Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 28, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 172

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Individualized funding for children with support needs

T. Halford

K. Paddon

International Day of Trans Visibility

B. D’Eith

M. Lee

Doctor shortages

C. Oakes

H. Sandhu

Pay transparency

J. Routledge

S. Cadieux

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 6 — Support for LNG industry

M. Bernier

M. Starchuk

S. Bond

J. Sims

P. Milobar

D. Routley

T. Shypitka

A. Mercier

E. Ross

R. Glumac

S. Furstenau

R. Merrifield

MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2022

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: D. Clovechok.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

INDIVIDUALIZED FUNDING FOR

CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

T. Halford: I welcome back all my colleagues. I hope everybody was able to get

some rest over the two-week break.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I’m going to speak to an issue that is, I think, of utmost

importance to every riding here, every MLA, no matter what side of the

House they sit on, but also to every parent, every child care provider.

This is something that is extremely personal to me. It’s to advocate for

the importance of ensuring individualized funding for children with

support needs.

[10:05 a.m.]

I know firsthand the struggles that parents face when they have a

child that has extra needs. I will speak specifically to autism because

it’s something that I am very, very familiar with, and I will say this.

Parents know best. They know what’s best for their child, and they are

the best advocates for their child.

I’ve told this story in the House before. I’ll tell it again. I

know a little boy, and that little boy was diagnosed with autism at the

age of seven. That little boy struggled to play on a soccer team because

he had social anxiety. It was hard for him to make eye contact. It was

hard for him to speak up. It was hard for him to establish

relationships. It was hard for him to follow rules. It was hard for him

to establish trust. So parents need to try and form those relationships.

Those relationships can take months. In some cases they can take

years.

Every time a child leaves the house to go to school, to go to an

activity, to go to a friend’s house — specifically a child with special

needs, specifically maybe a child with autism — that parent has a sense

of anxiety. Will my child fit in? Will my child be treated right? Will

my child have a chance? Individualized funding was meant for the parents

to make those decisions. For a child such as this little boy that I’ve

been describing to go to a hub to get a service from a provider the

parent may not know, the child may not….

I see the minister shaking his head. I haven’t even finished yet,

but obviously, he disagrees with parents being able to decide what’s

best for their children. If so, I think he should stand up in the House

and clarify why he thinks that. But I will say this: as a parent, I know

what’s best for my child. I will say that I stand with the parents of

children with extra needs that are advocating to be able to say where

that individualized funding goes, not having to depend on a hub where

we’ve seen in other provinces it’s failed. It has failed.

Now government is saying that they know best, but when we’re

looking at individualized funding and what that means for a child, some

may mean that this child, that this boy that I speak of, gets swimming

lessons from somebody that they built a relationship up with and they

trust. Maybe they get fitness lessons. A personal trainer. Maybe they

get speech therapy. The list goes on and on and on. Maybe it’s a

challenge for parents to actually try and get their child out of a car

to go in somewhere to a new experience and be able to just trust us —

trust the system.

I trust parents. I trust that the parents will make the right

decision for their child, because I think that that parent knows that

child better than a hub. I think that we are selling parents short. We

are not hearing the cries from the communities. I know every single

member in this House is getting those pleas from those parents — from

those organizations — to say: please stop. Please listen.

The minister continues to shake his head, but obviously, he’s not

listening.

Interjection.

T. Halford: I think that we owe it to British Columbians and to every parent,

every child. If the minister wants to just stand up and speak on this,

I’d be happy to cede my time.

Does the member want to do that? Obviously, he has an

opinion.

Interjections.

[10:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: This is not partisan time, Members. Let’s just keep….

T. Halford: Then I think you need to….

Well, obviously, the minister feels that it’s…. He’s heckling on

an issue of individualized funding. We’ve seen it from this minister

time and time again, where we talk on issues, and he finds the need to

heckle….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

T. Halford: The minister is heckling. I expect better from this

minister.

K. Paddon: In previous roles, I have had the privilege to work with children

and youth with diverse needs, and their families, as they seek out or

utilize services and supports. For those with an autism diagnosis, I

witnessed a huge range of experiences as families navigated and found

supports, as well as many who struggled with the demands of finding,

contracting or coordinating a combination of supports that would work

for their children.

I listened to the frustration of those who were either waiting for

a diagnosis or for whom the diagnosis did not qualify for supports that

were required to address the real needs of their children. I also heard

the struggle for families as supports were significantly delayed,

interrupted or came to an end, impacting the quality of life and access

for those children and youth.

As the Representative for Children and Youth described in 2018, a

lot of the system is dependent on parents gaining access or asking for

services or asking for support and then navigating a complex system of

care. Parents do know best, and it’s time we build a system that works

for them and their children.

We have heard from families, advocates and service providers for

years, as well as from multiple reports from the Representative for

Children and Youth and the Select Standing Committee on Children and

Youth, that the current system isn’t working for many children, that too

many are being left behind and that we need to move to a needs-based

system.

The Representative for Children and Youth, who independently

consults extensively, also agreed, in November 2021, that the current

approach is leaving too many children and youth behind. “The minister

described the current CYSN system as ‘patchwork’ and said that it leaves

too many children on the outside without services. I couldn’t agree

more, and therefore, long-term improvements are absolutely

necessary.”

In 2019, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, an

all-party committee of this Legislature, also consulted with families

and completed a report detailing the stories they heard. They also

stated the need to move “to a needs-based model that identifies,

acknowledges and addresses the functional abilities of each child with

neurodiverse needs regardless of clinical diagnosis.” That’s why we’re

moving to a new service approach: so that every child and youth gets the

services they need when they need them in every part of our province,

including rural British Columbia.

We’re bringing services together through a coordinated network of

centres run by community service providers called family connection

centres. Family connection cen­tres will give families access to a

range of professionals in a multidisciplinary team without the need for

a referral or diagnosis. This means families can access supports before,

during and after they receive a diagnosis for their child or youth. In

our new approach, all children and youth with support needs will be able

to access services, including children with autism.

I think we all agree that children who need support should have

access to it. We are listening to families who receive individualized

funding, and we hear the uncertainty about what the new system will look

like. We are also hearing from families as they express their worries

and anxiety about what change may mean for their children and listening

to families for whom this new system represents hope that their children

will finally be able to access services.

Anxiety and worry make sense given the system of scarcity that was

developed when decisions were made to cut the MCFD budget by almost 25

percent, including $15 million in funding from childhood development and

support services. We’re making different choices. To support children

and families, we’ve increased the budget every year since 2017. We’re

building a system that doesn’t leave any of our kids behind.

We’ve also heard concerns that this system will be similar to that

in Ontario. Our model is fundamentally different than Ontario’s. The

Ontario model is designed for children with an autism diagnosis through

individualized funding. Our new made-in-B.C. model is about needs-based

services for children with diverse needs, with or without a

diagnosis.

[10:15 a.m.]

These kinds of real concerns and questions that we’re hearing are

why it’s so important to be clear that nothing is changing for services

right away. We are continuing to listen to families and service

providers to ensure we get this right for children and families. That is

why we have built in a substantial amount of time to engage in this

transition as we build this new system together with families and

service providers.

We’ll continue to listen to families as we move towards early

implementation areas in 2023 and full provincial implementation. I look

forward to continuing to hear and learn from families as we work towards

this transition to a needs-based system and build something new and

truly inclusive together that will support our kids to thrive and

support their needs as they develop.

T. Halford: I thank my colleague for her comments.

I want to address one thing. If the Minister of Social Development

wants to make hand gestures that I am crying about

something….

Interjection.

T. Halford: This is on the topic, Member.

I will say this. I have cried about this topic because this topic

is something that is personal to me, and I will not be mocked while I

stand up for families of autistic children by the Minister of Social

Development. This House expects better….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

Recognizing the minister.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues who know my passion for this

subject as well. I would say that any….

Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Interjections.

Hon. N. Simons: If the member thinks that anything I’ve done impugns his

credibility, I withdraw. However, I would point out that I have not

done anything….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Please continue with your statement.

T. Halford: I will continue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have cried over this issue because this is an issue that touches

my family. It touches many families on both sides of the House. It is

something that I am passionate about, that I have lived. If that is up

for mocking in this House, so be it.

Interjections.

T. Halford: I’ll speak for myself.

These are parents….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Recognizing the member, please.

T. Halford: Am I passionate about this? Yes, I am. I am passionate about it.

Is it important to me? Yes. Is it important to every member of the

House? Absolutely.

To come in here and stand up for kids and be mocked is something

that I will not stand for. I wouldn’t let my kids stand for it. I will

not stand for it, especially by a minister. No more. I will not be

bullied. I will not let children be bullied. I expect better.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

TRANS

VISIBILITY

B. D’Eith: Imagine feeling in your soul that the gender you were born into

doesn’t reflect who you really are. Image the courage it would take to

share this inner turmoil with your family and friends. Now imagine,

after expressing your true self, to wake up every morning and not know

how people are going to deal with you and to be afraid of how people may

work with you. Imagine being denied the basic human rights that so many

of us take for granted.

That is what transgender people have to contend with every day,

and that’s why I’m so honoured to speak to the Transgender Day of

Visibility happening this Thursday, March 31. We honour and celebrate

people in the transgender community and their hard-fought journey to

attain basic human rights and freedoms. In fact, the trans flag will be

raised in the Legislature between 9 and 9:30 on Thursday. Everyone is

welcome.

[10:20 a.m.]

On a personal level, as the father of a transgender adult child, I

want to first acknowledge my Violet’s courage and resilience. As her

father, I can tell you that I’m proud of her and her journey to her true

self. Any tears that I have shed are not because of Violet’s expression

of her inner being but because of my own fears of how she may be treated

by her peers, her fellow workers and the public.

Violet’s journey is ongoing, and I know that it’s not going to be

easy. What I can do as a father is to simply be there and show love and

support.

I’m so very proud of my other children, their mothers, their aunts

and uncles, their grandparents, for simply showing their love and

support, with no judgment. I know in my heart that Violet feels that

she’s not alone on this journey, and it takes bravery and courage for

this kind of self-realization. So to my child, Violet: I stand humbled

by your courage.

Now, this experience is being shared by individuals and their

families across British Columbia, and these challenges are being faced

by so many different families where they live and work and where they

love.

I did want to say that I have read a number of articles on this,

and Laura Track, who is a B.C. rights lawyer, has written very

passionately on this. She says:

“Despite many gains, transgender people remain among the most

marginalized in our society. B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal has found that

trans people face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access

to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of

targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation,

as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide

and poverty.

“Trans women of colour face particularly high rates of

discrimination and harm. For transgender children, anti-trans bullying

leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes,

which then has ripple effects for their health and future

prospects.”

Her key point in this

article is that trans rights are human

rights. It’s so important that we continue this work to ensure that

transgender people have equality, dignity and basic rights in our

society.

Now, of course, these struggles are not new. They’ve been around

for many years, and there have been many people who have fought very

hard for these rights.

In fact, Rupert Raj, who’s a Canadian transgender man, is one of

Canada’s earliest transgender activists. He transitioned in 1971, and he

has worked very, very hard throughout his entire life as an advocate for

trans rights. He started the Foundation for the Advancement of Canadian

Transsexuals, FACT, and the newsletter Gender Review, a factual

journal. He also, in 1982, founded the bimonthly magazine

Metamorphosis . He’s a psychotherapist and gender

specialist, and he retired in Vancouver in 2015.

Another advocate, Jamie Lee Hamilton, unfortunately passed away

from cancer in 2019 but left a legacy of work in the transgender

community. As a trans woman working in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside,

she was an outspoken activist on behalf of sex workers and Indigenous

women.

In 1970, at the age of 15, she was first youth in Canada to start

a medical transition. She advocated for sex workers in Vancouver since

the 1980s and in fact ran for the Vancouver board of education to oppose

shutting down east side schools with significant Indigenous enrolment.

Notably, in 1998, she dumped 67 pairs of stiletto heels on city hall

steps, demanding attention to sex workers who were missing from the

Downtown Eastside. In 2018, she spoke at UVic’s Moving Trans History

Forward.

[10:25 a.m.]

Another important advocate is Aiyyana Maracle — who,

unfortunately, also passed away from cancer in 2016. She was a

two-spirit trans woman and performance artist and author from Six

Nations in Ontario. She worked very hard in terms of her

advocacy.

It’s important to actually recognize “two-spirit” as a term. This

refers to people who have identified both a masculine and feminine

spirit and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual

gender and spiritual identity.

The creation of this term “two-spirit” is attributed to Elder Myra

Laramee, who proposed it during the third annual Intertribal Native

American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference, held in

Winnipeg in 1990. She was going to speak for the Moving Trans History

Forward in 2016, but unfortunately, as I mentioned, she passed away in

2016. She bequeathed all of her wealth to Transgender Archives at

UVic.

As part of the extended 2SLGBTQIA+ community and these advocates,

I would really like to extend my deep gratitude for all the work that’s

been done on their behalf.

M. Lee: Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–​Mission for sharing

such a personal example of the challenge, certainly, that families face

in supporting their children in making the transition, as you have with

Violet.

Thank you for sharing that, because I think that’s an important

example and helps us all understand the challenge that transgender

people face in our province.

Last fall we recognized the Trans Day of Remembrance, observed

each year on November 20 as a me­morial to those lost to

transphobic violence. Trans­gender people continue to face a

disproportionate amount of discrimination based on their sexual

orientation and gender identity. This happens at school, in the

workplace, in public spaces and, regrettably, sometimes results in

physical and sexual violence. It is important that we recognize the

discrimination and violence transgender and gender-fluid people

face.

We should all recognize the incredible achievements and positive

change, like Jamie Lee Hamilton has advocated for, that so many powerful

voices for transgender rights bring to our province and the world. As

the member stated, B.C. recognizes March 31 as a day to celebrate trans

people and to raise awareness about the many barriers and challenges

that they face in our communities and how we can improve the visibility

and acceptance of transgender people.

Last November T’eVine reached out to every MLA office with

packages containing resource documents, trans flags and an open letter

asking our MLAs to meet with a transgender constituent and report back

what they learned. I met with two incredible individuals and heard their

stories and learned some ways in which we can better support them in

their lives as trans people.

One of these individuals is someone I knew as a young girl who has

since transitioned to a man. I was happy to see that this trans man is

so much more comfortable and confident in his identity now. The

uplifting confidence is remarkable, but it does come with a lot of pain

and courage. The other individual was a trans woman, who also was

extraordinary in her eloquence about her situation and how she

transitioned.

Like many trans people, they prefer to keep to lower profiles to

avoid being victims of potential harassment and violence. They explained

to me that while they share similar challenges, the experiences of trans

men are often very different from those of trans women. Regrettably,

this is largely due to sexism and discrimination and the violence that

is often perpetrated against women in general.

They also explained that a greater focus is placed on educating

youth about the importance of acceptance and inclusivity of trans people

but not enough information on steps you can take if you do feel you are,

in fact, trans. Coming out to your peers and transitioning can also be

unimaginably difficult for both the individual and their families. They

both lamented that if there had been more information and resources and

support groups to assist them and their families through their

processes, their transitions would not have been nearly as difficult as

they were.

[10:30 a.m.]

As illuminating as this experience was for me, I was disappointed

to learn T’eVine had a very low level of engagement in this program with

MLAs. These missed opportunities and lack of engagement through our

trans community go against the message behind the day of trans. I hope

the members of this House will take the time to accept these

opportunities when they arise so we can all help improve our

understanding and respect of trans people.

Change doesn’t come from within this Legislature alone. It comes

from our classrooms, our workplaces, our public spaces and our homes. It

happens by connecting and communicating with friends and family and

learning from the trans community to hear and discuss how we can make

our communities safer and more supportive spaces for trans and

gender-fluid people. We also need to have open discussions about the

barriers transgender people face and to work collaboratively to identify

and eliminate all forms of gender discrimination.

Exploring one’s gender identity is never easy. Organizations and

resources like B.C.’s transgender health program are there to offer

gender-affirming care and mental health supports across B.C. Together

let’s honour the International Transgender Day of Visibility by doing

our part to eliminate discrimination and help all British Columbians

feel supported and accepted, regardless of sexual orientation or gender

identity.

B. D’Eith: It’s so wonderful to hear words from all sides of this House in

regards to this issue.

Once again, we are speaking today in regard to the Transgender Day

of Visibility on March 31. This is so that no one who is trans should be

targeted for violence and oppression. No one should, in fact, be

targeted for violence and oppression for who they are, who they love, or

who they really are inside. The reality is that trans people continue to

face stigma and discrimination, which puts people at risk for high rates

of violence, poverty, mental health issues and other complex challenges.

For people of colour and Indigenous people, these issues are

compounded.

It’s important to remember how far we’ve come, but it’s also

important to know how far we have to go. I want to say that of course I

am a strong ally of the trans community. It’s every person’s right to be

with who they want to be without fear or stigma and to be who they want

to be without fear and stigma.

We need to have a more inclusive society, and this means more

quality of life for everyone. That’s why it’s so important that we flew

the trans flag on the lawn of the British Columbia Legislature for the

first time in history, and it’s going to fly again this week.

In March of 2021, approximately 600 instances of gen­der

language across 15 ministries…. Regulations were changed to reflect the

diversity of the people served by the B.C. government. These changes

were made to ensure that all British Columbians have equal access to

government services, no matter their sexual orientation, gender

identity, race or cultural beliefs, and this work continues.

We re-established the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which was

dismantled in 2002, leaving B.C. as the only province in Canada without

one. We appointed Kasari Govender as B.C.’s first independent Human

Rights Commissioner, marking a new era of human rights protections for

all British Columbians.

We took action to ensure the spectrum of gender identity is

included on B.C. identification cards. Now B.C.’ers can choose an X as a

third option in the gender field on their government ID. We’re moving to

ensure publicly funded affirming lower surgeries are available in B.C.,

making us the first province in western Canada to offer these essential

procedures right here at home.

We’re ensuring that all 60 districts of schools and several First

Nations and independent schools are part of B.C.’s SOGI Educator Network

to help schools be more inclusive for students. I’m also proud that

B.C.’s University of Victoria is home to the largest transgender archive

in the world. These records go back more than 120 years from 23

countries and are available to everyone.

March 31 is Transgender Day of Visibility in British Columbia.

Please post your support with #youbelonghere on that day.

Thank you very much.

DOCTOR SHORTAGES

C. Oakes: Today I would like to speak about an issue that affects all of us

in British Columbia. Thousands of British Columbians are being left

without health care support they need. This is due to the doctor

shortage that we are currently facing in the province.

[10:35 a.m.]

This is something we’ve seen in the south Island area. We’re

seeing three clinics in the capital region shut down this month alone.

This is creating many worries for British Columbians, who are now

scrambling to find a new family doctor.

Langford resident Camille Currie and her family are among those

who are now looking for a new family doctor. Camille, her husband and

two children have their own complex health care needs, and over the past

several years, they’ve had continuous care from a doctor who has been

there every step of the way. Unfortunately, their physician is closing

her practice, and this leaves Camille and her family scrambling to find

a new doctor to no avail.

Camille’s family is one of many in British Columbia who are left

without a family doctor. Almost 900,000 individuals in British Columbia

today do not have a family doctor or nurse practitioner. That’s 200,000

more people without doctors than in 2017, when the NDP took

government.

With 18.2 percent of the population without a pri­mary

health care provider under this government, this is putting additional

strain on clinics and creating a backlog of treatment. Our province has

already been grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic and the toxic drug

supply, but we are seeing another health care crisis emerge with more

and more British Columbians without access to primary health

care.

Health care workers have done so much for us throughout this

pandemic, and it’s time that we step up and have their backs. Doctors in

this province have been experiencing a high level of burnout,

particularly with long hours and unpaid evening work due to completing

paperwork and forms. Just like everything else in the province, the cost

of running practices is rising, and these costs are simply

unsustainable.

The fee-for-service model means that physicians do not make a

reasonable wage unless they see six to seven patients an hour. This

means that doctors are facing a dilemma between taking the necessary

time for complex care and ensuring that they see as many patients as

they can. They are also stretched thin across

responsibilities.

Dr. Renee Fernandez from B.C. Family Doctors says:

“New-to-practice family physicians tell us that they want to focus on

taking care of patients, but almost all family medicine clinics in the

province are run as small businesses.” This means that highly skilled

physicians are balancing their time with running the clinic, including

tasks related to human resources, IT and privacy. With the aging

population, more doctors, nurses and other health care workers are

retiring, which leaves young professionals overworked and feeling burnt

out after just a few years on the job.

This doctor shortage we are experiencing is deeply consequential

and dangerous. Earlier this month Port McNeill Hospital had to close its

doors for 3½ days because of a temporary physician shortage. This meant

that anyone in the Port McNeill area in need of an emergency medical

treatment that weekend had to go to Port Hardy, which is 42 kilometres

away.

This is all too common in British Columbia. Our rural health care

system is already fragile, but this is exacerbated by the doctor

shortage. This challenge has been developing for some time, and it’s

only going to get worse unless this government takes action.

There are many things that we can do to address the doctor

shortage. We must train and recruit more doctors and create incentives.

Every other province except British Columbia has a re-entry pathway for

physicians. We need to look at recruitment options, such as, perhaps, a

rural loan forgiveness program.

First, of course, we can start by investing and building the

promised medical school at SFU’s Surrey campus. We haven’t seen any

updates on this project, but I know many undergraduate students who

would like to see more seats in British Columbia in medical schools.

This is a step towards ensuring that bright and passionate students in

our province can pursue their dreams of becoming a doctor.

[10:40 a.m.]

Beyond simply increasing the number of seats in medical schools,

we also need to increase the funding for additional residency spots.

This is an urgent and pressing need for today’s current graduates, not

only the future SFU medical school students. We cannot simply increase

the number of medical students. We need to ensure that they have a road

to success.

Currently an average of 14 graduates do not receive a residency

placement. For every unmatched graduate, 1,875 patients in the province

lose out on stable health care, which makes out to be 26,250 patients

each year. We cannot afford to leave these doctors behind. This is not

only incredibly disheartening to the hard-working medical school

graduates, but it is a loss to the entire province when we need more

promising, practising doctors now.

This is a health care crisis we should all be paying attention to.

Within this House, we must work together to support our aspiring doctors

and provide universal primary health care for all British Columbians,

because everyone deserves a family doctor in the province of British

Columbia.

H. Sandhu: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for sharing her

thoughts on doctor shortages.

As we all know, this is a long-standing issue, which we have been

facing over a decade now. I have experienced this myself when I lived in

a rural part of northern B.C. from 2001 to 2012 not only as a British

Columbian but also as a health care provider. Over the years, I have

also seen devastating impacts on patients and families, including my own

family. Therefore, I feel strongly about our continuous effort and need

to work collaboratively to address this so that we can find creative

ways and solutions to fill these gaps.

I have also seen and witnessed significant progress in hiring and

the implementation of policies designed to address doctor shortages

since the B.C. NDP formed government. Our government recognized that

there are doctor shortages at both the emergency and the primary care

levels, as well as rural communities, and we are addressing all

aspects.

We are working to transform our health care system into a

sustainable one that will provide high-quality care for generations to

come. While the scale of this change cannot happen overnight, it will

have a lasting impact. It takes seven to 12 years to train a doctor. My

older daughter is pursuing this path with the goal of helping people in

rural communities.

The Health Ministry provided $815,000 to Health Match B.C. to

support a targeted surgical recruitment cam­paign under the

surgical renewal process. According to the surgical workforce report, as

of January 12, 2022, 98 anaesthesiologists and nine general practice

anaesthesiologists have been hired along with 82 surgeons.

We are also increasing physician supply. A total of 362

entry-level medical residency positions are projected for 2022,

whereas

there were 134 seats in 2003. As a result of expansion, B.C. now has the

single-largest family medicine training program in Canada. In 2021-22,

almost $163 million was allocated to support physician residency

training in B.C. In 2017…. This number previously was $135 million.

These funds will continue to increase annually in 2022-23 and

beyond.

B.C. has made 58 residency positions each year exclusively

available to international medical graduates — candidates especially to

address the designated specialties and the locations with the highest

need. The 58 include six key specialty positions in psychiatry, internal

medicine and pediatrics, with the remaining 52 allocated to family

medicine. All areas determined to be a great need of British

Columbians.

[10:45 a.m.]

The ministry is also working on a program called practice-ready

assessment B.C. It provides the pathway to licensure for family

physicians from jurisdictions outside of Canada, with the successful

completion of the assessment resulting in a provincial licence and a

three-year return of service in a community of need. Currently annual

funding is provided for 32 PRA-BC candidates, and to date, 162 family

physicians have been placed in 53 communities.

Across all our primary care initiatives, over 150 new

full-time-equivalent family physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and

other allied health workers are also supporting team-based care and

meeting patient needs, with close to 1,000 more on the way.

To date, our

government launched 53 primary care networks across the province. This

really speaks to the necessity of having several options instead of a

one-size-fits-all approach.

My constituents are also benefiting from the urgent primary care

centre in Vernon, and we have a dedicated team of health care

professionals providing exceptional care. Recently we also got a nurse

practitioner in Lumby.

Our government is also in the process of launching a health

connect registry as a part of our strategy.

I understand that despite the ongoing work of our government, we

still have more to do. The B.C. NDP government is the biggest supporter

of well-supported public health care. Lots of work is underway, and we

are willing to explore all the options to address this so we can fill

the gaps and British Columbians can get the care that they

need.

C. Oakes: I do want to thank the member for her comments today and the

recognition that sometimes in government we need to review policies if

things are getting worse. Is it an opportunity for us to reflect and

look at that research again?

And 200,000 more people are without a family doctor since the NDP

took office. So I think it’s critically important to re-evaluate. Are

the programs working? Do we have the right mix of programs? Is there

more that we can do? Of course, in government, there is always more that

we can do.

I think it’s also important…. We need to recognize that action, of

course, needs to occur now so that we can begin to see the shift in the

number of doctors in this province. The longer we delay, the longer

British Columbians have to wait to receive the urgent care that they

need.

I want to see our province invest in our talented youth who are

eagerly waiting to serve as physicians. Again, I look forward to the

announcement that was made during the platform of the SFU medical

school. I think that’s a very important program.

In the meantime, there are 13,000 internationally trained doctors

in Canada who are not working in their field and available to serve.

International medical school graduates have to undergo a number of steps

in order to practise in Canada, including a series of national medical

exams, completing a residency through a Canadian university, getting

certified and then applying to be licensed provincially.

As I mentioned earlier, we are not funding enough residencies for

our current graduates. This is even more challenging for international

medical graduates, as less than 10 percent are set aside for these

international students. We are wasting the talent and the potential of

British Columbians. Instead of serving patients, respected physicians

are underemployed at a time when we desperately need more

doctors.

Over the course of the pandemic, we have been re­minded of

the importance of having a strong, resilient health care system. This

doctor shortage is an urgent health care crisis, and we must take action

now to alleviate the pressure on our doctors.

We are very fortunate in the province of British Columbia to have

so many dedicated and talented health care professionals in this

province. Let’s all take a moment in this House to recognize and thank

all of them for their many contributions to the people of British

Columbia.

We also must do our part. We must reflect on policies and see if

there are more things that we can do to ensure that we are supporting an

enhancement of physicians, both training and supporting them through

residency programs in the province of British Columbia. We must do more

to support them so that they can continue to support British

Columbians.

Again, thank you to all of the amazing health care professionals

that we have in this glorious province of British Columbia.

[10:50 a.m.]

PAY TRANSPARENCY

J. Routledge: What are the chances that a woman earns less than the men in her

life — her partner, her son, her co-worker? In fact, no matter where you

live, where you work or how much experience and education you bring to

the job, women workers tend to earn less than men.

I’m going to quote some numbers. You’ll probably hear different

numbers today from the responding member. It’s not easy to pin down the

exact size of the gender pay gap. That’s why we need pay transparency.

According to Stats Canada, the gender pay gap in British Columbia today

is 14 percent. Or to put it another way, on average, for every dollar a

man earns, a woman earns 86 cents. The gap is even bigger if you are

racialized or have a disability.

In 1997, the gap was 19 percent. So it’s taken us a quarter of a

century to reduce it by a whopping five cents on the dollar. Compare

that to Quebec, where women earn, on average, 92 cents for every dollar

a man makes — maybe because they’ve had publicly funded child care for a

generation already. More on that later.

We are doing better than women in the United States, where white

women earn, on average, 79 percent of what white men earn — but only 63

percent if you’re a Black woman, 57 percent if you’re an Indigenous

woman and 54 percent if you’re Hispanic. In Iceland, it’s 12.2 percent —

Iceland, which is considered a beacon of equality.

The problem is global. Why do women tend to earn less than men?

Well, the obvious answer is that women workers, or the work that we do,

is considered less valuable. And yes, work does tend to be segregated

along gender lines. The five Cs — caring, clerical, catering, cashiering

and cleaning — are occupations dominated by women. And some have drawn

the conclusion that these are jobs that replicate women’s work in the

home. And because it’s unpaid in the home, it’s undervalued in the

workplace.

I don’t disagree with that conclusion. But there’s so much more to

it. Clerical and cashiering don’t replicate domestic work. How did they

come to be defined as women’s work? Well, what I learned as an undergrad

decades ago is that the systemic explanation for the gender pay gap is

one of supply and demand. The five Cs are all located in the service

sector and the newest of the three economic sectors.

When the service sector began to expand dramatically in the early

20th century, the male workforce was already fully engaged in the

primary and manufacturing sectors. So where was this new sector going to

find workers to fill a growing demand? Well, in 1920, only 23 percent of

women worked outside of the home. And let’s be clear. Women have always

worked.

First Nations women were active in their economies before

colonization, and many settler women took in boarders, preserved food to

sell and otherwise contributed to the household income. At the same time

the service sector was expanding, these other sources of income were

disappearing, so young, unmarried women, in particular, took jobs

outside the home.

For most, it meant joining the mass migration to the cities. They

joined typing pools, became telephone operators, teachers, nurses, sales

clerks — all new occupations at the time. They mass-produced clothing or

cornflakes or Wonder bread. Women became the reserve army of labour. And

as long as the vast majority of women remained outside the paid

workforce, they served to depress the wages in what was quickly coming

to be seen as women’s work.

This is the story of our mothers, our grandmothers, our

great-grandmothers, but it’s not the whole story. I’m reminding us about

this history because it underscores just how complex and layered the

causes of gender pay inequity are. So too must be the solution, and pay

transparency is part of it.

But what about women who don’t even know they are paid less than

their male co-workers? Keeping your salary secret is part of the culture

in many non-union workplaces. According to a 2017 study, 41 percent of

private companies in the United States actively discourage employees

from disclosing how much they earn, and 25 percent explicitly prohibit

employees from discussing pay information.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’m remembering one of my first summer jobs as a student. I worked

in a department store and found out by accident that the sales clerks

all made a different hourly rate. A fellow student who was male was

being paid more per hour than the woman who trained him and had been

working there for years, and she got fired for spilling the beans.

Legislated pay transparency would have helped. But a union would’ve

helped even more.

Some jurisdictions that already have pay transparency are

reporting that in the absence of a union, employers have chosen to

reduce the gap by lowering the wages of the higher-paid employees. So

pay transparency must be part of a larger suite of measures to close the

gap.

Here are some of the ones that we are already initiating. The big

one is affordable child care. A recent Stats Canada study concludes that

the gap is largest where child care is most expensive — in other words,

where it costs too much for women to work outside of the home full time.

Child care in Metro Vancouver has, for a long time, been identified as

one of the most expensive in the country, and that would explain why the

gap in British Columbia is amongst the largest in the

country.

Raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation also closes the

gap, because 60 percent of minimum-wage earners are women. So did

eliminating the lower liquor server wage, because 80 percent of liquor

servers are women. Our community benefits agreements encourage women to

apply for good-paying jobs in skilled trades. As a result, the average

wage of women in B.C. has increased more than in any other

province.

There’s so much more we can be talking about to close the gap, and

I look forward to hearing ideas from the member opposite so that we can

be working together on this.

S. Cadieux: I’ll just say it louder for those in the back. We have been

talking about this for five years, and it’s great that the government

side has decided to talk about it too.

Equal pay for work of equal value, though, is more what the member

talked about in her remarks. I’m not going to argue that that’s

important. But that’s not what pay transparency gets to. Pay

transparency gets to equal work and equal pay for the same job,

regardless of gender.

The member said that we’re better than the U.S. But you know what?

I don’t even want to go there, because I’m just not happy with the fact

that we’re amongst the worst in Canada. I don’t think we want to make

excuses that say: “Oh, but we’re better than the U.S.”

The reality is that B.C. has one of the largest pay gaps in

Canada. That is while pay discrimination on the basis of gender is

illegal. But Stats Canada reported in 2018 that women aged 25 to 54

earned an average of 13.3 percent less than men. A report from the

University of Ottawa found that amongst post-secondary graduates, men

out-earned women by 12 percent one year into their career, and that gap

widened to 25 percent five years on the job.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Intersectionality, of course, impacts things further. Racialized

women earn 59 cents for every dollar earned by white men. Women with

disabilities earn an average of $8,853 less than women without

disabilities.

It’s true that most people don’t like talking about how much they

make. It’s socially taboo. But if we don’t talk about it, who wins?

That’s why pay transparency is important. It provides knowledge about

what was once unknown, and knowledge is power. If you know you aren’t

being treated fairly, you can fight to do something about it.

I think that we can all agree that the efforts taken on behalf of

government to work towards gender equity are laudable, but it’s only

increasingly important that we take effective and meaningful action now.

It’s time to bring pay transparency to all sectors and industries. If we

don’t know about the extent of it, we can’t bridge the gap.

[11:00 a.m.]

federally regulated workplaces with more than 100 employees have to

disclose their wage gaps. But if the pandemic has shown us anything,

it’s that women continue to feel things harder. Over the past two years,

women faced greater job losses; 1.5 million Canadian women lost their

jobs in the first two months of the pandemic.

Wage transparency has been the law for public servants for some

time, and we know that because of the Sunshine List , salary

disclosures that happen. That data was used as part of a comprehensive

study in 2021, looking at the wages of university professionals. It

found that pay transparency eventually narrowed the wage gap between men

and women significantly, between 30 percent and 40 percent. So

obviously, we need to do more.

Public salary disclosures are becoming the law in more countries.

Denmark, the U.K., Germany, France, Iceland, Peru, Australia, Belgium,

Finland all have schemes in place. It’s an informational tool, and it

needs to be paired with a focus on promoting equity-seeking groups into

more senior positions within an organization. It’s only one of the

tools, but it’s an important starting point.

In a 2021 compensation and culture report from beqom.com, it found

that when employees perceive a pay gap, regardless of whether or not

that gap exists, it results in a 16 percent decrease in their intent to

stay with that employer. Fifty-eight percent of employees would consider

switching jobs for more pay transparency, and for Gen Z, the number

jumps to 70 percent. It’s a clear indicator of the greater need for

transparency, especially for employers trying to attract the next

generation of employees.

With the labour shortage we have and the million job openings in

our future, we know that employers need to think about retaining

employees too, not just what it takes to bring them in. The same survey

suggests the ability to work remotely matters, more flexibility in

working hours matters and more pay transparency matters, for 51 percent

of employees.

The reality is that we’re not there yet. I’m glad we’re talking

about it. More needs to be done urgently.

We need to take action. Call the bill.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member opposite. We agree on so much, and let’s

build on that.

I want to emphasize again that pay transparency is proactive, and

here’s why that matters. In 1999, the Public Service Alliance of Canada

won a groundbreaking pay equity settlement. Two hundred and thirty

thousand federal employees in female-dominated jobs were awarded $3

billion worth of retro pay, interest and salary adjustments, but only

because they filed a complaint under

section 11 of the Canadian Human

Rights Act 16 years earlier.

We spent the first four years having to prove to the employer,

classification by classification, job by job, that employees in

female-dominated jobs were being paid less than employees in

male-dominated jobs of similar value. Hundreds of classification experts

spent four years comparing jobs in minute detail.

And yes, it turns out, you can compare apples and oranges. You can

compare vitamin content and calories, for example. That’s just how

granular the job evaluators had to get in order to quantify the value of

women’s work. They discovered, for example, that when someone in a

female-dominated job uses a keyboard, it’s called typing. When someone

in a male-dominated job uses a keyboard, it’s called keying, and keying

is worth more than typing.

Well, when the employers saw where this was heading, they got cold

feet. The union had to file yet another complaint and broaden the scope.

The Human Rights Tribunal held 260 days of hearings over a period of yet

another six years, and sadly, a significant share of that settlement

wasn’t even awarded to the women directly. It went to their

estates.

In 2021, a new federal pay equity act came into force. It requires

federally regulated employers to proactively correct gender wage gaps

within three years.

[11:05 a.m.]

Yes, federal employers are now required by law to make public

their pay structures. But interestingly, it’s the federal Employment

Equity Act, not the Pay Equity Act, that compels pay

transparency.

Employment equity and pay equity work hand in hand to close the

gender pay gap. Pay equity makes so-called women’s work more attractive

to men, and employment equity proactively supports women to work in

higher-paid jobs formerly reserved for men.

We can learn a lot from other jurisdictions about what works and

mistakes to avoid when we develop our own made-in-B.C. plan to eliminate

the gender pay gap. I can’t wait to get started.

Hon. N. Simons: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 6

standing in the name of the member for Peace River South.

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

Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it

on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — SUPPORT FOR LNG INDUSTRY

M. Bernier: I move:

[Be it resolved that the House support British Columbia’s

transitional, ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British

Columbians and the world.]

To that, I think what’s really important is that in the motion, we

talk about transition. To state the obvious, we don’t have infinite

supply, but we do have some of the largest natural gas reserves globally

right here in British Columbia.

When we talk about an ethical resource, when we talk about

ethically dealing with LNG and our natural gas industry, it’s because we

have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. This

is something we should be excited about, that this House should be

supporting, that we should be working towards. We want to make sure that

we have all of those opportunities not just here in British Columbia but

that we have those opportunities to help other jurisdictions, other

countries, other parts of the world.

When we talk about transitional opportunities, we look at places

like China, which continue, right now, to build coal-fired power

generation plants. If we’re talking about a climate emergency, we need

to remember that this is a global issue. We have solutions here in

British Columbia where we can help other countries around the world to

transition off of high-intensity, carbon-emitting issues like coal

burning in places like China.

To bring it back home for a moment, the problem that we have here

in British Columbia is the mixed messages that this government continues

to send not only to the investment world but to communities, to small

businesses, to workers here in British Columbia. That’s why we’re seeing

so many people who are afraid to invest now in this industry: because of

the comments that come from this government.

We need to remember that right now, just in LNG alone on the

coast, we have about 1,800 people that are working in the LNG industry.

We need to also remember that that creates tens of thousands of jobs in

the upstream. In places like Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, the Peace

region, where we actually have these immense opportunities with natural

gas development, there are tens of thousands of jobs at risk in this

province because of comments that come from this government.

Again, that mixed message. Depending on the day, depending on the

way the wind is blowing, the Premier will stand up and say how proud he

is to have LNG in British Columbia, how important LNG is in this

province. But then we’ll hear from other members completely

contradicting that.

With all due respect, again, to the member for

Boundary-Similkameen, for him to stand in this House…. You’ll correct me

if I’m wrong, but I believe he’s the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural

Development. Well, I can tell you right now, rural British Columbia has

developed because of the resource sector.

[11:10 a.m.]

For the member for Boundary-Similkameen to stand in the House and

basically say, “To meet their climate targets, there’s no future for

natural gas anymore in British Columbia….” I think he forgets to mention

and highlight that there is a parliamentary secretary role. What’s the

plan? What’s the plan for rural British Columbia, if he’s going to be

out there speaking against what’s helping communities, helping First

Nations and helping people with family-supporting jobs?

Again, that mixed message to the investment world is something

that is very concerning when we have the former Energy Minister,

Michelle Mungall, saying LNG and natural gas isn’t good for anybody, yet

the Premier can go out there and say how great this is right now in

British Columbia, how important this is.

At the end of the day, I’m looking forward to hearing from some of

the members from the NDP to talk about this, because we are losing,

right now, billions and billions of dollars of investment in British

Columbia. Almost every company I have spoken with in Calgary who invests

right now has said that they’ve moved their money to Alberta or to Texas

because they do not trust an NDP government because of the mixed

messages they’re sending.

It’s important that they be clear as well, because we’ve got

family-supporting jobs and communities at risk if we don’t support this

industry.

M. Starchuk: I thank the member for Peace River South for his motion: “Be it

resolved that this House support British Columbia’s transitional,

ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British Columbians and the

world.” I’d be remiss right now if I did not speak as a Ukrainian to say

what the world needs over there is food, medical supplies, doctors,

practitioners, to get that part of the world in better shape.

When it comes to LNG, our approach has enabled the largest private

sector investment in Canadian history and, at the same time, ensures LNG

development fits within CleanBC, our internationally recognized climate

plan. Any new LNG project will have to fit within B.C.’s climate change

strategy and our emission reduction targets for 2030 and

Members opposite know development of this kind takes time. They’ve

heard it from the Premier. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation explained this during question period. Any new project needs

a business plan and must fit inside of CleanBC’s climate

plan.

We will not cut corners on the environmental assessments that

protect our people, land and water, and recognize and honour

reconciliation. We will not abandon our climate plan, which is globally

recognized as an innovative solution to industry.

As I said at the beginning with regard to Europe, they should

continue to prepare for the disruptions in the global supply, but it

needs a plan that doesn’t break the global gas market or ignore the dire

climate costs in doing so. We cannot support a plan to buy all the gas

you can find at any cost.

The members opposite may want to fast-track or expedite LNG

production with no business plan as to what the world needs and prices

in the years to come. The members opposite may want to fast-track or

expedite LNG production without following the province’s CleanBC

Roadmap to 2030 , where it sets out how we will achieve our

legislated greenhouse gas targets and keep us on path to net zero by

The CleanBC roadmap is a comprehensive plan to guide the province

towards a cleaner, stronger future to prepare for the impacts of climate

change. People across British Columbia have seen the effects of climate

change first­hand, from the recent unprecedented heatwave, record

wildfires, flooding and droughts. We know that climate change is

expected to make these types of extreme events more frequent and that we

need a strong, coordinated global action to reduce emissions and build a

cleaner economy for everyone.

More reductions from LNG’s climate impact will be achieved through

investments in electrification of up­stream oil and gas production

so extraction and processing are powered by electricity instead of

burning fossil fuels. More innovation in the capture of gases needs to

be considered in the future.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’m reminded of that movie from 1985 — and I’m sure there are

people here that weren’t born in 1985 — Back to the Future ,

where Marty McFly watches Doc go through a trash can and grab organic

waste to fuel his vehicle. How futuristic was that?

I see this happening on a daily basis with the biofuel plant in

Surrey, where green waste is converted into re­newable natural gas

and compost. The very vehicles that pick up your trash, recyclables and

organic waste are powered by the organic waste that these trucks pick up

at the curbside each week.

With regards to the motion, ni, dyakuyu . That’s Ukrainian

for “no, thank you.” I don’t support it without the caveat that follows

the CleanBC roadmap and must be consistent with all of our climate

targets.

S. Bond: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and support

the motion before the House.

With all due respect to the member who spoke before us, no one on

this side of the House is suggesting there isn’t a business plan,

careful thought and looking at how we move the LNG industry forward in

British Columbia. In fact, the confusion has arisen because of comments

made by members on the other side of the House — even the member’s

comments today, talking about the fact that we need to have a plan. Of

course we do, and no one is suggesting we expedite without thoughtful,

careful process.

I was happy to hear the member, though, respond to the fact that

he recognizes that developing LNG takes time, because we have certainly

heard how they’re completely responsible for LNG development in British

Columbia. Well, I would remind the member opposite that it took years of

aggressive, careful, strategic work to actually deliver the LNG project

that exists in British Columbia today. That was under the opposition’s —

this government’s — watch, certainly not the members

opposite.

We have a resource at our disposal here in British Columbia, an

ethical transitional fuel source. Talking about transitional is

important. All of us want to move to a cleaner, greener British

Columbia. We know that it is a transitional fuel, but it is a power

source that could actually help the province and countries around the

world. Liquefied natural gas is a more sustainable alternative to

traditional fuels like coal, and an added benefit is that LNG projects

have the potential to employ thousands of people and grow the

economy.

We have the opportunity in British Columbia to help address what

is a growing and worldwide energy crisis. We can be a world leader,

bridging this energy gap and helping our allies to be less dependent on

other sources and exporters of energy. This is an issue that we have

raised continuously, but it has certainly not been well received by the

government members. It has been difficult and incredibly frustrating to

watch this government continually miss and dismiss opportunities that

would not just benefit our province but countries around the

world.

We have access to a transitional resource that could support our

allies, but the government has failed to act. It is clear that the

government is content to just sit on the sidelines, while there are

specific steps it could be taking to make a real difference. In fact, we

know that members of this government have absolutely no intention or

desire to invest further in LNG.

As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago in this chamber, the

Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, no less, said: “All

indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.” Very

different from the comments that this member has just talked about —

that we need a plan, that it needs to fit, that it needs to work with

our plan. Well, that’s not what the Parliament Secretary for Rural

Development said the last time he got up.

Now, I’m not sure if that member announced a new policy position

or if, finally, someone on that side of the House was being transparent

about this government’s intentions when it comes to the future of LNG in

B.C. I’m not even sure that that member has any idea how people where I

live felt about his comments. There are projects in the works,

communities counting on the opportunity to grow the economy, and

thousands of jobs dismissed with his words.

[11:20 a.m.]

He’s responsible for the rural development file, and to dismiss

the future of the LNG industry the way that he did demonstrates, once

again, this government’s complete lack of understanding and support for

rural communities across our province.

The member for Skeena has spoken at length in this House about the

positive impact that LNG has had in his community, about how LNG

expansion is an opportunity to provide people with the tools to lift

themselves out of poverty. It’s something that can improve quality of

life, benefit an entire region, yet government members stood in this

House and dismissed any future projects.

While much of the world continues to face an energy crisis that

British Columbia could help solve, the government is dragging its feet

on approving LNG projects. There are not just one or two but actually

seven LNG projects waiting for permits right now, while so many

countries are desperately looking for a secure source of clean, ethical

LNG.

On one hand, the government says LNG is part of its plan, and then

the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural De­velopment says there is

no future. Our question today to the government: which is it?

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on the

motion, “Be it resolved that this House support British Columbia’s

transitional, ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British

Columbians and the world.”

When we come to these meetings, we all come from a context. The

whole day yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending it with my

great-granddaughter, Alliya, and the rest of my family to celebrate my

husband’s birthday. I told them that this was one of the issues that was

going to be discussed today, and we had a very interesting discussion

around the dinner table last night.

One of the things that I’m always reminded of is that every one of

us, whichever side we sit on in this House — what we want are

good-paying jobs for British Columbians. At the same time, what we also

want is to protect our environment and make sure that the jobs we are

developing are sustainable and that they fit within our plan to take us

to net zero, because Mother Earth is calling on us and sending us

signals that there is need for action.

That is why I am so very proud of the action plan that has been

developed by the government, the CleanBC plan. It isn’t written in

stone, as you know. It was started, and then it has been improved upon

each session. And now the CleanBC moves forward.

Talking about LNG, I can say that the NDP government or the

current government can absolutely say that their approach, or our

approach, has secured the largest investment in LNG Canada while

ensuring the project fits within CleanBC. That’s what is important. You

know, when I talk to people in industry — I talk to lots of people in

the business community — what is the number one thing they say that they

need from government? They need predictability; they need

clarity.

As I look at the CleanBC plan…. I’m really going to encourage my

colleagues to go and read it, because I’m hearing a lot about mixed

messages, scaring away investment. But when I look at the CleanBC plan,

I see the criteria laid out very clearly, that actually sent a signal

worldwide. We got the kind of project approvement that we did, and the

investment came in, and with it came in jobs. And just so that the

colleagues across the way on all sides know what that criteria is, I

want to read it into the record.

One, projects must guarantee jobs and training opportunities for

British Columbians. Seems pretty clear to me. Two, projects must provide

a fair return for our resources.

[11:25 a.m.]

You know something? I know that colleagues on the other side may

not appreciate that as much, but that is one of the reasons I ran: so

that British Columbians got fair value and value-added for the resources

that we are rich in, and that we grow those jobs right here in Canada

and they benefit not only the current generation but generations to

come.

Three, projects must respect and make partners of First Nations —

very critical for us as we are talking about truth and reconciliation

and what it means to have that in a meaningful way. The companies have

concluded signed agreements with every elected band council along the

project route. This project will provide significant training and

employment opportunities for First Nations. They’ve already approved

$175 million in contracts with local First Nation businesses. That is

moving towards truth and reconciliation.

Last but not least, projects must fit within our climate

commitments. My colleagues in cabinet have worked very hard to ensure

that LNG Canada will fit within our CleanBC plan to meet our climate

targets to reach net zero by 2050.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, there is clarity. It’s specified.

It’s predictable. It’s known. It’s written down. There is no

confusion.

P. Milobar: Well, what there is, is uncertainty and confusion within the

industry and capital fleeing British Columbia, investment fleeing

British Columbia because of the actions of this government and the lack

of action by this government.

The reason for this motion today is borne out from a few things

that have happened in this chamber over the last several weeks. One, as

we’ve heard time and again this morning already, was the Parliamentary

Secretary for Rural Development, who seems to think that LNG is an

industry that has no growth potential in British Columbia — that, you

know, First Nations, Indigenous communities should not be relying on

economic good that could come from other LNG projects.

As we’ve seen, that very much can be a game-changer, especially in

rural and remote communities that rely on natural resources to try to

advance economic well-being for their citizens and to provide the

services and supports that they need to help their community move

forward in a positive and a good way. That’s critical, because not every

part of this province is on major freeways where there is an abundance

of tourism opportunities.

Certainly, things like tourism, Indigenous tourism, is a growing

sector, but it’s a very small portion of people that have the ability,

the means or the want to travel to far and remote areas to capitalize on

that type of experience. That means that the revenue opportunities for

those Indigenous communities are lessened compared to setting up

something down in the southern part of the province.

That’s why things like LNG are so critical. Really, the purpose of

this motion today is to highlight the fact that we actually do have very

ethical LNG, that we have high environmental standards, that we should

be proud as a province and as a country of how we go about with our

resource development in this country and province.

The problem is the perpetual level of roadblocks and hurdles that

industry faces when dealing with the government. It’s not with dealing

with Indigenous communities. Businesses and industry have been doing

that much longer and much more successfully than government has been

doing, especially over the last five years. It’s actually government

that’s creating the problems. It’s government that’s creating the

roadblocks. It’s government that’s getting in the way.

That’s why, when we see what’s happening in Europe, why we see the

rush to try to detach countries from Russia, from being reliant on

Russian energy products moving forward, it’s critical for this part of

the discussion. Where is the urgency for British Columbia to try to do

their part with the world? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say,

“Well, all solutions are local that go to global,” about one side of the

equation when it comes to emissions but don’t carry that forward to

actual energy consumption.

[11:30 a.m.]

The simple reality is that B.C. is one-tenth of 1 percent of all

global emissions. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words from the

Environment Minister, who has said it at a conference. I believe,

actually, the Minister of Lands was at that conference when she was

still a mayor. I was in the crowd at that conference. The minister has

confirmed in this chamber that he did indeed say these words.

We’re one-tenth of 1 percent of global emissions in British

Columbia. How else can we do our part to drive down global emissions? We

can try to find ways to get LNG into the global market, to reuse

coal-fired plants. And yes, we likely will not be shipping to Europe,

but we would certainly be shipping to Asia, which would then free up

some of the other LNG — that is currently going to Asia — to go to

Europe more easily.

That is the point. You can’t pick and choose when it’s okay to do

something locally because it’s the right thing to do. The right thing to

do on a global scale, to try to get European countries away from the

reliance on Russian energy products, is to start working with companies

to get their projects moving forward.

It’s simply not good enough for a minister to say: “No one has

phoned me.” Well, of course they haven’t phoned him. They’re busy trying

to move their capital and their investment out of British Columbia,

because of the actions of this government to date.

They need very clear signals from this government that they truly

are open for business, that they truly are trying to do what’s right and

that they’re trying to do what’s right on a global scale as well. That

is why B.C. needs to capitalize, and capitalize quickly, on the fact

that we do have high standards, and high ethical standards, when it

comes to our resource extraction, particularly with LNG. That is why

it’s important to support a motion like this today.

D. Routley: I believe it will be a full year of Sundays before the word

“consistency” is as undervalued as we knew it to be about two years ago.

Through these times that have been so much closer to chaos than calm,

British Columbians find themselves with a consistent government that is

consistently focused on reconciliation, that is consistently focused on

climate change, that is consistently focused on building a fair economy

— not something that waves in the wind like a weathervane in a tempest,

which seems to be how the B.C. Liberals, the opposition, are formulating

their policy positions in the recent past.

I know — and British Columbians know, quite clearly, by what we’ve

faced — that we’re all in this together. That is so apparent to

everyone. Also apparent is that they have a government that doesn’t

intend to leave people behind. As we address these crises, we will make

a fairer and better economy for British Columbians and use these crises

to the advantage of British Columbians, not leverage them in a naked

political progression.

The member previous asked: “Where is the urgency?” Well, the

urgency is in climate change. It’s in a pandemic. It’s in wildfires,

flooding, droughts, heatwaves. The urgency is in the challenge to

balance reconciliation and environmental protections in the forest

industry with economic benefit and development for communities and

bringing us to a better economy that is net zero by 2050.

Consistency is the reason that the one LNG project in B.C. that

has been approved was approved. Those corporate investors looked at a

government that mapped out the path, that included them within a plan to

get us to net zero by 2050. That’s consistency and predictability, and

those two things equal trust.

There’s so much more to come. There are more crises to come. There

are more steps to be taken. Fighting climate change isn’t a banner item

that we can wave as a flag. It’s many, many steps. Just as it

accumulated as a problem, it will be addressed by many, many steps, but

with a plan. That is exactly what this government has: a consistent plan

that they have been consistently sticking to. That is why people feel

safe investing. That is why British Columbians are encouraged. That is

why elements of the road map were recognized by the UN as

world-leading.

I understand that the opposition has got to oppose — it’s your job

— but to make things better, not simply to misstate the facts. Everyone

on that side knows that it would be eight to ten years before any

project approved today would be online. So it’s disappointing, really,

to see members who I really do respect resort to that tactic, because it

doesn’t help anyone.

[11:35 a.m.]

As I said, we’re all in this together. We are all in this together

globally, nationally, provincially, regionally, locally, in this place.

We need something more than simple division. We need a nuanced

understanding of the challenges that face us and a common understanding

of the goals that we share. We don’t have the same road map, but we do

agree with British Columbians on the goal.

I think it’s about time the opposition got better acquainted with

the goals of British Columbians — how they recognize that it takes every

person and every business in this province to reach these goals, how the

commitment can’t be part-time, how it can’t be driven off course by the

latest problem, the latest crisis. Yes, they have to feed urgency into

this process, and they have. We see that with the road map that is

accelerating our progress.

I do think that I can return to the beginning and say that

consistency is a diminishing resource, a precious resource. We plan to

continue providing it to British Columbians. I hope the opposition will

find some consistency, and we can all, together, address these problems

in the interests of the people we all represent.

T. Shypitka: To be quite honest, the only thing consistent about this

government is their inconsistent approach to our natural resource

sector. Liquefied natural gas produced right here in B.C. is not only

right for right now, but also for generations to come, as a transitional

and ethical fuel source. It has also been the answer for the past 51

years here in B.C.

FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG facility has been operating since 1971

right in Delta, B.C., supplying fuel trucks, buses and ferries. Fortis

plans on expanding to a small-scale facility in Terrace if government is

supportive. There are also several others, including Woodfibre LNG and

Cedar LNG, looking for final investment decisions.

It is no wonder I was stunned when the member for

Boundary-Similkameen, not too long ago, said in this Legislature: “If we

want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First

Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children in a world

that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG

expansion isn’t the answer.” This quote speaks directly to today’s

motion and reeks of the total disconnect to what is actually happening

in the world today.

Has he actually heard the member for Skeena’s comment — who is a

former chief councillor for the Haisla First Nation? This member’s own

NDP party brags on how they got LNG Canada over the goal line after many

hard years of heavy lifting from the B.C. Liberals. Is this member

saying his own party is not forward-thinking? And 16 First Nations along

this pipeline, from northeast B.C. to Kitimat, will benefit for

generations to come. I’m sure the member for Skeena will have some more

to say on that later.

Second, the member for Boundary-Similkameen says: “If we want good

jobs for our children’s children….” I can certainly tell you that the

skills that the LNG industry represents are nothing short of highly

skilled and exceptionally high paying. These high-paying jobs in remote

communities keep Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in their own

communities, keeping families strong.

This industry represents thousands of direct-paying jobs. I’m not

even touching on the spin-off jobs this industry brings — everything

from independent contractors, supply stores, parts, repair and, of

course, expanding our fast-growing technology sector.

In regards to the concern that this industry will still be here

for our children’s children, the House will be interested in knowing

that LNG global demand will double to over 700 million metric tonnes by

2040, as compared to about 360 million metric tonnes last year. This

demand will increase whether B.C. is a producer or not.

B.C.’s LNG industry is the cleanest and greenest in the world. It

is produced with high labour and safety standards, outdoing all of its

competitors. B.C. will produce LNG with the lowest emissions anywhere on

the planet — 35 percent lower emissions than the second-best-performing

LNG projects and up to 60 percent lower emissions than the overall

global average.

Simply stated, if you shut down, dismiss or delay B.C. LNG, then

you have just helped in adding more GHGs to the global environment due

to carbon leakage to other jurisdictions. B.C. LNG will replace millions

of homes in Asia that are currently on thermal coal sources, cutting

carbon emissions in half.

[11:40 a.m.]

Finally, the member for Boundary-Similkameen de­clares that

he is concerned about a world that is safe and secure. We, on this side

of the House, join him in that concern. We continue to watch the horrors

of war unfold in Ukraine. On this side of the House, we think B.C.

should be helping to ensure that our global allies don’t rely on an

authoritarian regime like Russia for their energy sources. Instead, B.C.

should be ramping up its ability to export LNG and fill the gaps of

Russian energy with this ethical, transitional fuel source.

When we questioned the government on this, the Premier got up and

noted that our province doesn’t currently export any LNG abroad and that

new pipelines and infrastructure are years away. The government needs to

be reminded that it has been in power for half a decade. We need better

leadership than that. It would be nice to see this Premier and this

government show us some signs that they want to expand the export of our

abundant LNG and be the world leaders that our industry represents and

that the world depends on.

A. Mercier: It’s an honour to rise and speak to this motion in this House.

British Columbians want to know that we have a plan for a clean

environment and for LNG development. What British Columbians have seen,

and I think is really exemplified in the debate we’ve seen here today,

is that there are fundamentally two approaches in front of them: you can

do it with a plan, or you can do it with the complete absence of a

plan.

We heard my friend the member for Peace River South speak about,

in his opening statement, how we have the strictest environmental

regulations in the world, and he’s excited about it. Guess what. There’s

a reason we have the strictest environmental regulations in the world.

It’s because we have spent the past four years building them.

This wasn’t always the case. My predecessor — the former member

for Langley, Mary Polak — was a minister for the environment that passed

legislation allowing for exploratory drilling for oil and gas in public

parks. The previous approach was the complete absence of a plan. It was

“Drill, baby, drill,” and forget the consequences.

What we need is a balanced approach. What a balanced regulatory

framework looks like is one that is reasonable and considerate. It’s not

a rubber stamp, and at the same time, it’s not a roadblock. It evaluates

projects as they come.

I’ve got to say that this planning creates certainty. It creates

the context — on the business side, on the investment side — for final

investment decisions. But it also creates certainty for the people of

British Columbia, for workers, for our citizens, that they’re going to

live in a clean environment, with clean water, and that we take these

things into account as we balance the interests that we have

economically, socially and environmentally within British

Columbia.

That’s a very core part, an important part, about this. It’s led

to the record investment at LNG Canada, which is a Canadian record for

investment size. It was in consideration of our approach. I should

mention, as well — because we heard Michelle Mungall’s name come up —

that Michelle Mungall, as the former Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, was critical in working together with other members

of this House, such as Andrew Weaver, to put together a plan that would

allow for this type of investment, which is CleanBC.

Our plan has led to this investment, and it’s also protecting the

environment. There are four key conditions there. One is a fair return

for our resources. British Columbians don’t want to see us just giving

our resources away. They don’t want to see us just shipping out raw

resources without any return in terms of value and without any kind of

royalty return.

What LNG Canada is going to do is provide over $23 billion in

revenue to the government coffers over the course of its lifetime.

That’s going to help pay for child care. That’s going to help pay for

housing. It’s going to help pay for the construction of new schools and

hospitals. That’s a fundamental social good and part of having a

plan.

We also need to know that there are going to be jobs and training

opportunities. That is critically important — that there’s an

opportunity to build skills. As members will know, because we have heard

they speak to the business community…. I’ve got to say that I speak to

the business community frequently as well.

[11:45 a.m.]

What comes up when I speak to them are concerns around labour

supply. This is global investment. What global investment looks for and

looks to is whether or not there are enough skilled workers in a region

to actually construct something. That’s critically important — making

sure that we have a plan. It’s got to be holistic.

CleanBC is obviously a cornerstone and critically

im­portant, but it extends beyond that. I think this is really

important. We’re hearing a lot about ethical LNG. What is ethical LNG?

What makes it ethical?

I would suggest that the elements here that members opposite have

talked about, in terms of our stellar environmental record and the

ethics, really come as a consequence of the decisions that this

government has made that have allowed this to occur, which is CleanBC —

making sure that it happens in a plan and making sure that any future

projects fit in accordance with that plan. I think that’s important to

everybody.

I just want to say as an aside that I’m disappointed and really

disconcerted by the other side’s use of the profoundest humanitarian

crisis in my lifetime — in any of our lifetimes, I think — to push their

failed approach to LNG.

E. Ross: Listening to the debate today, I can’t help but marvel at the lack

of understanding of the LNG industry in its totality. In fact, the level

of ignorance here is quite astounding. The member for Langley talked

about how the most strictest environmental standards are because of this

NDP government. The certificate for LNG Canada was achieved long before

this government came into power. In fact, those environmental standards

were actually set by First Nations at the environmental assessment

level, at the B.C. level and the federal level. We plugged the

gaps.

I’ll tell you something else. It was First Nations in 2004 that

lobbied to bring LNG to B.C. It took us seven years. We also actually

lobbied the federal government to get on board. As soon as B.C. got on

board, the federal government got on board.

The idea that somehow some government is responsible for this,

apart from the B.C. Liberals in 2011 under Christy Clark, is wrong.

You’re actually insulting First Nations who dedicated years of time and

money and commitment to actually bring LNG Canada and KLNG to B.C. for

the benefit of all British Columbians. It’s a nation builder project.

It’s a nation building initiative.

I agree that the NDP got this over the finish line after the B.C.

Liberals did all the heavy lifting. But that was with huge, massive tax

breaks under the PST, under the tax, the taxation for LNG, as well as a

break on the carbon tax at 30 bucks a tonne. Nobody else gets this break

— not the citizens at the pump. But the largest private investment in

Canadian history.

I’ve always been a supporter of LNG, forestry, mining — anything

that actually helps build the province and actually goes more to uplift

First Nations out of poverty — because in 2004, the case law, the

Haida case law, enabled that. It wasn’t this NDP

government. It was First Nations standing up for the principles of case

law. That said, government has a duty to consult and accommodate in a

meaningful manner. That’s what LNG Canada represents. That’s what

Chevron’s KLNG represented.

In fact, there’s an important step being undertaken right now that

was always on the table: equity, taking a formal position in the

pipeline. Sixteen First Nations have taken the option for an equity

stake in Coastal GasLink. It’s an important step. It demonstrates how

First Nations have developed the road map for B.C. and have developed an

economic plan for B.C. It wasn’t off the side of their desks. It was

thought out. It included many Aboriginal leaders, lawyers, consultants,

committees. It’s an insult to say otherwise.

There has always been the optimism that LNG was the answer. Long

ago, back in 2004, we thought LNG was the answer to China’s emissions.

There was a level of optimism. We could help the world. We could help

India. That optimism is fading fast.

[11:50 a.m.]

I do agree that the NDP are actually saying the right words, but

those are just words. I actually asked the Energy Minister in this

chamber what actions he was going to do to drive other projects forward,

because there are seven projects waiting. The Energy Minister basically

said nothing — just shrugged his shoulders. That’s all it was. “There’s

nothing we can do,” said the minister, “so don’t expect us to take any

action or be proactive.”

As someone who was intimately involved from day one in getting LNG

opportunities to B.C., I found this very dismissive and a major

disappointment. It wasn’t, however, a surprise. The parliamentary

secretary, for example, said: “If we want forward-looking and effective

economic independence for First Nations, if we want good jobs for our

children’s children, in a world that is safe and secure, then all

indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.”

I disagreed with that in 2004; I disagree with that today. But at

least he was honest — I’ll give him that — in that this government does

not support LNG expansion. It doesn’t matter if LNG expansion is going

to help British Columbians. It doesn’t matter if it’s going to help

Europe or all those other countries that want our clean, ethical LNG. It

doesn’t matter, but at least he’s honest.

On the other side of that, this is why industry is actually

leaving B.C. These kinds of comments actually create uncertainty in a

time and age when we need certainty more than anything else.

R. Glumac: Climate change. I’ve listened to 25 min­utes of speeches

from the B.C. Liberal opposition, and I don’t think anyone mentioned the

words “climate change.” Why is that? It’s because they don’t care about

climate change. How can they care about something they don’t even

believe in?

The member for Skeena, who just spoke, in 2019 stated: “Even the

scientists and the experts can’t agree on what’s really going on.” I’ll

tell you what’s going on, Member. We’re facing a climate emergency, and

this motion introduced today is irresponsible. You know what responsible

government looks like?

Interjections.

R. Glumac: They’re laughing at climate change.

Responsible government acknowledges climate change is real. Responsible government has a

plan and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Responsible

government means that by 2030, we will reduce methane emissions from the

oil and gas sector by 75 percent.

By 2030, we’ll require 90 percent of all new-vehicle sales to be

zero-emission vehicles, and 100 percent by 2035. By 2030, we will build

10,000 EV charging stations and require that all new buildings emit zero

carbon. By 2030, we will accelerate the shift to active and public

transportation to 30 percent of all trips, increase clean fuel

requirements and double the target for renewable fuels. We will support

innovation, green hydrogen and negative-emissions

technologies.

That’s what a responsible government does. All of these

commitments are part of the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 to help B.C. achieve

its Paris accord emission reduction targets. This plan makes greenhouse

gas pollution more expensive — and the shift from fossil fuels to clean

alternatives more affordable — while helping to power businesses and

communities with clean, renewable electricity.

This opposition is the same party that introduced the carbon tax.

Look how far they’ve drifted from those days. They, at one time,

understood the importance of taking action on climate change, but they

don’t anymore. They’ve lost their way. In fact, when they had the

opportunity to put together a climate leadership panel that worked for

months drafting recommendations, those recommendations were completely

ignored, and a new plan was drafted with input from the oil industry in

Alberta. That’s what we’re dealing with here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Climate change is real. The most recent report from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us once again that if

we fail to limit global warming to a 1.5-degree increase, the impact is

going to be devastating. Climate disasters like the wildfires that

destroyed the city of Lytton and the flooding that caused billions of

dollars of damage in Abbotsford will be more and more

frequent.

[11:55 a.m.]

If we reach that 1.5 degrees, then the fires that used to happen

every 400 years will happen every 50 years. The impact to the forestry

sector will be catastrophic. The agricultural sector will experience

more and more water scarcity across the province. Ocean acidity will

lead to a 50 percent decrease in shellfish production, and other

fisheries will also be severely impacted.

We cannot ignore the reason we face these challenges. It’s because

of greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel sector. There has to be

a limit. That’s why this motion today is irresponsible. It doesn’t

consider the impact to any other industry in the future and imposes no

limit on emissions. It doesn’t acknowledge our responsibility to take

action to keep global temperatures below a 1.5-degree increase. It’s

irresponsible, and we need to be responsible.

The approach we are taking, as a government, with CleanBC is the

right approach. Through CleanBC, we can grow our economy the right way,

in a sustainable way. There is so much economic opportunity in

transitioning our economy to the future. Let’s continue working towards

a future we can all be proud of.

S. Furstenau: I’ll keep my comments very brief. I wasn’t scheduled to speak, but

I think it’s important that there be an additional voice to this. We’ve

heard, from the official opposition, strong support for LNG.

We’ve heard, from the government, some kind of effort to square

the circle of growing emissions in this province since they have become

government, of increasing their subsidies to the LNG industry and

getting us nowhere near to the targets that we are supposed to get, with

no recognition that the plan they keep talking about does not account

for LNG and cannot be achieved with LNG as a giant hole in the middle of

it.

Clearly, members can stand and say almost anything in this debate,

with no accountability, because we don’t vote on these motions. Let’s

have that accountability.

I move that the question be put.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are close to the lunch hour, and everybody else has

spoken. I think we can….

Okay, member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: If there’s enough time.

Mr. Speaker: Brief, only a couple of minutes.

R. Merrifield: A couple of minutes. Okay, I’ll go fast. I’ll go as fast as I

possibly can. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I am advised that, because the motion is on the floor….

Let’s deal with that first, and then we will continue.

Members, considering Standing Order 46 and the practice of this

House in the consideration of private members’ motions, I believe we can

put this motion.

All those in favour to put this question?

J. Rustad: Some clarity, if I may. I thought all votes on Monday mornings

were supposed to be held at 5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll do that later. Yeah.

On this question that we are dealing with, all those in favour,

the question to be put?

Division has been called, and according to the standing orders, we

will have a division vote taken at six o’clock today.

R. Merrifield: Okay. I will try and make all of my comments very brief. I am

happy to take my place and, actually, support this motion. Why? It’s

because we need LNG. I disagree with what we’ve heard from the NDP this

morning, because we need, also, a CleanBC plan that works, and we don’t

have one right now.

LNG has been a staple industry of our province’s energy sector for

decades, supporting thousands of jobs. Given that our population is

projected to grow by more than a million people over the next decade, we

have a problem. As more British Columbians transition to electric

vehicles, electric heating systems and e-bikes, it’s going to put a

strain on our power demand. This is going to continue to grow, but our

power demand is not our only crisis.

We’re in the midst of an environmental crisis — one that needs to

be acknowledged — but we do not have a climate plan. It is anything but

consistent. The mismanagement that this government has over renewable

energy projects like Site C…. The government is running the very real

risk of missing our climate action targets and our power demands over

the next decade.

[12:00 p.m.]

While this government likes to tout its CleanBC plan as the

be-all, end-all solution to our greenhouse gas emission reduction

targets, it does not clearly map the path forward and does not take into

account the current state of our province’s energy sector.

I would challenge all of those that stood up this morning, like

those for Surrey-Panorama or for Langley. They should read the CleanBC

document and understand that they will still be 40 percent short by the

end of its targets.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.