different from large metropolitan

centres. Everyone knows everyone, and oftentimes, the best way to close

an arrangement that’s in the benefit of both buyer and seller is with

one agent. Perhaps that might be the only way, in some cases, that that

can happen.

Although I will not commit, in these estimates, to make

determinations on behalf of the minister, I will commit to the member to

talk to the minister about our conversation today and direct her to the

Blues if she wants to directly read your comments. I’ll

certainly commit to do that.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Premier. I don’t think anybody realizes or understands

the ramifications, should this all pass, through the superintendent of

real estate. In rural British Columbia, in places we have one realtor.

We have one office. In other places that are a little bigger in rural

British Columbia, we have family real estate offices. Probably over 50

percent of our realtors will be unemployed, and there will be no

representation for our citizens. This is taking away consumers’ rights

to hire whom they wish.

I sincerely hope that this issue can be resolved collaboratively

and with input from realtors, not just people who are appointed to the

Real Estate Council. There are 12. Only two are actual realtors, and

two, I believe, are from rural British Columbia. I will leave this in

your hands, Mr. Premier, and hope for a positive outcome.

With that, I will turn this over to my colleague from Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

[2:10 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the Premier for this opportunity. Before I get into

what I’m going to chat about today, I just would warn him, if he’s going

up to the Cariboo-Chilcotin with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — I

spent four days with her — eat before you go, and do not drink water,

because bathroom stops are not allowed. And I dare you to try to keep up

to her. It was a task, let me tell you. But it’s worth the trip, and I

encourage the Premier to take her up on that offer. But prepare yourself

for that.

Also, just a follow-up to the Premier around this real estate

issue. It’s a huge issue in Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s a huge issue

in Kootenay East. It’s an issue in all rural communities. I really want

to reinforce what my colleague had to say — that this is a big deal

where we come from, and it’s affecting people’s livelihoods. I take your

offer to follow up on that in all good stead, because it’s something

that’s very serious and needs to be done for our rural realtors. What is

made for or proposed in the Lower Mainland doesn’t work where we live,

so there needs to be another solution. I just needed to mention

that.

I also stand here today as the voice of the people of Columbia

River–Revelstoke, and specifically, for the folks in Revelstoke, and

maybe, like my colleague did a little bit, hit the History Channel

button and go back to November when I spoke to you about the Three

Valley Gap issue associated with the Trans-Canada Highway. The Premier

talked about the Colwood crawl and the Saanich crawl, which are big

issues for those folks. But when reflecting back on that, prior to me

standing here today, it’s kind of apples and oranges.

When you’re stuck in a traffic jam — and we’ve all been in cities

and, obviously, in Vancouver traffic — there’s a difference between

turning on your radio and listening to some tunes and getting home half

an hour later, and actually driving through an area knowing full well

that your life is in peril. I just wanted to highlight that there are

huge differences. I understand there are transportation issues across

this province, but this is a massive issue that has the potential of

threatening life.

I want to let them know that Shannon Smith is watching today from

Revelstoke. The mayor is watching from Revelstoke, and many people from

Revelstoke are watching this today, as we speak, because I gave them the

times that I would be up here today.

During the last estimates, and this comes right out of

Hansard …. I just want to remind the Premier of some of the

words that were spoken that day in relationship to the Three Valley Gap.

“That is a personal commitment of mine that we get to start as soon as

possible.” And I quote again: “It’s my commitment to him” — referring to

me — “and to his constituents that we want to make sure that those

improvements occur as quickly and as seamlessly as possible.” Then he

also said: “I’m going to commit to talk to the minister about Three

Valley Gap.”

My first question to the Premier would be: how fruitful were those

conversations with the minister around Three Valley Gap, and what do we

know — more than what we did back in November?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll do a couple of things while we wait for a little bit more

information to come into the room. Firstly, on the dual-agency question.

I was travelling back to Ottawa recently at the request of the Prime

Minister, and it happened to coincide with the national real estate

meeting in Ottawa. So I wasn’t the only one sitting in economy; there

were a whole bunch of realtors as well. They took full advantage of that

opportunity, particularly those from rural communities, to advise me of

their thoughts on the matter. Some of them took pictures with me. I

don’t know where they ended up or whether they used them for malice or

for positive outcomes, but we had good exchanges.

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, I’m not just hearing about these issues inside the

Legislature. The real estate associations across the province are active

on this question, and I know the minister takes it very

seriously.

But I will say to this member, as I did to the last: the conflicts

in larger areas are not insignificant, and that issue needed to be

addressed. It was acknowledged by the previous government. This is not a

concoction of the new government. It’s something that I think we all

recognized, and we have to make sure we get it right.

When it comes to the particular roadway in question — the Three

Valley Gap — and having the difficulty of the railway, the river, the

mountains, everything that the member knows full well, I did have a

discussion with the Minister of Transportation. Our commitment has been

pretty clear for the past ten months that the corridor from Kamloops to

the Alberta border is one that we want to see accelerated. I said that

last year. That remains the case today. We’re hoping to get a little bit

of information on that.

I’m really ragging the puck at this point, but the good news is

I’ll be in Revelstoke next week talking to the Interior lumber

association. I’m not suggesting that you and I go for a drive, because

you’ve already suggested that perhaps the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

should be ride-hailing…. We’ll call it ride-hailing from Cariboo. We’ll

get an app for that so that the three of us can go.

I will be in the region next week. I’m sure I’ll hear about it

again. We are committed to accelerating the development of highway

improvements through the corridor, and Three Valley Gap is an integral

part of that. But as he knows, it’s going to be costly, and we need to

all be mindful of that as well.

D. Clovechok: I will be at the same ILMA conference as he is, so hopefully we

can…. And the minister…. Sorry. I almost called you by your name — which

is a great name. Nonetheless, we’ll see you both there.

I know that “accelerate” and “expedite” have really been driving

words behind your government’s approach to the Trans-Canada Highway, yet

I’m going to be very candid with you, sir, and very frank with you here

today. The people of Revelstoke have had it. Frankly, I’ve had it. And

it’s not your problem. You didn’t create this. You didn’t do this. I

want that to be read into the record, no question.

When we were in government, we put in measures that would make

people safer, especially the towers up on the bluffs for avalanches. But

at the end of the day, you are government now. When the member and I

spoke back in November, you said: “Cut me some slack.” That was the

word. “I’ve only been here for four months.” And you know what? We gave

you the benefit of the doubt. Well, the training wheels are off, and

you’ve had some time now.

What I want to do today…. Shannon Smith, I referenced her in

November as well. An amazing Revelstokian, who got nailed by a huge

rock. The Premier — if I recall from those estimates — also mentioned a

situation with you and your son.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: I won’t go there. Nonetheless, you’ve had that experience, and you

know how scary it can be.

I would certainly hand these to you at some other time, sir —

although, we’re not supposed to use props here. These are pictures of

Shannon’s car. And that was a small, little rock that got her. A

brand-new car, completely written off. She’s had nerve damage. She’s

really struggling today — I’ve met with her several times — with the

psychological debris, if you can use that word, of what had happened to

her. Her daughter is not allowed to drive on that highway, because she’s

just so afraid of what’s going to happen.

Also for reference, that I can pass on to the Premier…. About four

weeks ago, a boulder came off of the cliff there that was bigger than my

truck. Thank goodness it didn’t hit anybody, because had it hit

somebody, they would have died.

They also talked, and the minister has talked, about netting.

Netting is not going to stop that rock. There is something very

nefarious going on. And that bluff…. It’s been happening since the ’60s.

As I mentioned, this is not anything that you created, but you are now

government, and therefore you need to deal with this.

Just referencing back to the folks of Revelstoke, who I stand here

and represent today.

[2:20 p.m.]

I know that your office…. You certainly wouldn’t have been able to

read them all, but right now there are over 800 letters that have been

written to the Premier’s office from Revelstokians about this

issue.

I would like to read into the record a couple of quotes that I

just pulled from these. I have these here with me today. I’ve got over

600 of them sitting here today, although there have been 800 that have

been sent. They’re here today, and those should have been in your

office.

This is from Alanna Widmer, in Revelstoke: “Our lives are affected

deeply by this issue. We need action. We need your help.”

This one comes from a Revelstokian by the name of Victoria Sims,

who works at Three Valley Gap, actually, and lives in Revelstoke: “I

drive to and from work and have to pass that rock face at Three Valley

Gap every day. I feel like I’m playing Russian roulette with my life,

and I don’t like doing that. I need this job, but it’s not fun going to

work. The fear of this stretch of highway is very real for

us.”

This is a quote from Louisa Fleming, another Revelstokian, who

actually had an experience herself: “In August 2016, we were on our way

to a medical appointment in Salmon Arm when hit by a rock in the middle

of the road at Three Valley Gap, shattering two wheels and shredding two

tires. Fortunately, we were not injured, but I missed my CT scan in

Salmon Arm and couldn’t rebook until November. Not only that; we had to

pay the towing charges and a $500 ICBC deductible. Please do the right

thing and get this upgrade done before more people are killed or

injured.”

A quote from Chris Harvey, in Revelstoke: “This highway needs

attention. We shouldn’t have to wait for someone to lose a loved one

before something is done.”

This comes from Cindy Lloyd, from Revelstoke: “I implore you to

please give this issue the depth of attention that it

deserves.”

This comes from Nick Thomas, in Revelstoke: “It’s time for the

government to be honest with the people of British Columbia. Until

there’s some sort of overall plan, with feasible options to upgrade all

the remaining two-lane sections, and more funding, then the only decent

thing to do is to stop pretending that a Kamloops-to-Alberta-border

program exists.”

I won’t go on; there are multiple examples of this. But Revelstoke

has had it. They’re afraid for their lives. As a result of

that….

To the Premier, I’m just wondering what he can commit to today, to

the people of Revelstoke, that will help them understand that this is a

public safety issue. Frankly, this government today knows that it’s a

public safety issue. They know that it’s not a matter of if someone is

going to get killed; it’s a matter of when someone is going to get

killed. If someone does lose their life, God forbid, then, Premier,

that’s on you, sir, and your government. I’m not a lawyer, but there’s

going to be litigation, and we don’t need any more litigation in this

province.

To the Premier, I would ask, on behalf of the people of

Revelstoke: what is your government’s plan to fix this? It’s not a

twinning issue; it is a public safety issue. People every day fear for

their lives, and they’ve had it.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I remember well the conversation the member and I had last fall

when he reminded me of the rock, bigger than two of these desks, that

came pounding down the highway in my community and how close it came. I

had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me of it.

But I do remember very well the conversation, and my commitment

remains the same. Certainly, we can’t rely on typical rock-face fencing.

That’s not adequate. We need to find new ways to address

this.

There are designs underway to develop new rockfall fence systems.

That design work is ongoing. Since we spoke in November, of course, the

construction season has been…. Snow and weather prohibit any significant

work until where we are right now. The projects in the budget this year

call for some $700 million for projects in and around the member’s area

— Three Valley Gap being among them.

But we do have to make sure we’re getting it right. We don’t want

to make those significant investments and still have the same safety

challenges that the member knows so well. I will continue to work with

the Minister of Transportation. We have made this a priority. I said it

directly to the member, to his citizens, last fall, and that remains the

case.

I do know that work is underway, as I said, to try to find new

technologies that will be more effective than the traditional mechanisms

that are clearly inadequate in that stretch of highway. I appreciate the

volume of correspondence the member has with him. That speaks to the

passion of him and his community, and I’m not dismissive of that in any

way.

We’re hopeful to find out, of the $700 million that would be

involved in the completion of these projects, how much of that is going

to flow this summer, next summer and the summer after that. If the

member has another question, I’ll wait for that information to

arrive.

D. Clovechok: These are the pictures that I was referring to. The Premier can

see the size of that boulder. The size of that boulder is not going to

be stopped by any netting — not a chance. The vehicle was Shannon

Smith’s car, which was hit by a small rock. When you look at that car,

it’s absolutely amazing that that woman did not lose her life. As I say,

she still suffers today from the trauma that was associated with that

accident.

During the Ministry of Transportation estimates, it was brought to

our attention that there are no extra dollars in the budget for Three

Valley Gap mitigation. It would be additional dollars, from what I

understood before, that would have to be applied here. The point that I

really want to hammer through here today is that this is something that

can’t wait. This is critical. I know the Premier values British

Columbians, and he values the safety of British Columbians. I know

that.

At this point, it’s not happening in Revelstoke. And that’s why

the volume that we have here…. We’re anticipating over 2,000 letters are

going to land on the Premier’s desk sooner or later. People have had

enough of hearing about accelerating and expediting, when nothing is

going on. Nothing has happened. Now, with Donald to Forde Station on the

Trans-Canada Highway, there’s been an RFP, and it’s on its way. It’s

good. And the Kicking Horse Canyon — I’m thrilled to know that it’s

going to still continue.

But Three Valley Gap…. We’ve got to figure this out. It’s not my

job to provide solutions, but today, I believe…. I’m not a geologist; my

son is. But I believe that a geotechnical survey needs to be done on

this rock face to find out what is going on up there. This has been

happening since the ’60s.

This is not the fault of this government, but it’s now the

responsibility of this government to do something about it and do

something about it now. So a geotechnical study, anything that would

suggest that we can find a solution as to why this rock surface is

moving — nobody has done that. So if I can offer that solution today,

that might be something.

[2:30 p.m.]

Moving forward, I would really like to see and hear from the

Premier today. What could be a potential timeline, given the critical

mass of this? Is this something he’s willing to instruct his minister to

act upon, not yesterday but today, right away?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t doubt for a minute the urgency of the matter and

the importance of public safety to the member and all members of this

House. I do appreciate — the member has been clear — that this is not

something that just happened ten months ago. It’s been building for

decades. Successive governments of all political stripes have not been

able to find the solution to give the people in the communities the

confidence that this valley is going to be safe for the travelling

public.

I think we also have to take note…. This is, again, particularly

apparent. I think of the questions we just had from the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin about the intensity of fire seasons, the intensity of

floods, the snowpack this year, the impact on the geology of the area

that the member represents — mountainous, spectacular vistas that are

being changed by climate change.

As we see more snow and a rapid melt and then a freeze again,

fissures in rocks create opportunities for frost to grow to ice and then

to melt and then to have the avalanches or the rockfalls that we have

evidence — photographic evidence — are significant and important for us

to address.

I do know, based on the notes I have before me, that this design

work to try and find something that is certainly more adequate than the

traditional safety equipment — the netting and the rockfall fencing that

do not work in the area of the member’s constituency — is

underway.

I will ask the minister for an update on the geoscience. I think

that’s an appropriate and helpful suggestion. I don’t know what work has

been done in that regard, but I do know, by the

preamble to the answer

to his question, that it strikes me that we all have to come to terms

with the changing environment that we live in, where more intense and

severe winters and more intense and severe summers are going to lead to

changes, not just in the landscape but also in the geology. That’s

obviously apparent in an area that has had a history, as the member

knows full well, of avalanche and rockfall.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I do know that the three-year budget for the area is $464 million.

That is increasing year over year, from this year, next year and the

year forward. These are significant investments, and they may just

scratch the surface. But the member should continue to advocate directly

with me, and his constituents are welcome to do that. The minister

responsible understands this. You had an opportunity to direct questions

to her specifically on this matter. The dollars are in the budget. The

design work is being done.

I will take back the suggestion of doing some geotechnical work to

see if there’s a baseline. I’m hopeful there’s a baseline. I wouldn’t

have been there over the past 16 years to establish that, but I’m

hopeful that the geology has been reviewed and the geoscience is

understood. If there has been a shift in activity, then we need to shift

our perspectives and how we apply the dollars that are in the budget to

make those roads safe.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate those words, and I know that you take this very

seriously. What I would ask…. You may not be able to answer this today,

and I’d be happy to hear back from you. Out of the budget dollars that

you have just quoted, how many of those dollars are designated

specifically for the Three Valley Gap mitigation?

Interjection.

[2:35 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: I can repeat it. I’m asking, based on the dollars that you just

quoted in terms of the Trans-Canada Highway, how many of those dollars

are actually allocated directly to the Three Valley Gap mitigation

project.

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t have those numbers at my disposal, but I will commit to

the member to get that answer from the minister and get it to him as

quickly as possible.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that and look forward, as soon we possibly can get

those numbers.

Let’s just, for a hypothetical sense, assume that there are no

dollars associated with that budget for the Three Valley Gap issue.

Let’s just assume that that might be the case. Would this government be

willing to provide extra dollars to deal with this issue? It needs to be

dealt with right now. We can’t wait for another month. We can’t wait for

another two months. We certainly can’t wait for another year.

Would the Premier be willing to commit to at least looking at the

potential of putting some extra dollars towards…? Whether it’s a

geoscience survey or whatever that takes, something needs to be

done.

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, I commit to ensuring that if there has not been

geoscience work done in the past ten months or the past ten years, we

get on that right away, because I do genuinely believe that our

landscape is changing. We see that with fires. We see that with floods.

We see that with avalanche and rockfall. We need to have a baseline, and

if that work hasn’t been done, it needs to be done, so I’ll certainly

commit to that.

With respect to the budget numbers, until I know what they are, I

can’t commit to increasing them or not. But we’ll get that information

for the member, and I commend him for his tenacity on behalf of his

constituents. Again, he said quite clearly that this is not something

that I created, and I’m hopeful it’s something that I can

solve.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate those words very much. If you can solve it, then I

tip my hat to you.

Weather, no question, is an issue here. I live in a mountainous

area, and we know that we’ve got issues, whether they’re slides or what

have you. But I do want to make sure that the Premier understands that

it’s not just the weather that’s creating this. There’s something very

wrong going on there. When you get boulders the size of that, those

don’t come from cracks and fissures.

With that, again, I want to thank you for that. I think that

Shannon, back in Revelstoke, has heard today that you’re aware of this

and that you’re going to act on it sooner than later — sooner,

hopefully. When you leave here today, you’re going to be getting on that

phone and talking to your minister and saying: “Let’s move on this.”

It’s not because the MLA from Columbia River–Revelstoke asked to you do

it. It’s nothing to do with me. It has to do with public safety and the

health and well-being of the people in Revelstoke. Respectfully, Mr.

Premier, that’s your job as the leader of this province.

I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I’ll take my

chair.

Hon. J. Horgan: I would just say to Shannon, either if she’s watching or if she

gets a chance to read the Blues , that I now have a picture of

her car — the devastation of her former car. I want to say to her that

I’m grateful she is recovering and that I’ll keep a copy of that picture

in my office as a reminder of the challenge in this area and the work

that needs to be done.

L. Throness: I have a few questions for the Premier as well. First of all, I

want to thank him for leading us on a tour of the Fraser River last

week. It was great that he came out to our community. We very much

appreciated him including MLAs on all sides of the House and making a

non-partisan event, because we all pull together as British Columbians

in the face of emergency.

It seems that we have dodged the bullet this year. The Fraser is

going down a little bit. We’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re

hoping for the best, and so that’s good news. But we need to keep in

mind the very keen sense of anxiety that we all felt last week as we

were flying over the Fraser. We need to remember that feeling, because

the next freshet is coming next May.

In the 2017 budget, the former government put $20 million in for

flooding, and that comparatively small amount, when you compare it to

the total need, went a long way. I’m wondering if the Premier has

considered putting in some money this year. Perhaps if we have a lower

fire season than we anticipate or something like that, whether some

funds could be put toward municipalities to help them better protect

themselves next year….

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the member, the Leader of the Official Opposition,

his colleague from Chilliwack, as well as the member for Cowichan

Valley. That was a very informative tour we did together. As the member

says, gratefully and thankfully, we are not anticipating the significant

flooding in the Fraser that was predicted at the time of, or just prior

to, our visit.

It did bring home very clearly…. The member and I shared a

helicopter together. I can’t say that about everybody, you know. There

are very few people I can say that about. The member and I shared a

helicopter together. It was an opportunity. I think it’s events like

that that bring us closer together as legislators.

The prospect of driving around the Cariboo with the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin…. As daunting as that may be, I’m looking forward to

it, because it creates opportunities for dialogue. It creates

opportunities for a better understanding of the challenges in areas that

I don’t represent. I know,

chapter and verse, Langford–Juan de Fuca. And

I would invite everyone to come there and spend their summer at the

Sooke Potholes. Were it not for a fish closure, we could have fishing in

Sooke. You have to go all the way to Port Renfrew to catch a chinook

now. But it’s engaging with people in communities that allows us to

better understand the challenges that people face.

The diking question that the member is alluding to is part and

parcel of how the provincial government can help municipalities prepare

for the eventuality of another high snowpack and a rapid melt. It’s

something that I now take more seriously. I don’t want to suggest that I

diminished the importance of it prior to this, hon. Member, but nothing

is better than seeing and having someone with local knowledge, as I did

in the tour with the member, tell you and advise you of what the changes

are that are happening in real time, as a crisis is emerging.

I learned a great deal from the trip, and I’m going to take that

information back to the budget-making process next year and ask the very

questions that the member has raised here as we’re preparing for Budget

2019. Do we have additional resources within our revenues to make

expenditures, as the member suggests, to better prepare people? The

ounce of prevention may well be very, very advantageous to the pound of

cure that could result from a catastrophic flooding event along the

Fraser, particularly in the member’s community.

L. Throness: I would simply remind the Premier of the enormous risk to

infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. Some $30 billion is at risk. A

comparatively small amount of money would help to reduce that

risk.

It also appears that we have weather patterns that are changing,

where we have a high snowfall and an early spring with hot weather early

on. So we very much fear that we could go through the same freshet again

next year, and we hope that this fiscal year, there could be some money

applied to municipalities.

I want to go on to talk about the tour that we were on last week,

where the Premier met with Clem Seymour at Seabird Island. We made a

stop there and heard from him. He talked about the traditional knowledge

that he has of the river. The Premier encouraged me to remind him of

this, and so I’m following his instructions today.

Would the Premier be willing to meet with Clem and other First

Nations to talk further about how we can mitigate the problem of the

rising riverbed near those First Nations and other lands, which is

causing them many problems? We would be happy to invite him out, or we’d

come to Victoria. We’d make it as easy as possible for the Premier. We

would like very much to speak to him about this issue and apply the

traditional knowledge that First Nations have, in particular, to the

solution to this problem.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for mentioning the visit we had with Chief

Seymour at Seabird Island and the magnitude of the loss of land as a

result of shifting weather patterns, the rise and fall of the river over

time and the impact that has on that Indigenous community — and equally

importantly, the impact it has on the lifeblood of British Columbia. The

Fraser is iconic for many, but it is the lifeline for the member’s

constituents and others in the region.

[2:45 p.m.]

The silver lining in the lack of a catastrophic event this spring

is that it allows us to better prepare for that eventuality in the

future. That means making the investments now that will assist

municipalities, so that we don’t have to think of the unthinkable should

a high snowpack and rapid melt happen again next year or the year after

that. That’s important.

I’m not certain when my

schedule will allow me to visit Chilliwack

again or to meet with Chief Seymour, but I have asked my deputy,

already, on the return from the trip, to get my head around what we can

do about the changing landscape, the hydrology of the Fraser River,

particularly with respect to Seabird because of the controversy around

gravel mining.

We’ve already had illegal gravel mining in the area, as the member

knows, up and down the river. That has an impact on where the river goes

and how it flows. We have issues around extracting water from the

aquifer for commercial purposes. That is controversial as well. There’s

a whole host of issues around the Fraser that I think we need to direct

our attention to.

Again, the value of having the opportunity to be with the member,

who has local knowledge and local relationships, is that I now have a

better understanding of the challenge. I commit to him, as I did to

Chief Seymour, to get back to him on how we can proceed with

that.

E. Ross: To the Premier, for this session and the last session, I was

trying to understand the mandate that was given to ministers, through

the mandate letters, on implementing UNDRIP. I couldn’t get an

answer.

In talking with the Attorney General yesterday, I think I’ve

gotten an answer in terms of where the Attorney General sees UNDRIP

being implemented. That was in relation to

section 35, especially the

jurisprudence under

section 35, the constitution, which is really what I

was getting at. I felt that UNDRIP was a political statement of

principles, versus the case law of Aboriginal rights and title that the

province has been trying to form policies under for the last 36 years or

so.

There are two issues with implementing UNDRIP, and I want to

categorize them. In terms of delivering programs and services…. For

instance, working with the Aboriginal Justice Council in terms of

working out the justice system and how you implement some of the

principles of UNDRIP is great. That’s perfect. What you do in terms of

health — that’s good. You want to put a highway in. That’s

good.

But really, what I was getting at was: how do you implement UNDRIP

in relation to the infringement of rights and title, especially when

we’re talking about the duty to consult and accommodate and, ultimately,

the decision that government has to make at some point when they’re

dealing with the infringements of rights and title?

In one case, it’s fine to consult and work with a group — with the

Aboriginal Justice Council, for example — in terms of implementing

UNDRIP. But in another case, when you’re dealing with rights and title,

that is not a preferred method, mainly because the rights and title are

held on behalf of the community, which by the way, your Attorney General

confirmed as well.

So in trying to implement UNDRIP, in terms of infringements of

rights and title, does the Premier have a plan for how to communicate

any policy decision-making or any types of methods to deal with that at

a high level, a general level, not a specific level?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There’s a lot of content in the member’s comments so I’ll just

start with bits and pieces. I assume we’re going to have an exchange of

questions and answers here so I’ll try and not be comprehensive at the

beginning. We’ll build to more complete answers when the questions

become clearer.

Certainly, I agree with the member that rights and title and true

partnership and reconciliation are the objectives of any government

interaction with Indigenous communities in an UNDRIP environment. We’ve

been working with what we call a principles document that was begun by

the previous government, working with the leadership council. We’ve made

some amendments. There have been some suggestions by the leadership

council that elements that were removed by the previous government be

returned to the document. So we’ve been back and forth on

that.

Ultimately, however, it’s not just the leadership council that

government needs to engage with on principles of reconciliation; it’s

directly with Indigenous communities in every corner of the province. I

know the member for Skeena fully understands that from his former

leadership role in his community.

Our objectives are to find ways forward through what have been

very complex issues — through

section 35, through the Tsilhqot’in

decision and the consequences of that, as well as successive Supreme

Court rulings. Our view, my personal view and what I’m trying to move

through my government, whether it be through the Minister of Indigenous

Relations or others, is to find areas where we can have genuine

partnership and reconciliation, community by community with rights

holders, as they emerge, so that we can have genuine reconciliation over

time.

Now, that takes a different shape, as the member knows, based on

the community and based on the issue. But I believe that working with

the federal government, which is also embarked on a path of

reconciliation and embracing the principles of UNDRIP, makes for a very

exciting time in British Columbia. We have two governments coming

together at a time in history where there’s a genuine desire within

communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to have true reconciliation

and to ensure that certainty on the land base will lead to economic

activity that benefits all British Columbians, Indigenous and

non-Indigenous.

E. Ross: That’s correct. There was a lot of content in that question — only

because there are very few people in B.C. or Canada that understand the

real principles behind the case law that’s pursuant to

section 35 of the

constitution, and I’m including Aboriginal leaders. You really have to

have a law degree to understand the principles behind it, let alone

trying to implement that in a government decision-making context, let

alone political.

That was my whole concern around implementing UNDRIP. I didn’t

understand it in the context of the case law around

section 35. That’s

all I’ve been trying to do for the last two sessions. I’ve been trying

to clarify how this would be implemented, given the extensive reviews,

I’m assuming, that the previous government did, either through the

Justice Institute of B.C. or with outside legal expertise.

[2:55 p.m.]

My mistake in not clarifying another question yesterday with the

Attorney General. He confirmed everything that I thought about case law

versus UNDRIP yesterday, especially viewing UNDRIP through the lens of

section 35. That was all I was getting at. I was glad…. I forgot to

thank the Attorney General for that clarification.

But it was my mistake that I didn’t clarify one of the questions I

had. Ultimately, what I was trying to get at was: has this government

done a full assessment, a legal assessment, on how the government will

implement UNDRIP in terms of the jurisdiction, in terms of the

decision-making, in terms of any policies that the government will be

implementing or trying to assess on its own?

I wasn’t really looking for any type of information that would

breach the client-solicitor privilege. I wasn’t looking for that, like

on a specific file. I was just trying to understand if there had been a

full legal review on implementing UNDRIP, especially when this

government acknowledges that they’re viewing UNDRIP through the lens of

section 35 and the jurisprudence underneath that. That was my

question.

So I’ll ask the Premier: has the government done, or plans to do,

a full legal assessment of implementing UNDRIP through the lens of

section 35 of the constitution?

Hon. J. Horgan: I very much thank the member for his interventions in these

estimates today. This is an area of particular interest to me. Why I

crafted the letters to my ministers the way I did was so that we could

try and resolve what is a complex area.

The member makes reference to case law and

section 35. We had

Calder. We had Sparrow. We had Haida. We had Delgamuukw. We now have

Tsilhqot’in. Governments have been playing catch-up as the courts have

set new boundaries and parameters around rights and title as it pertains

section 35 and other issues.

That, in my mind, coming into government, was an issue that we

should try and get in front of, rather than continuing to play catch-up.

We’ve had multiple, extensive meetings of cabinet specifically on the

questions of rights and title, reconciliation and how we manage a treaty

process — which is a quarter of a century old, meeting the needs of some

and absolutely not meeting the needs of other communities, and then

those who did not participate at all.

I know that this is nothing new to the member. He knows these

issues very, very well. He also understands the challenges of making

sure that we harmonize the federal and provincial, the two

representatives of the Crown, when we’re engaging with Indigenous

communities when it comes to their rights and title and recognition of

those rights.

[3:00 p.m.]

What we’ve been trying to do is to get ahead of the case law

rather than react to it. We’ve been doing our level best, in the

direction I’ve given to the ministers, to look at all of the legislation

that they’re responsible for and view it with the lens of how we amend

this legislation to meet the principles of UNDRIP. That’s the starting

point, and it’s not something that will happen with a date certain. It

will be a process that will evolve over time.

The ten principles that the federal government announced recently

have also been very timely for us, a new government that is directing

officials to move toward an understanding of how we can take the federal

principles and amend them to meet the needs of British Columbia. Of

course, as the member will know, unceded territory in British Columbia

makes it a much more complicated situation than you would find in other

jurisdictions where treaties have been established and rights and title

are differently interpreted.

From a unique B.C. perspective, we’re anxious to work with the

federal government — as the member knows well — on the principles. We

have an Indigenous Justice Minister from British Columbia who

understands full well the issues here. We want to work cooperatively

with the federal government to make sure that when we meet with

Indigenous communities in the fall and the regular meeting of the

leaders gathering, and every day after that, we’re making progress on

the issues that the member cares so passionately about.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the Premier and his staff.

I want to just make a comment about one issue that’s been raised

by one of my colleagues, and then I have a specific question before I

return the floor. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a lot of

questions.

I want to encourage the Premier to have a discussion with the

Minister of Finance about the real estate situation. During the

estimates process, we took the time to ask questions and to probe about

whether or not it was possible to encourage, through a….

It’s a regulatory process. The Finance Minister has every

opportunity to say to the superintendent of real estate: “This is going

too quickly. There are details that are very complicated for real estate

brokers and agents across British Columbia.” There is time to take a

pause and actually look at that issue. Hundreds of realtors across

British Columbia are upset about that, and I would encourage the Premier

to follow up, as he committed that he would.

My question relates to the employer health tax. I simply want to

ask a couple of questions. The Premier, in an editorial board in the

Vancouver Sun , said that the tax increases that were in the

platform were the only tax increases in the first term of his

government. I’m wondering if the Premier could explain how that changed

and British Columbians were surprised with the introduction of an

employer health tax?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her participation today in the estimates

process. What we said during the election campaign — and what I’m proud

that we’ve been able to accomplish in the short time we’ve been in

government — was to do away with the flat, regressive, medical services

premium tax. That was part and parcel of the platform.

That platform also included ensuring that the revenues were there

to provide the services people need. We have opted for an employer

health tax, consistent with taxes similar to those used in other

jurisdictions. We will now be the last and final jurisdiction to do away

with flat medical services premiums. I’m very proud of that.

S. Bond: I’m not here to debate whether or not the government said they

were going to eliminate the MSP premiums. What I am here to point out is

that the Premier told British Columbians that the only taxes that would

be increased were the ones in the platform. So he managed to surprise

small business, municipalities, colleges, non-profits, with an ongoing —

and, in many cases, higher — tax. Those are simply the facts.

Well, the Premier can smile, but those are the facts.

My concern today remains what it was when we had a discussion with

the Finance Minister. There have been continual promises made by a

variety of ministers and the Premier, telling British Columbians who are

impacted by this tax, employers, but the most difficult one to

understand is non-profits. They have been told by this government that

they’re going to make them whole. They’re going to fix it; they’re going

to do something. While the Premier continues to say, “The details don’t

really matter. We’ll figure that out. It’ll happen because the taxes

aren’t in place yet,” non-profits today are waiting for an answer from

this government about how they will be expected to make up significant

impacts on their organizations.

My question to the Premier is: is he prepared today to assure

non-profits, in particular — and others impacted by the employer health

tax — that he is going to meet the commitment that many ministers on his

side made and hold those organizations whole?

Hon. J. Horgan: We want to make sure we get the implementation right on this. It

won’t take effect until January 1. We continue to consult with a broad

group of stakeholders. We’re listening attentively to the input we’re

getting from all corners of the province, and I’m confident the member

will have her answer shortly.

B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I’d just like to introduce Helen Homer, who’s come here from our

constituency. She’s in the gallery. Thank you very much.

Debate Continued

S. Bond: I guess I simply want to urge the Premier and his Minister of

Finance to end the anxiety and the concern that are being expressed by

organizations all across British Columbia. There’s been lots of

feedback. In fact, I am prepared to wager that pretty much every MLA in

this House has had a deluge of emails, concerns and visits —

organizations marching into our offices saying: “We can’t manage this.

It means laying off staff. It means cutting services and ending

programs.”

If the Premier is prepared to say publicly, which he has, that

we’re going to fix this, I think it’s time to fix it now and make sure

that these organizations can end the anxiety that they feel, that the

people that they work with feel.

[3:10 p.m.]

I simply want to end my comments by saying that it’s time to

either fix it or clarify the details for the people of British Columbia

who are going to be deeply impacted by the surprise tax that this

government imposed on them.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to take the Premier back to the budget book, page 80, if

he’d like to have a look. On the right-hand column, it refers to the

speculation tax and says:

“The tax will be administered by the province outside of the normal

property tax system and property tax cycle. The province will issue

notices by mail that will direct residential property owners to a

Ministry of Finance website that will contain an electronic tax

form….

“To make the administration easier, the form will collect relevant

information from the taxpayer, including social insurance number,

household information, information on worldwide income, information

relating to upfront exemptions and other information identified by the

Ministry of Finance.”

It goes on to say that the relevant information will be shared

with the Canada Revenue Agency.

The question to the Premier is: when is this notice going to go

out, and when will the information be collected?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the questions from the Leader of the Official

Opposition. Legislation to implement the speculation tax won’t be in

this Legislature until the fall, so the information can’t be collected

until that time.

I would also, while I’m on my feet…. In questions yesterday with

respect to western marine bases which were part of the approval process

of the Trans Mountain pipeline, not part of the ocean protection plan….

As we were engaging in the conversation, an announcement was made that

the WCMRC projects, the six bases, would resume, effective yesterday

evening. So those issues that we were mixing between the ocean

protection plan and the requirements of the proponent appear, at least

on the surface of the requirements of the proponent, to be back on

track. I wanted to share that with the member and the committee at the

earliest opportunity.

A. Wilkinson: Roughly three hours ago the Premier gave a press conference

outside in which he said that the speculation tax and the employer

health tax do not apply until next year. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yeah, they do not take effect until January 1, 2019.

A. Wilkinson: If we turn to page 66 of the budget document, it says that in the

2018-19 fiscal year, there’ll be $87 million of speculation tax

collected. If the legislation is not available until September,

disclosure documents are not going to be available and returned until at

least Christmas. One has to wonder how on earth you’re going to collect

$87 million in the remainder of this fiscal year.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The revenues that are booked will be collected on the basis of the

2018 property tax year and the 2018-19 tax year. That’s how you get the

amount from January to the end of the fiscal in the ’18-19 tax

year.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to suggest to you, Premier, that that answer has no

credibility whatsoever. The legislation won’t be ready until the fall.

It won’t be passed and won’t get royal assent until later in the fall.

Then there’ll be the collection of information from over one million

households — one million households. That information has to be

processed, and exemptions have to be examined to see whether this

speculation tax will apply to that household.

Then there has to be a collection period. The collection period

will take months, as there’ll be delay in filing by tens of thousands of

homeowners who don’t know whether the rules apply to them. And then

there’s the collection period as well.

It is completely implausible, Premier, that you’re going to

collect a STOB period of three months of revenue on an annualized basis.

Can you please explain to the people of British Columbia how your budget

has any credibility, when there’s an $87 million hole in it because you

didn’t figure out how to collect taxes on a new program?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I guess I just don’t share the member’s pessimism. New

programs…. The child care program, for example, has had tremendous

uptake. We’ll see legislation this fall, and the member will have his

opportunity to debate its value at that time.

A. Wilkinson: With all due respect, that answer is even worse than the previous

one. You need royal assent to introduce tax legislation. You need to

have taxation policies imposed and fully implemented. Your deputy

minister is abundantly familiar with the process of tax application,

administration and collection. It will take at least six months to

collect the necessary information and to collect the revenue associated

with it.

Premier, I’m going to ask you one last time: is there an $87

million hole in your budget? You have generated a budget that is based

on a completely implausible tax administration program that is not

possible in terms of implementation. So one last time, Premier: will you

have an $87 million revenue from the speculation tax in this fiscal

year? Or is that simply not plausible?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There is no hole in the budget. We’ll meet our targets.

A. Wilkinson: In recent years, the term “plausible denial” has come up, and that

simply does not apply in this circumstance, Premier. That answer has no

credibility whatsoever.

So let’s go on to another zone. Let’s talk about your freedom of

information and your staff. A quote from you, October 28, 2015: “The

public is not well served when senior representatives — being paid a

princely sum, to boot — are not recording their actions on a daily

basis. That is, in my opinion, an affront to our basic institutions.”

John Horgan in the Times Colonist .

The Chair: Mr. Leader, just provide a title.

A. Wilkinson: Yet we found out in recent days that the Minister of Citizens’

Services, the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Public

Safety, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, Kate Van Meer-Mass, Layne Clark, Suzanne

Christensen, Stephanie Papik, Christine Kennedy, Amber Nash and Maria

Del Matta disclosed no records whatsoever when asked for disclosure of

all emails, text messages, BBMs, Slack messages and WhatsApp

messages.

Premier, how can that possibly be reconciled with your remarks to

the Times Colonist two years ago?

Hon. J. Horgan: I did set a high standard with respect to the new government’s

ability to live within the rules of the Freedom of Information Act, and

we haven’t met that standard. I asked my deputy minister to have all

information that had been removed from computers as “no records”

responses brought back into the system. They’re being gone through now,

and we’re reviewing the freedom-of-information requests that came from

the opposition for information.

The good news is that there was no mandate to triple-delete

information, as was the case with the previous administration, so it was

an easy matter to retrieve the information. Now the hard work of going

through those records to ensure that we’re complying with the Freedom of

Information Act is underway.

I will also say that we are renewing the training procedures for

new staff and existing staff to make sure we live up to the high

standard that I expect from my office and other offices as part of

executive council.

A. Wilkinson: So the obvious question arises: has the Premier reported these

people to the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that they can go

through the appropriate level of sanctions or retraining or otherwise be

corrected in their ways by the Privacy Commissioner, when they

completely failed to meet the standard that he laid out in the media

less than 30 months ago? What is the sanction for this

behaviour?

Hon. J. Horgan: My deputy has been in contact with the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, and he has been advised of the actions we’re taking to see

if any information that should have been released was not released. We

don’t know that that’s the case. These could all be transitory

records.

We have also, through my deputy, been in consultation with the

commissioner and advised that we’re going to be increasing the rigour of

our training processes for existing staff and any new staff so that we

can meet the high test that I expect, not just from myself and my

colleagues but from those who work for us as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Of course, having been involved in electronic discovery myself in

the past, it is extremely expensive to reinstate emails from servers

when the emails have been deleted. This is a tedious and costly process.

So the obvious question arises: why did this happen in the first place?

Did the Premier not instruct his staff at all in terms of the standards

he expects for their ethical and professional behaviour?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just dispute one of the statements the member made with

respect to the cost of retrieving this information. The new government

does not have a mandate to triple-delete information, so retrieving it

has been less costly than he would suggest. Perhaps the technologies

have improved over time since he was doing discovery.

I would also say that we did our level best — I did my level best

— to give instruction to my senior staff to ensure that all members of

the executive council and all of the staff that work for them had

sufficient training to meet the standard that I set. That training took

place on multiple occasions, a dozen training sessions over a reasonable

period, a number of months, after the new government was sworn

in.

Again, I would argue that when these issues arose, I took

responsibility for them, as I should. I did set a high standard because

of the appallingly low level of retrieval of documents under the

previous administration that led to a report from the

freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner with recommendations

that we will do our level best to adhere to. We missed the mark, Member.

I acknowledge that. And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure it

doesn’t happen again.

A. Wilkinson: Well, Premier, given the high profile of this matter during your

time on this side of the House, given that your Solicitor General, who

is responsible for law enforcement, was one of the perpetrators here,

and given that your Minister of Advanced Education has experience in

this House and should have known better from all of the vitriol that

came from this side of the House when we were in government on this very

issue, and given the gravity of the situation, resulting in criminal

convictions related to this, certainly someone’s head should roll over

this. Was the training deficient? Did your senior staff fail to

implement the training? Who dropped the ball, Premier? That’s the

question.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just for the record, the criminal convictions the member refers to

were Liberal Party staffers. I want the record to certainly reflect

that.

The question of lopping off heads in a show trial format, as the

member suggests, is not in the interest of better outcomes, I would

argue. I think that reinvigorating the training process…. Certainly, my

senior officials who are here know full well my profound disappointment

in this matter. I again reflect that directly to the member, through

you, hon. Chair. We’re going to do better. That’s as simple as that. I’m

not going to punish people for not doing the best they could, but I

expect a high standard, and if I don’t see it, we’ll take action at that

time.

A. Wilkinson: Before I move on, it seems that it can be summarized that the

Premier’s approach is: “There are lots of rules. You’ll get trained in

them. We’ll attack the government when we’re in opposition on this very

basis.” But when it comes to this Premier forming government: “Don’t

worry about it. If you blow it on repeated occasions — dozens of people

in senior positions, including senior ministers with $2 billion budgets

— it’s just fine. There’s no sanction. Don’t worry about it. We’ll blow

off the opposition.” Is that correct, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, sanctimony sits well for the member. I welcome him to carry

on this line of questioning. I have acknowledged my responsibility in

not making it abundantly clear to my colleagues in the executive council

and staff that I hold them to a higher standard. But I’m not punishing

anyone for not meeting that test. I’m redoubling our efforts to make

sure the training is in place so they can do a better job in the future.

That characterizes a better way to get good outcomes than punishing

people who made mistakes.

[3:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, before I move on, perhaps it’s a fair

summary that punishing

people for breaking the law doesn’t seem to be in the mandate of this

Premier. People can ignore the rules even though they’re trained to do

otherwise, and there is no sanction whatsoever. It’s just: “Carry on,

and we’ll cover for you.” That’s a pretty sad ethical standard to set,

for this government, but perhaps we’ll have to get used to

that.

Moving on, perhaps the Premier can provide one specific example of

what his Municipal Affairs Minister has done in speeding up the

municipal development approval process.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just remind the member, going back to the previous question,

that the criminal activity that was undertaken by representatives of the

B.C. Liberal Party that led to charges and a conviction were outside of

the bounds of the act. There are no sanctions in the act. I’ll remind

those here that a woman, Ms. Cadario, the deputy chief of staff to the

former Premier, was triple-deleting on a regular basis. There were no

sanctions for her. A guy named Nick Facey who worked for the B.C.

Liberals was doing the same thing. There were no sanctions for him.

Those who committed criminal acts, were charged and convicted — it was

on the B.C. Liberal watch.

I want to set a higher standard for freedom of information and

privacy. Everyone expects that, they know it, and it’s going to continue

into the future.

With respect to the very good work of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, she is working collaboratively with UBCM and regional municipal

officials to make sure that we can find ways to break the impasse when

it comes to development permits and bringing more housing supply into

the marketplace to meet the needs of British Columbians, needs that were

sadly neglected for 16 years by the previous government.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier describes the relationship with municipalities and

development permits as an impasse. How is that going to help in

alleviating a housing crisis?

Interjection.

A. Wilkinson: You said exactly that, Premier. No, you said there was an impasse

over development permit issuance.

We can check the transcript if the Premier wants to go into

further denial, but this is perhaps a continuation of denying the facts

and denying the past. We can delete emails en masse and say: “Oh gosh,

we’re sorry.” We can deny what we said moments ago.

Premier, let’s get down to the details. Has your Municipal Affairs

Minister done anything at all to improve the speed of approving

development permits in our municipalities?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs is also

responsible for housing and transit — I think a mix that the member will

know is critically important.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If we’re going to build a new housing supply and increase density,

we need to be able to move people around. Making sure that transit hubs

are an integral part of that development is, of course, important to

everybody.

[3:35 p.m.]

The minister has been working — a good example would be — in the

Tri-Cities where, working together, the communities in that area are

seeing positive outcomes, and they’re working hard to make sure that

development approvals get in place in a timely manner. We’re going to

continue that collaborative approach, working hand in hand with

municipalities to try and get the outcomes that people want to

see.

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday we canvassed, at some length, the issues related to

Kinder Morgan. Of course, there’s now a new owner in the wings.

Financial close is expected in August.

Of course, we all recall the April 15 meeting in Ottawa between

Premier Notley, our Premier and the Prime Minister.

The obvious question is, with the federal government taking over

the pipeline in complete ownership…. That invokes federal jurisdiction

and federal ownership, just like a military base or an airport. So given

that federal paramountcy both in legislation and in ownership, is there

any point whatsoever in the Premier continuing his court reference given

that the federal government will be the respondent?

Hon. J. Horgan: My legal advisers tell me that this is a contested area of

jurisdiction. The specific wording of the reference and the regulation,

as the member canvassed yesterday, does not talk about a particular

project. It talks about a product and the consequences of that product

to our natural environment. We believe it’s a worthy undertaking, and

we’re going to continue with the reference.

A. Wilkinson: Has the Premier’s Office or, for that matter, anyone in this

government had contact with the federal government about the futility of

this court reference given that the new owner will be the government of

Canada — that is, all of us, as taxpayers? If not, has the Premier

obtained some legal opinions about whether or not it’s a useful exercise

to continue this litigation?

Hon. J. Horgan: The new circumstances have certainly led to legal counsel working

with the Attorney General to review what potential outcomes may well be.

I spoke directly to the Prime Minister earlier in the week, advised him

that we’re going to continue on with the reference case. He saw no

problem in that. This is an area of contested jurisdiction, and we’re

going to see how it falls.

A. Wilkinson: Has the Prime Minister ever suggested or advised the Premier that

his court reference is an exercise in futility given the federal

paramountcy and their ability to simply pass legislation, claim national

interests and, just like a military base, say: “Get out of the way. It’s

a federal project”?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, obviously, federal officials have their view and we have

ours. That’s why a reference to the courts is relevant to both parties —

to get a better understanding of where the jurisdiction rests on these

issues. The member would know that.

A. Wilkinson: By saying here today, and perhaps the Premier will deny this as

well, that federal officials have their views and you have yours — that

the federal officials apparently are telling the Premier this is an

exercise in futility…. Will the Premier tell us today what the federal

position is? Or is he going to hide behind solicitor-client privilege,

which really doesn’t apply here?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said yesterday, the reference is dealing with areas that we

want to determine are within our jurisdiction to regulate. That’s why

we’re in the Court of Appeal, as I said. The member may want to take my

words and use them to his advantage. I’ll say it again. It’s well

canvassed in the media that the federal government has their view. At no

time has the federal government said to me that they have any

legislation planned, as he suggests.

When I said to the Prime Minister this week that we were carrying

on, he seemed to have other issues on his plate, and they’re significant

ones. The member will know that. Another day, another tweet, another

trade dispute. Our aluminum industry is again put at risk and steel in

Canada is put at risk because of the actions of the U.S. administration.

The federal government is working very effectively to try and represent

the interests of British Columbia in that regard.

Again, I’d have to say that our relationship is a positive one,

despite this one issue. It is our right as a province to seek

clarification on jurisdiction, and that’s exactly what we’re

doing.

A. Wilkinson: It is a good thing for British Columbia if the relationship is

positive, because we’re deeply dependent on the federal government for

the well-being of British Columbians. When I hear that the relationship

is positive except this one, it would seem to indicate that the federal

government has completely dismissed out of hand the Premier’s effort in

the courts since they’ve taken ownership of the pipeline.

Perhaps we can just summarize the state of affairs. The federal

government is now about to take ownership of the Trans Mountain

Pipeline. The federal government is committed to building the expansion

of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. They have said the expansion will be

built. They have not put in money for the coastal protection program

yet, because the Premier obstructed it for more than a year.

We now have difficult relationships with Alberta and Saskatchewan

because of the Premier’s high-handed conduct, which has amounted to

nothing, and we’ve used up a lot of federal goodwill in the process. We

have a reference case in which the Premier is not willing to tell us

what the federal position is. It certainly sounds as if the federal

position is to dismiss it out of hand as an exercise in futility and a

political stunt. We have the cost of employing Arvay Finlay to litigate

the matter, even if it is futile.

Perhaps in

summary we can say: what does the Premier have to show

for his efforts over the last eight months except a potentially futile

court reference, having lost all credibility with the federal government

at the expense of all of us as federal taxpayers?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I would consign the member’s

summary to the fiction

section. I have a very positive relationship with the government of

Saskatchewan. They continue to be a vital part of the relationship I

have with people right across the country. The federal government is in

regular contact with us on a host of issues.

Having a dispute on one issue often happens in communities. It

happens in families; it happens in the Legislature. For the

summary that

was just put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow the

world has come to an end because there’s a disagreement between the

federal and provincial governments…. Like that’s never happened in

Canada? Come on, man.

R. Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the galleries behind me, out of sight — somebody is peering over

the rail, though, so I’m sure they’re there — we have 27 students from grade

7 of Cleveland Elementary School in North Vancouver, accompanied by three

parents and their teacher, Suzanne Simpson, who teaches in the French

immersion division of Cleveland Elementary.

Cleveland is one of the outstanding elementary schools in school

district 44, and we’re very proud, on the North Shore, that these schools

consistently rate near the top in terms of academic achievement and other

activities. Would the House please make these students of political science

welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Wilkinson: On the further issue of petroleum, pipelines and oil

transportation, can the Premier advise what level of notification occurs

to the provincial government when oil is shipped by rail down the Fraser

Canyon on the CP and CN rail lines? And can we have an understanding of

what the volume was during the period of 2013 to 2017?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t currently have that information at our disposal. Perhaps

we can move to another question, and we’ll come back to this when the

information arrives.

Interjection.

The Chair: Let me call…. I’ll recognize, and then you start.

Leader of the Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: Given the passage of time and that we’re in the last day of the

session, I’m hoping that this isn’t an evasion tactic.

I’ll ask a very simple question. What level of disclosure is

required of the railways, which are federal undertakings under the

constitution and are not regulated by the province, in terms of

disclosure of the cargos — whether they’re hazardous or crude oil or

diluted bitumen or otherwise?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We just had confirmed by both the Ministries of Environment and

Transportation that that information is held by the federal government,

and it is not currently shared with the province.

A. Wilkinson: From that answer, it’s abundantly clear that the Premier and the

entire civil service have no idea whatsoever how much crude oil and

diluted bitumen are coming down the Fraser Canyon every day, every week,

every year. So the reference case that refers to the largest annual

amounts in each of the four preceding years is of no utility whatsoever

in regulating oil by rail because the federal government and the

railways don’t tell you.

This appears to be a completely pointless exercise — to say that

the province wants to get a declaration and will limit the expansion of

diluted bitumen transfer and crude oil transfer by rail when that

information isn’t available at all and the Premier has no idea and no

jurisdictional way to find out how much is being shipped by

rail.

Perhaps the Premier can clarify. What’s the point of having a

constitutional reference that will limit the amount of diluted bitumen

or crude oil travelling by rail when the Premier has no access to that

information and no ability to verify it at all?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the very point of having the reference is to allow us to

have the jurisdiction to collect that information so we can protect

citizens along that rail corridor. That’s the whole point of the

reference: to ensure that we are obliged to issue permits before the

product can transit British Columbia. That’s the point.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier knows full well that railways have been coming to

Vancouver from Alberta since 1885, and there’s been no disclosure of the

oil and diluted bitumen content ever. The Premier now suggests he’s

going to invent that authority with his constitutional reference, which

is a laughable proposition.

The courts are not going to create jurisdiction that hasn’t

existed for 133 years, Premier. So perhaps you can explain to us what on

earth this reference is going to do to limit, change or otherwise

regulate oil by rail, because it’s clear you have no control over it

now.

Hon. J. Horgan: The point of seeking the jurisdictional clarification is so that

we have the right to collect that information to protect British

Columbians. That’s what we’ve been talking about since July of this

year. Yesterday we had the member acknowledge that we didn’t want a

Legislature filled with diluted bitumen. Neither do I. We’re on the same

page on this one. We’re seeking the jurisdiction to protect British

Columbians.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you, Mr. Premier, but you haven’t had that

jurisdiction for 133 years. Now you’re going to try to invent it out of

thin air. Now we find that the Premier is trying to create nothing out

of constitutional thin air. The federal government and the railways are

going to ignore him. Perhaps he’ll drag out his court reference as long

as he can, because the answer is going to be an embarrassing

one.

Can the Premier tell us what he has salvaged out of this Kinder

Morgan fiasco except to send a $12 billion bill to us as federal

taxpayers? Has he accomplished anything at all?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the federal Liberal Party believes that this is a solid

investment and that they’re going to be able to recoup their costs with

profit down the road. I guess he can disagree with his federal

colleagues on that question.

The whole point of the reference is to establish jurisdiction. For

the member to talk about 1867 is not relevant to this proceeding in

court. We are trying to establish jurisdiction today to protect British

Columbians. That’s what we’re getting out of this process.

T. Redies: Good afternoon, Premier.

I have been speaking with the Premier and the Minister of

Transportation for numerous months now with respect to an issue in my

riding, which is the BNSF rail line that goes through a very crowded,

heavily populated area. There are substantial risks of a Lac-Mégantic

type of accident because there are trains carrying anhydrous ammonia,

heavy oil, a lot of very dangerous things. We asked the provincial

government to put up $300,000, along with federal participation, to look

at a feasibility study to move the rail line.

[3:55 p.m.]

Yesterday we had an incident, an incident that was one of the

risks that I had raised with the Premier previously, in that the train

basically was stuck for 45 minutes. It cut off Crescent Beach from any

emergency access. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and there was no

emergency, because there would have been no way of getting into Crescent

Beach.

The Premier has put up $300,000 for the high-speed rail line. I am

just asking again for his assistance to deal with this problem so that

we can get moving on it.

Premier, I am just looking for your continued help. Could you

please explain to me when we can get this funding going?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her continued interest in this issue. We

spoke about it last year. We’ve been in correspondence since

then.

The member will know I spoke with MP Gordie Hogg about this issue.

He, for 20 years, sat in this place sharing the same concerns about the

federal right-of-way that cuts off her community from the coast and also

is a potential safety challenge of significant proportion. Having Member

Hogg, who knows full well the issue, on the government benches in Ottawa

I think puts us in a much better position to make some progress on this

question.

She does know that this is a significant undertaking, to move the

right-of-way. It certainly has my full support and is one of the issues

that perhaps we can make some progress on going forward with the federal

government. As she knows, Member Hogg knows these issues very well.

Having him in Ottawa is a very positive outlook for us in the short

term. Hopefully, we can make that significant change in the long

term.

T. Redies: Premier, thank you for that. Can I take that as a commitment that

the Premier will provide funding to protect the safety of people in my

riding?

Hon. J. Horgan: I make an undertaking to work with the federal government to

address the right-of-way question, working with her and Member Hogg and

anyone else in the region that wants to side with us. But when it comes

to funding of a corridor that’s managed and maintained by the federal

government, I think we’d have to wait and see how receptive they are to

movements. If there’re not, then we certainly have to look collectively

— municipally, federally and provincially — at how we protect the safety

of the citizens in your community.

A. Wilkinson: I’m just going to read out three quotes from the Premier, starting

with April 10, 2017, on a video with Fair Vote Canada. “We will set up

an all-party committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum

question at the conclusion of that process — John Horgan.”

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, no names, please.

A. Wilkinson: The next one is from May 1, 2017. “You are going to have 50

percent say yes or no.” Mr. Shaw: “So you give them one system to vote

on?” The Premier: “Yeah, exactly.” The Province newspaper, May

1, 2017.

The third quote, again from Fair Vote Canada, from their interview

on April 10, 2017. “The amending formula for our constitution, for

example, requires approval by seven provinces, with 50 percent of

Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent, but it has to

include seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind

of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in

British Columbia.”

So Premier, it’s a simple question. Were all of those complete

fabrications and just plain wrong?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, the question of electoral reform is one that I

canvassed extensively with a whole host of people over the election

period and since that time. What we did is we put in place…. We tasked

the Attorney General — the member has been an Attorney General, so he

would know this — in the unique role that that member of executive

council has at the cabinet table, to independently review and assess the

best way forward to implement electoral reform in British

Columbia.

He tabled a report yesterday. Cabinet has received that report.

We’re looking at it with great interest, and we want to ensure that we

give people the opportunity to have their say on this

question.

That’s why we have passed legislation last fall after a vigorous

debate in this House. We went through all stages of debate. The bill was

passed, and we’re going to be proceeding with a referendum. A mail-in

ballot will be the form of votes for the people of British Columbia, and

they’ll have an opportunity to decide, 50 percent plus one, whether they

want to have the existing system or a proportional representation

system.

A. Wilkinson: That was a complete evasion of the question. The Premier has

ignored his statements from the past, as is becoming common on this

proportional representation process.

I’m going to ask him one more question, and this statement is less

than four hours old. The reporter asked: “For the last two days, we’ve

talked about the lack of maps. People will be voting, not knowing what

their boundaries will look like. If you’re committed to people voting

for this, is there no way you could direct Elections B.C. to fast-track

the mockups of what this could look like for voters?” The Premier

replied: “We could do that.”

So Premier, was that another fabrication you intend to stand up

to, or is it something you intend to follow through on? If not, why on

earth would you not follow through with that request to Elections

B.C.?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I did engage in a year-end scrum, as the Leader of the Opposition

suggests, and I did say that of course we could ask the Chief Electoral

Officer to draw maps. But the point here is this. I’ll say it clearly so

the member can understand the intent of my comments from the beginning.

We are asking the public to decide between keeping the system that they

have or opting for another system, a proportional representation system.

The Attorney General has put forward three scenarios for that to happen

should people decide to change from what we have to something else. That

will require, if the member follows through, three separate maps for

different outcomes.

It seems to me to make more sense to await the verdict on question

1 before you start working on the solution to question 2, which is maps

and boundaries that would be done in the normal course of events by an

independent commission that was commissioned to do their best efforts to

draw maps that balance the rural and urban issues that are part and

parcel of life in British Columbia and that balance the needs to have

groups of people in clusters of similar size right across the

province.

The member knows full well what redistribution looks like and how

much time and effort goes into that. To suggest, as it was suggested in

the scrum today…. Could this be done? I said: “Well, it could be done,

but is it practical to do that?” I would suggest it’s not. What is a

better course of action, and the course that we’re going to follow, is

to ask citizens what they want to do. If they want to make a change,

what will that change look like? Vote 1, vote 2, vote 3. Whatever one of

those comes forward, maps will be drawn up by an independent body — not

by politicians, not by he or I, but by a commission that will put in

place a new system for a better way to elect people to this

representative body.

That is my commitment. The member on the other side has a

different one. He wants to keep the status quo. He wants to keep things

just the way they are. We disagree on that, and that’s fine. In a

democracy, we’re entitled to have differences of opinion. He has his; I

have mine.

A. Wilkinson: The path is apparently clear. The Premier could actually live up

to his promise and have a yes-no vote on

part 1 of the proposed

referendum, which would maintain his integrity and leave the option open

for map development later, or he can follow through on the Attorney

General’s recommendation and have us all vote on something we don’t

really understand and have no maps for, even though he said it could be

done. The Premier needs to make a decision and guide his cabinet toward

what we hope will be the first option, which would maintain his

integrity and not play games with the people of British

Columbia.

With that, I will hand the floor over to the member for

Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: To the Premier, would he consider, then, holding the referendum on

question 1 and hearing that result before proceeding to question 2 in a

separate referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yesterday we received a report from the Attorney General, and

cabinet will be reviewing that report and making a determination in the

near term.

M. Lee: Just about the report and the cabinet review-making process here.

Is it the expectation of the Premier that cabinet will either accept the

recommendations of the Attorney General in that report in its entirety

or will vary from that report?

Hon. J. Horgan: I can’t predict what cabinet will do until we’ve met and

deliberated.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Does the Premier have any concern regarding the perception of

British Columbians as to the notion that a report has been generated by

the Attorney General, in the role that the Premier has asked him to do,

and now cabinet will have the ultimate decision as to how this

referendum will come about — the question, the process, the kinds of

considerations that the Leader of the Opposition just outlined? Is there

a concern that the Premier would have as to putting cabinet in the final

decision-making position as to how this referendum will be

conducted?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, as I said in the earlier response, cabinet received the

report yesterday. We’ll be reviewing it and deliberating and making a

decision in the short term.

M. Lee: Just in respect of the timing of when cabinet will be making that

decision. When can we expect that the government through cabinet will be

making the decision as to how to proceed with this

referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Soon.

M. Lee: When can we expect that the regulations that include ensuring the

availability of information respecting the matters to be voted on will

be issued?

Hon. J. Horgan: Following the decision.

M. Lee: When can we expect that Elections B.C…? I understand that

Elections B.C. just received a copy of the report yesterday. When will

Elections B.C. be provided with the opportunity to proceed to put in

place what is necessary for the conduct of this referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Following a decision by cabinet.

M. Lee: Will the Premier commit that the regulations will ensure that

there’s an accurate and realistic sample ballot that will be provided to

voters for each system of proportional representation being

proposed?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think we would be looking to Elections B.C. to assist in the

development of those materials.

M. Lee: Will the Premier commit to ensuring that voters will understand

the impact of each form of proportional representation on voters and

British Columbians locally?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s our expectation that there will be a full airing of views on

this issue during the campaign period and prior to that, and as much

information as is possible would be available to the public so they can

make an informed decision. That’s the outcome all of us would want to

see.

M. Lee: Well, we’ve had some debate and discussion in this House in the

limited opportunities that we’ve had since the report was issued

yesterday. In terms of the 24 items that need to be reviewed by the

committee of this House and the Electoral Boundaries Commission, does

the Premier have any concern that British Columbians will not have the

ability to know precisely what they’re voting on when they’re being

asked to choose, potentially, between three different forms of

proportional representation?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, we’ve done everything we can to make sure that there’s

been an arm’s-length process in place. The member will know the unique

role, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, a former Attorney

General…. The Attorney General has a unique role at the cabinet table,

and he has exercised that. I saw the report at the same time the member

did. Cabinet was not briefed prior to its release. It was released, and

we read it at the same time.

We’re hopeful that there’s a broad interest in this. Based on the

consultation that the Attorney General undertook, there is broad

interest across the province in this issue, and we hope to continue to

see that grow as we get closer to the decision that the public will make

at the end of the day.

While I have the floor. I’ve just been handed a statement by

Elections B.C., and I want to read a portion of it. I don’t know if the

member has this yet. It says a number of things — certainly that

Elections B.C. will be producing non-partisan information and resources

about the PR options and the referendum, including general information

about how electoral boundaries might change under the proposed systems.

“We will not be producing actual maps that show electoral boundaries

under the proposed systems for a few reasons.”

I want to read this one to the member because it’s been consistent

with what I’ve been saying, and I think it clarifies the position that

the Opposition House Leader has been saying. It goes as follows:

“Drafting electoral boundary maps has always been left to the

independent electoral boundaries commissions, and is not part of our

legislated mandate.” In the 2009 referendum, for example, the maps that

compared first-past-the-post to BCSTV were produced by the boundaries

commission that was operating at that time. That’s my comment, Member.

It does take a fairly significant amount of time and resources to

produce these maps. And the statement goes on.

We’ve been trying to make this point to members. I don’t know if

it was fully canvassed in the debate this morning, but there were no

maps in 2005. There were maps in 2009 because we had a boundaries

commission that was operating at that moment and it was convenient to do

so — or more convenient to do so.

I believe that the public will have adequate information to make

an informed decision about whether they want to keep the existing system

— the status quo that has led to a minority of votes having a majority

of power every election but one since Confederation. I’m confident the

people of British Columbia will participate fully and make a decision,

informed as they can be, on what they see as their best

interest.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Premier for reading that statement from Elections

B.C. Hearing that…. As we talked about this morning during the emergency

debate, the timing of when this referendum is being held came out of the

confidence and supply agreement, and then into the Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018Act. That timing was determined by this government. There

clearly is time to have, just as there was in 2009, an electoral

boundaries commission.

To the Premier, would he consider having that

conducted?

Hon. J. Horgan: Boundary redistributions happen every decade in British Columbia.

I don’t believe there’s one scheduled in the short term. So that would

be an impractical suggestion — to convene an electoral boundaries

commission before we know whether or not we’re going to be changing the

electoral system.

It is about an 18- to 24-month process, a very vigorous one. I

participated in… Certainly in my constituency, as I mentioned in my

remarks today…. I started in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, transitioned to Juan

de Fuca and now represent Langford–Juan de Fuca. I haven’t moved at all.

I live in the same place, but I represent different people because of

the redistributions and the growing populations that we see in my area,

that has led to maps that have changed virtually every two

elections.

It would be impractical to ask that we strike an electoral

boundaries commission to put maps in place for the purposes of this

referendum.

[4:20 p.m.]

That’s why we’ve been trying to make the point that the best

course of action is to ask the people what they want and then build it

after they’ve made their decision.

M. Lee: This is what’s been brought upon here. This is the third time in

the history of this province that we’re conducting a referendum of this

nature. In 2009, British Columbians had the opportunity to know exactly

what they were voting on, the riding boundaries. There are other points,

though, of the 24 items. When you look at the rural-urban PR decisions

for the Legislature, what is being proposed here is three alternative

forms of proportional representation. The Premier is considering

something that is very complex for British Columbians to

understand.

Three different forms of proportional representation is what’s

being proposed by the recommendations of the Attorney General. Why not

just have one? Why not make it simple? That’s what the Premier committed

to before. For example, under the rural-urban PR decisions, one of the

24 items to be determined is the total number of MLAs in the province,

either a specific number or a range of up to a maximum of 95

members.

One of the three principles that were set out in the news release

was that there would not be an increase in the size of this House. And

yet, in one of the considerations for one of the models here, it’s 95

members. So which is it? How will British Columbians understand the

impact of the number of ridings that will be under each form?

Another example is the ratio of FPTP seats to list PR seats in an

MMP region. That in itself is back to the Leader of the Opposition’s

analogy of alphabet soup. That’s a great characterization of what we’re

talking about here.

There needs to be some consideration of this. How will British

Columbians understand, when they’re faced with that piece of information

put out by Elections B.C., to say: “Oh well, there’s going to be a

process. We’re going to figure out the ratio of FPTP seats to list PR

seats in MMP regions”? They’re going to understand that. This is a

concern, so I would suggest that as the cabinet considers the report

from the Attorney General, they take a very serious look at how they’re

conducting this referendum.

We have said, and we agree, that this is a decision for British

Columbians. I just don’t see how they’re going to be able to make it. We

have now what has been a ten-month process to get to a report that sets

this out.

Again to the Premier, is he not concerned about the complexity

that’s demonstrated in the report in respect of the three forms of PR

that are being proposed and the 24 items that still need to be

determined post the referendum vote?

Hon. J. Horgan: I very much value the member’s interventions. He’s a thoughtful

member, and I know that he’s making these suggestions in a way that

attempts to be helpful. I genuinely appreciate that, and as we

deliberate, I’ll take his remarks into consideration.

I’ll add a few points. In the previous two votes on STV, which was

a system that was rejected twice by the people of British Columbia, it

was in concert with a general election. There was a high voter turnout

because people were in the polling place anyway. They were also asked

the question: while we have you here, would you do this or that? They

chose to not support single transferrable ballots, which were, many

people told me, extremely complicated and difficult to understand, once

without a map and once with a map. In fact, the votes went down when

there was a map. I’ll leave that hanging there and move on.

What we’ve tried to do in the time available is to put in place an

opportunity for citizens to engage — by the Attorney General’s account,

an unprecedented participation through visits to the website, through

submissions, heading towards almost 100,000 in the time that was

available. We will have what will be an extensive opportunity to discuss

this over the barbecue this summer, into the fall, while people are

thinking about whether they want to keep what they have or go to

something different.

I think it’s incumbent upon us…. I know, certainly, the Leader of

the Opposition has made it clear that he’s going to be out there

vigorously defending the status quo, and other members will make their

choices as they see fit. I think that’s good for democracy.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think that if we give the public their due, they will come to

the conclusion that’s in their best interests. It may well be to stay

right where we are, and it may well be to choose something different.

We’ll have three options if we implement the recommendations from the

Attorney General. I have every confidence that the people of British

Columbia can wade through that information and make a decision that will

benefit all of us.

A. Weaver: I have three questions for the Premier concerning government

policies on LNG development. Let me please start by saying I’m extremely

encouraged by the work underway on developing a truly visionary climate

plan, and I’m fully committed to delivering on the opportunity that this

minority government has to finally put a plan together that understands

that addressing climate change and meeting our greenhouse gas reduction

targets is an economic imperative yet also an economic

opportunity.

This will require hard work, thoughtful and innovative solutions

and the engagement of all British Columbians. What we must never again

allow is for the stated commitments to reduce emissions to be used as a

cover for actions that undermine that commitment. That is what we see

playing out federally. I believe this government is sincere in its

commitments to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, but they

have some work to do in showing how the action they have taken in

advancing a major expansion of a fossil fuel industry like LNG is in

line with these commitments.

Please let me explore with you three questions. First, in May

2015, the B.C. Liberal government signed a development deal with Pacific

NorthWest LNG in an aggressive move to spur the Malaysian-led project to

become the first major Canadian exporter of LNG.

In response, the Premier, who at the time was the Leader of the

Official Opposition, was sharply critical and said the provincial

government had put too much on the table for industry. I just want to

provide a quote. He said this. “My biggest concern is that we’re tying

the hands of future governments because a desperate government made

commitments that they overpromised on,” he said in Victoria, “and now

they want to get a deal at any cost.”

The B.C. NDP argued that the agreements the B.C. Liberals were

offering to LNG companies were too one-sided and did not provide

sufficient certainty for the owners of the resource, the general public.

The NDP at the time charged that this was “a sellout for B.C.” They said

also: “The LNG tax legislation was written by industry and for

industry.”

Are we not similarly now offering LNG Canada a deal that has been

written explicitly for them while ignoring the costs that this project

will incur on British Columbians, including the costs to other sectors

of our economy that we’ll be forced to pay to accommodate the massive

increase in our greenhouse gas