Hansard — Monday, March 5, 2007 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tabling Documents		5725
	Office of the provincial health officer, report, Progress on the Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia

Private Members' Statements		5725
	Carbon emissions
	B. Simpson
	J. Rustad
	Surrey's latest transportation infrastructure builds the economy of B.C.
	D. Hayer
	D. Chudnovsky
	Child care
	C. Trevena
	R. Cantelon
	National Institute of Disability Management and Research
	R. Cantelon
	S. Fraser

Motions on Notice		5733
	Debate in Legislature on trade and labour agreement with Alberta (Motion 43)
	M. Sather
	R. Hawes
	D. Chudnovsky
	B. Bennett
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Kwan
	J. Rustad
	L. Krog
	B. Lekstrom
	B. Ralston

Hon. B. Penner: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Health, I have the honour to table the provincial health officer's report Progress on the Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: The throne speech clearly indicates that a large part of the government's climate change strategy will be based on carbon credits, carbon offsets and carbon sinks. The speech refers to our forests as "nature's carbon sinks" and makes the claim that as carbon sinks and oxygen creators, new trees will help clean the air and offset greenhouse gases.

To maximize the effectiveness of these natural carbon sinks, the government announced in the throne speech that it will increase tree-planting efforts, which will therefore increase the amount of carbon that is offset each year through reforestation and afforestation.

After the throne speech the Minister of Energy and Mines reiterated the claim that forest management and forest carbon sinks will be used to offset carbon emissions in the province, as did the Premier, who in the past has vigorously defended the province's right to claim its own carbon sinks and not lose these offsets to the federal government under the Kyoto protocol.

In fact, the Premier went even further after this year's throne speech and made the following claim: "As the rest of the world looks to find carbon offsets, British Columbia may be one of the places where we can inventory carbon offsets that other people can use. This can be a big economic engine for the province."

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once claimed that trees were the source of air pollution. It now appears that the provincial government believes that trees will be our saviour, both environmentally and economically.

Therefore, today I would like to examine the role that carbon sinks may or may not play in the future of British Columbia and of Canada, because carbon sinks and carbon offsets were not only a major component of this year's throne speech but also of the 2004 climate change strategy that the government released during the Christmas holidays.

The principle behind forests as carbon sinks is that healthy, vigorous forests remove carbon from the air and store it in the organic mass of the forest ecosystem. In a managed forest there's an added benefit when the carbon in harvested logs is locked up in lumber products for generations. The new plantations then supposedly sequester more carbon from the atmosphere.

However, this ideal view of forests as carbon sinks is not supported by science, and the current state of both our natural and managed forests suggests that it is foolhardy to depend on our forests as the centrepiece of any climate change strategy.

A recent study conducted by the Canadian Forest Service to answer the question of whether or not Canada's managed forests can be included as carbon sinks under the Kyoto protocol concluded that there is only a 1-in-10 chance that they might qualify as carbon sinks. The reason for this is that as climate changes, our forests become more susceptible to fire, pests and disease, all of which undermine the forests' natural capacity to absorb carbon and in fact turn the forests into carbon emitters.

One Natural Resources Canada study suggests that Canada's forests have indeed been net carbon sources since about the 1980s. British Columbia's forests are also a prime example of the ravages of climate change and of how climate change itself may negate our forests' ability to continue to act as carbon sinks. Our interior forests have been drought-stressed for years now, and our continuation of fire prevention policies, coupled with the loss of protracted cold weather events and decades of forest management decisions, has led to the mountain pine beetle epidemic that we are all very aware of. Now over nine million hectares of our interior forests are affected by this pest.

However, what is not as well known is that a great number of other pests and diseases are at or approaching historical epidemic levels simultaneous with the mountain pine beetle epidemic. These pests and diseases are also impacting all age classes, and we now have evidence of significant mortality in juvenile stands and even in plantations. In short, our interior forests are unhealthy and much more susceptible to fire than ever before in their history, strongly suggesting that they will be net contributors of carbon as they decay and burn.

According to the throne speech, our dead and dying forests will be replaced with new trees, and each tree planted will offset "up to one tonne of carbon dioxide over its lifetime." That's a direct quote from the throne speech. However, the fundamental weakness of any offset program is that while we continue to increase the greenhouse gas emissions that we pump into the atmosphere, we have no guarantee that an offset will actually take up all of the greenhouse gas emissions that it's purported to.

Using trees as offsets provides a perfect example of the fallacy of this thinking. There is no guarantee that each tree planted will live to maturity and take up all of the greenhouse gas equivalents that it was supposed to offset. As B.C. forests show, our carbon sinks may become carbon contributors. Our plantations, as climate change advances, may not be healthy. And then

each tree planted may not offset the one tonne of carbon it's supposed to offset.

The throne speech states that climate change is threatening life on earth as we know it and that the science is clear and leaves no room for procrastination. Yet the central role that carbon offsets and carbon sinks play in the government's plan suggests the opposite. This is simply a form of procrastination. What we need is more aggressive targets and more aggressive regulations designed to reduce emissions and to advance our transition to a carbon-neutral world. What we do not need is to bank on something that the science does not support and that our evidence from the ground, in our interior forests in particular, simply suggests is a fallacy.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for bringing up this issue and bringing this debate to the House this morning. Clearly, in terms of the overall environment and the role that carbon emissions play, it is an important issue, and it's one that is worthy of some discussion.

However, the member seems to come to the conclusion that the basis of our throne speech and the plan going forward is all around forestry and using carbon offsets that come from planting trees. It should be worth noting that our priority, our first priority, is actually in reducing emissions and reducing that particular impact. Carbon offsets, in terms of growing our forests, are simply one of the other tools that would be used to help meet our rather aggressive targets.

What I'd like to talk about — because the member also mentioned that the throne speech set some goals and, quite frankly, some very aggressive goals…. I'm surprised to hear the member say that we should be more aggressive when the province is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent from current levels by 2020. That target will place emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. That's very aggressive, and as many, many environmentalists have commented, our plan is both doable and makes sense.

I want to talk about the point that we aren't already taking actions. Today in the province we have about $6.4 billion worth of actions that are being taken to reduce carbon emissions. I'd just like to read some of those into the record for remembrance's sake. Particularly, $3.6 billion in private investment is currently being put on line through our clean power streamline and B.C. Hydro's call for power. That's a huge investment, in terms of reducing carbon emissions, to make sure that we have clean power and that we're meeting our energy needs in the years to come.

And $1.9 billion on the Canada line will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by up to 14,000 tonnes by 2021. These are all investments that are designed for our primary goal, which of course is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is being produced.

Along with that, as the member has said, we're spending $200 million — $144 million of that towards Forests for Tomorrow and another $56 million for enhancing salvage — all around trying to revitalize our forests and that industry, to renew the forests and to take care of some of the pine beetle issues. There's $170 million in funding committed to the Evergreen line and $127 million in B.C. Hydro funding over the next two years for Power Smart, through conservation.

These are all great initiatives, and they're designed with that one goal in mind: we need to be looking at reducing our carbon emissions and working towards that. The offsets that come through forestry are going to play an important role, but it certainly isn't, as the member suggests, the centrepiece of our throne speech and our plans moving forward.

Some of the other things that I just want to quickly touch on in particular, which I think are going to be a great benefit for my community as well as communities around the province. The $40 million LocalMotion fund, which helps local governments build walkways, cycle paths, disabled access and other improvements aimed at getting people out of their cars and back on their feet and the $62 million in funding to expand the cycle networks as part of the Gateway program. There is a whole list of things which we are undertaking which are all designed specifically to try to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, to try to get people to live healthier lives and to be able to meet some rather aggressive targets.

I'd just like to close with a quote. This is from a news release from February 13: "Finally, after years when all governments in B.C. have been asleep at the switch, we have leadership. This is something to celebrate."

Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we're doing with our plan and what we did with the throne speech, we've laid the seeds, the groundwork to be able to move forward, to be able to build something that I think is going to be very exciting in this province, and that is the real leadership on the environment, the real leadership on emissions — making sure that the future we have in this province is bright not only from an economic perspective for the people that want to live here to build a future but also from an environmental perspective so that people can have the clean air, clean water and the great joy of living in what I believe is the best place on earth.

B. Simpson: My thanks to the member for Prince George–Omineca. However, I think the member missed my point. The key components of the Liberal climate change policy are carbon sinks and carbon offsets.

It's clear in the throne speech. It says that your government will invest in our forests, nature's carbon sinks. It states: "In the new world those new trees" — which they're going to increase planting, and I'll canvass that in estimates — "will have new value as carbon sinks and oxygen creators which help clean our air and offset greenhouse gases. On average, each new tree planted offsets up to one tonne of carbon dioxide over its lifetime."

The throne speech puts carbon sinks and carbon offsets as a major foundation of the climate change strategy. What I pointed out and what the science dictates is that they don't exist. Carbon sinks in the north-

ern hemisphere simply do not exist. They should not be part of any climate change strategy.

A recent study that was just released, done by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution department of global ecology, states: "We thought planting trees across the northern hemisphere would curb global warming by CO2 absorption, but what we found was a different story. The findings, if verified, could lead to a rethinking of the current carbon credit markets. Should we give carbon credits for planting of forests? Probably not, for countries in mid and high latitudes." As one scientist stated: "Telling people to plant trees to solve climate change is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels."

The point that I'm making here is that having any foundation based on carbon sinks and carbon credits — having any sense, as the Premier indicated, that we can have an economic generator through tree-planting — shows that the government has not adhered to the science. What we believe needs to happen is that that needs to be removed. If it's removed and there are no offsets, that's a very different climate change strategy. It is one that requires accelerated targets, one that requires vigorous regulation.

The throne speech points out that voluntary efforts will not address climate change. We agree with that. The Premier has indicated that it must be addressed through regulation. We agree with that. But until carbon sinks and carbon offsets are taken from the table, there's not the impetus to be much more aggressive on going after our carbon emissions and on driving the B.C. economy towards a new energy economy that's carbon neutral.

That's the point that's being made today, and it is our contention that the government would be much more aggressive if they removed carbon sinks from the equation at all.

D. Hayer: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the remarkable part Surrey plays in the economy of this province. Due to its unique location, Surrey has become the heart of British Columbia's transportation system to the rest of North America. Goods flow through our city both ways, through B.C.'s products to its ports and for shipments to all Pacific nations and goods of those nations to North America.

The role Surrey plays in this global system is recognized by all levels of government. Our transportation investments are in partnerships made to ensure the system operates smoothly and to the benefit of all. It sends a powerful message that will echo throughout the nation.

The most significant investments are being made by our provincial government, and the results of the investments are already being felt: record low unemployment, more jobs than people to fill them, an economy that leads the nation and a powerful policy of encouragement to stimulate immigration.

There is much talk of the incredible benefits of the Gateway program, a program that extends much further than simply twinning the Port Mann Bridge. A drive through the city of Surrey will demonstrate just how much investment our government is making to ensure that goods flow to north and south, to east and west with ease and efficiency.

I have toured all the projects under construction — the new Golden Ears bridge to improve access across the Fraser River; 96th Avenue underpass at the Trans-Canada Highway; new ramps at the 192nd Street overpass and Highway 1; work on the 176th Street interchanges; progress on 176th, also called the Pacific Highway, to four lanes from the U.S. border to the Trans-Canada Highway; four-laning of Highway 10, linking the 99A freeway to Pacific Highway and the Trans-Canada; the four-laning of Fraser Highway through Surrey, providing connections to all those vital links.

All these projects are underway and will soon be completed. Preloading is being removed on the Pacific Highway, also known as 176th Street, in preparation for paving. Paving equipment is already on parts of Highway 10. Route-clearing is underway at the 196th Street underpass on Highway 1.

All these projects will speed the flow of goods and services, meaning that transportation operators, commuters and moms and dads taking their kids to sports teams, to shopping will soon be able to save time, energy and have less stress. Businesses will get their goods to and from market faster, and workers can get to and from work in less time, with less stress, without being tied up in long traffic gridlocks.

As well, the new transportation routes will take heavy trucks off the urban streets by making them much safer. And keeping our traffic moving means there's less pollution flowing into the air we breathe.

When all these projects are completed, they will complement the ambitious program our government is undertaking with the creation of the North and South Fraser perimeter roads, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 to eight lanes from Langley to Vancouver.

All these investments in transportation infrastructure are occurring in Surrey and in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, where even more investments are occurring with improvements to 160th Street overpass on Highway 1 and the underpass at 156th Street and Highway 1 to improve access to Fraser Heights from the Guilford area.

All these investments show the vision of our government to keep goods and services moving throughout Surrey and to improve the flow of goods to the rest of the continent. These improvements that this government is making to the transportation system in Surrey will mean that consumers in Prince George or Cranbrook will get their groceries sooner and that the products from the sawmills and manufacturers get to ports much more efficiently and quickly. That means more jobs, more prosperity and more opportunity.

The economy of the world is growing at an incredible pace, particularly in India and China. They need

our materials, and they want to sell their products to the North American market. If this government did not have the vision to get all this transportation infrastructure in place, then someone in the United States will. The ports of Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego are eyeing our success with envy and with plans to take control of this vital aspect of the economy.

If our government did not act and does not continue to act to improve the flow of goods and services to our ports, jobs, prosperity and the huge contributions we make to our health care, education and social programs would not be possible. This government has acted and will stay the course to improve and expand our transportation network to ensure British Columbians will always enjoy the benefits of the robust and vibrant economy we have created.

I am proud to say that my city of Surrey and my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead play a vital role in the transportation network and in the long-term prosperity of British Columbia. I also want to know why those members from opposition — the MLAs from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, Surrey–Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley — won't support the wishes of the constituents to twin the Port Mann Bridge and to widen Highway 1 from Langley to Vancouver and to support the Gateway program.

In fact, I look forward to the members — the four Surrey MLAs and North Delta — responding to my speech by saying that they will listen to the constituents and they will actually support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and eight-laning of Highway 1 from Vancouver to Langley so our constituents — those moms and dads taking their kids to sports teams, to hockey, to baseball, to soccer as well as to work; businesses going to their work; taxis and trucks taking the routes — will be able to benefit and cut down the pollution.

I look forward to the response from the MLAs from the Surrey area from the NDP — that they support this project.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to thank the member for Surrey-Tynehead for calling our attention to the issue of the government's policy with respect to transportation in Surrey. I found much of his presentation interesting but, also, very curious. There are a number of very, very important issues with which he didn't grapple, and I think that it's important that this House deals with them.

When it comes to transportation policy in Surrey, the mayor — who, I note, the member for Surrey-Tynehead didn't quote — only two and a half weeks ago said that there's a crisis in transportation in Surrey. Mayor Watts pointed out, as well she should, that the availability of buses is at crisis proportions for the folks who live in Surrey and work in Surrey and need to move from Surrey to work in other places.

It wouldn't be worth mentioning if that situation weren't a direct outgrowth of government policy — this government's policy — which the member for Surrey-Tynehead spoke of earlier. But he didn't speak of the government policy which forced on the region the RAV line, which is now $2.2 billion and counting. It's a privatized transportation infrastructure which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than it might otherwise cost.

What's important to note with respect to that government policy — the decision of this government to push that project ahead of the regionally determined priority project — is that the consequence of that decision is that the availability of resources to buy buses has been compromised.

Everybody knows and understands that in the lower mainland we are hundreds — not a few, not the problem with the latest 39 buses that are off the roads, but hundreds — of buses under the projection and under the needs of the people of the region. That's the economy — we're talking about people of the region — as a direct result of this government's policy to move ahead with what they're now calling the Canada line, which was the RAV line.

It's curious to me that the member for Surrey-Tynehead wouldn't have referenced the very recent comments of the mayor of Surrey with respect to a crisis in transportation in her municipality as a direct result of this government's policy. It's curious to me as well that we didn't hear much about the Pattullo Bridge in the presentation of the member for Surrey-Tynehead. Government policy bears directly on the terrible situation with respect to the Pattullo Bridge as well.

We know that the Pattullo Bridge is one of the most dangerous stretches of roadway in the lower mainland. Many, many residents of the lower mainland have suggested that, for instance, there be photo radar to keep people safe on the Pattullo Bridge. Those are people going to work, coming from work, participating in the economy. This government's policy has been not to provide that safety for those people. This government's policy doesn't include fixing up the Pattullo Bridge or replacing it or doing something to make it work for the people of Surrey who are participating in the economy.

Finally, I need to mention that the transportation policy of this government is entirely roads-based, or almost entirely roads-based. The member provided for us a litany of the road-based policy of this government, which is in direct contradiction to the so-called commitment of the government to reduce greenhouse gases and to provide better air quality in the lower mainland. So where is the policy on rapid transit, public transit? That policy he didn't mention.

Where is the policy on alternative transportation methods — an increase in the use of rail, in the use of rail with more environmentally friendly fuels, in the use of barge traffic, in the use of waterborne transportation for individuals and commuters? None of that, which should be the policy of the government, did we hear.

D. Hayer: I respect the opinions of the member for Vancouver-Kensington. You know, it reminds me of the policies of the NDP from the 1990s when they took the economy from the best place to the worst place,

Right now the economy is booming. People are coming back here in droves. It was their policies that made sure that the Port Mann Bridge could not carry the buses after they had improved Highway 1 to the end of the Port Mann Bridge. We would have had the buses going on the Port Mann Bridge. People would have used that. Actually, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge will include a light rail system.

You know, when we were looking at the Canada line, the NDP actually was against it. It's amazing why the members from Surrey would not speak on this important issue.

I was looking at one of the issues just from today in the newspaper, which is talking about why the NDP MLAs from Surrey aren't supporting the Gateway program and helping out their constituents. Why are they fearful of their friends from Vancouver? This just shows us today what my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington said — that he doesn't really support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge or the widening of Highway 1.

I'm really surprised at that. Why wouldn't he help out those moms and dads who want to take their car to go to work or to drive their kids to the soccer games or hockey games because they cannot take the RAV line there? They cannot take the buses there because of the geography.

I wish we had more of the transportation system in mass transit. I wish we had more buses. That is because the NDP never really did anything. It is their fault.

I think that when you look at the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, it was designed to carry a light rail system in the future. You'll be able to take a bicycle and ride the bicycle on that. We are putting more money and more investment into green so that people can use more roads for more efficient cars that will produce less pollution from the tailpipe. We're also looking at how people can use more bicycles and how people can use more of the transit system like the Canada line.

But I think we have to work together. I really request of our MLAs from Surrey — Surrey–Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton, Surrey–Panorama Ridge, Surrey-Whalley and Delta North: please listen to your constituents. Support the wishes of people from Surrey. Support the Surrey taxi industry. Support the businesses. Support the working people, who are stuck in traffic and who are wasting so much time and putting so much pollution in the air because traffic is gridlocked.

We need to make sure our environment is clean by making sure the traffic can move much faster. We want to make sure we have more buses there. Twinning the Port Mann Bridge will allow us to take these buses there.

I hope my colleague from Vancouver will tell his NDP members from Surrey and North Delta to actually listen to Surrey constituents. Read the papers from Surrey and listen to them.

C. Trevena: Like many people at the moment, I would like to raise the issue of child care in this House. I hear that there is some surprise that child care is becoming a hot subject in these chambers. Maybe that's because for too long child care has been synonymous with babysitting, but child care isn't about babysitting. It's not about allowing the little woman to go out and earn some pin money.

Women have been hoping for years that child care would be recognized for what it is: an essential part of our social system. I would have thought that child care is something which the members opposite would support because it simply makes good economic sense. Even if the members of the government couldn't support child care as a fundamental part of our social system, as much a part of the fabric of our society as health care and education, we do need it to make the economy work.

I'd like to look at three areas: the benefits to society by investing in children; the benefits to society by allowing parents to fully participate in the workforce; and finally, the small business aspect that is child care.

First, the cost-benefit analysis. The simple figures are that for every dollar you invest in a child, you save $2 later on. For those at risk, a dollar spent gives a $7 return.

This return on investment comes in preventing later social problems where the costs are inevitably higher. Be it in the health care system or the judicial system, costs get higher. Simply put, investing in human capital is economic development. Like good economic investment, the earlier you invest, the better the returns.

Just in case members opposite believe this is an ideological debate, let me quote the Nobel laureate for economics, Dr. James Heckman, who is the Henry Schultz distinguished service professor for economics based at the University of Chicago, a place renowned for its neoliberal economic perspectives.

Dr. Heckman writes: "It is impractical to consider active investment programs for all persons. The real question is how to use the available funds wisely. The best evidence supports the policy prescription: invest in the very young, and improve basic learning and socialization skills."

David Dodge, the governor of the Bank of Canada, has added his voice to the economic and business arguments for a child care system, saying: "The first step to improving skills is to build an excellent infrastructure for early childhood development."

Here in B.C., the Vancouver Board of Trade has recommended that investment in early childhood development should be a spending priority. Last December the Premier's own appointed Progress Board underlined the need to ensure there is high-quality, accessible child care available for B.C.'s children.

A child care system doesn't just make youngsters ready for school academically, as do StrongStart programs. It helps youngsters in all their social development. It's been many years since one parent has had the luxury of being able to stay at home with a child. More than 70 percent of women with children under five are in the workforce. Our society is economically dependent on their contribution. It would cost the country $83 billion if they stayed at home.

At a meeting at the Prince George Chamber of Commerce last month, I was told that child care is not just the number-one issue for the women in the city. It's a main issue for working families — finding space for toddlers or preschoolers, shuffling work with pre- and after-school care, hoping a backup system can be found in case the child gets sick.

I've talked to professional women, nurses and teachers who've decided to drop out of the workforce because they're unable to find child care. I've talked with administrators, with store clerks and with many others who face the same difficulties.

For others, the dual income is not enough to pay for child care. We're talking about $900 to $1,200 a month for one child's care. If there are two or three children, the figures are astounding. I quote these figures because these are families who would like to contribute to the workforce. They'd like to get a mortgage or put down payments on a car, but cannot do so because of child care. Then there are the many thousands of families who are the working poor, for whom child care is simply a dream at these costs.

Parents are squeezed. They stay at work, and a huge proportion of their income goes to child care if they can find it. If they can't, they drop out of the workforce, which to me doesn't make much economic sense. We have a skill shortage, and trained, skilled workers cannot participate in the workforce because they can't find child care. Some 44 percent of B.C. employers are reporting a labour shortage, and still the government doesn't make basic moves to rectify this.

The more people who contribute to the workforce with well-paying jobs, the more money the government can bring in through taxation. To me this is not complicated economics. We as a province can and should invest in our future through investing in child care. Quebec has been held up as a model for child care by many, not just because it provides affordable child care to all parents who choose to access it, but it allows working mothers — an estimated 21-percent increase — to go back into the workforce.

Sadly, it's not only parents who are stressed by the accessibility of child care. It is the child care providers themselves. Another issue that has to be addressed when looking at the economics of child care is that child care providers are businesses. They're businesses which contribute to the B.C. economy. Some are very small, with a mom who decides to open "licence not required" day care while she's bringing up her toddlers, or licensed family day cares where there are a number of employees, or a group day care.

In Campbell River alone, just one town in my constituency, there are 36 licensed providers and a number of others who don't have a licence. Replicate that across the province in the number of businesses that are child care. These are businesses that have been thrown into uncertainty because of the lack of commitment to child care in the budget and by the minister of state's recent statements.

There are a couple of points here. One is that members opposite declare they are friends of business and that they particularly like small business. Well, these are prime examples. Small businesses, often non-unionized, are providing a service. But instead of encouraging them, the lack of investment means they are being forced to the wall.

They are typical small businesses, often working on the margins and relying on operating funds topped up by parents' fees. But with no increase to the operating funds, they know the fees will have to increase and parents will not afford them. The government is forcing them to lose business.

Their workers are already among the lowest-paid, with people with 15 or 20 years' experience earning a maximum of $14 an hour. More often than not child care workers receive about $10 to $12 an hour.

R. Cantelon: I would like to begin by stating that this government is very, very proud of its efforts in recognizing the importance of child care and — in fact, it's much broader than that — in recognizing the importance of early childhood development in building a strong society. I think we've had a no more tireless and passionate advocate than the Minister of State for Childcare. We have supported and will continue to support a wide range of programs that support early childhood learning and child care.

To the member from Vancouver Island North, a couple of points. She mentioned, if I have it correctly, that the implied cost of not allowing women to work is $83 billion. I presume that this is the value of the economic impact these women would have if they were in the workforce, if I take the point correctly.

However, many women do make the choice because as we all know, the parent is, after all, the first teacher to make a choice to stay at home. I think this government…. I'm sure the member opposite would also recognize, in taking her other point, that a dollar invested results in $2 in future value of that child's development costs later on. I would suggest to her that that dollar spent at home on child care is wisely invested versus what that might have earned in the economic world.

The member also mentioned that people with low incomes have difficulty funding and affording child care. That is why this ministry and this government increased subsidy rates to those on lower incomes, especially under six. In regulated facilities it has increased by 15 percent.

One of the key points, though, is that the ceiling of subsidy has risen from $21,000 annual earnings for a family seeking child care support to $38,000, which can be fully subsidized day care. The effect of this has been to increase the number of children able to be funded in day care by 6,500 children, including 6,000 already.

The total in subsidized day care now is $25,000. These subsidies represent an increase from earlier years. It was actually about $92,000 in '04-05, and this year it's projected to increase to $126,000 in the current budget. I would say that that represents some of our commitment to early learning and child care.

It's supported by other programs as well. Supported childhood development programs seek to

support those with early childhood development needs, and $7 million has been set aside for aboriginal early learning.

A number of other programs, as we reorient our early childhood learning program into school districts to include early childhood learning as part of the school districts' mandate, are Success By 6 programs and, of course, the extensive research we've committed to in the early childhood development institute — $7.5 million.

We do recognize, of course — and it's been unfortunate — that the federal government has cut these subsidies to create the bricks and mortar. Early childhood development and child care are much more than about bricks and mortar, though I must certainly say that, again, the Minister of State for Childcare was an enthusiastic advocate of getting the money out, and she certainly did that.

We can report that over $2.7 million was spent on the north part of the Island developing child care centres. Particularly, the member from Port Alberni and others were very successful in acquiring substantial funds, or in taking part in seeing that these funds were forwarded to create child care spaces in their ridings and in the north Island, as well as in Nanaimo.

So the funding continues. The federal government has now chosen to give direct subsidies, $100 per month, to every parent with children under six, and this of course will offset, in a way, a major part of the subsidized cost because the average subsidized cost was $40 per month per child. So the $100 of universal child care benefit will in large measure continue to offset those costs.

We remain, may I say, committed to early childhood learning, and I think we recognize that 25 percent of the children entering school….

C. Trevena: I appreciate the response from the member from Nanaimo. He raised a few very interesting points — for instance, the $100 a month that is coming from the federal government that is being used as an excuse for cuts in child care. I think that the member should remember that that $100 a month is taxable, and for many families, it's already been absorbed. It is not going into specific child care.

He also mentioned subsidy and the fact that the threshold has increased for subsidy. Unfortunately, what he also forgets to mention is that parents still have to pay the difference between what they get in subsidy and the cost of fees. With a lack of funding going to the providers, providers are saying that they're going to have to increase their fees. So parents who are on subsidy are going to face even more of a cost to get their child into child care.

The member also talked about parental choice, that the parents have the choice of keeping a child at home or investing in child care. I have had — as I know that the Minister of State for Childcare has also had, because I am being copied on the e-mails — many, many e-mails from parents who want to have a choice, and want to have the choice of going back to work. A woman in Whistler is facing, if she can find child care, $1,000 a month for child care in Whistler. But her mat leave ends in three months, and she says: "I don't know where I am on the waiting list or whether I will even have day care for my child. I have to be back at work on June 1, and the cuts take place on July 1."

While the member talks about the parental choice, for most parents there isn't a choice. Most parents need to have child care. They need to make that income. They're not doing this just for the fun of it and just to make sure that their children have a place to go and play.

The member also mentioned, as I said, the $100 a month and the federal government. I think that this government is very sadly using the federal government as an excuse. Most people in this province want to have a child care system. They're aware that what we have is a patchwork provision that is expensive or impossible to find, and it isn't a system. They're aware that the government has really no plans but to wring their collective hands and continue to say that it's a federal problem. It isn't. I come back to the fact that it's an economic problem for B.C.

R. Cantelon: One of the five great goals of this government is to create more jobs than any other province in Canada. In this we are exceeding our own expectations. We are creating more employment opportunities than there are people to fill them. However, there is one segment of our society that is not enjoying an equal share of this prosperity.

Persons with disabilities are not reaching employment levels that their education, skills and ability should earn them. In fact, there are 300,000 people with disabilities in British Columbia: 34,000 have college diplomas; 30,000 have trade certificates; and 28,000 have university degrees. Yet only 44 percent of that total of 300,000 have jobs.

The total participation in the labour market is only at 2.2 percent, and the annual hiring rate is only 1 percent. The problem continues to grow as approximately 2,500 to 3,000 permanent disabilities occur to individuals every year in this province, and there are 65,000 compensable accidents annually. It's not that people who are disabled on the job do not wish to return to work. The real physical barriers that are the result of an accident or a naturally occurring disability throw up the initial barrier that, without a back-to-work strategy, can compound into an insurmountable mountain of physical and mental impediments.

The answer to this, Mr. Speaker, is a plan — a strategic plan that addresses both the physical and mental restrictions. Disability management is the discipline that teaches and provides disability managers with the training and tools to assist both the disabled and, just as important, the employers in a plan to get the person suffering the disability back to work, and back to work as soon as possible.

Time is of the essence in beginning this process of rehabilitation and reintroduction to the workplace. It is a consequence of both physical impairment and the mental consequences that if an employee is not reconnected with the work environment within a year, then in 90 percent of these instances re-employment never happens.

This is the challenge. Fortunately, there is an answer to this challenge. It is the National Institute of Disability Management and Research — known by its acronym, NIDMAR — created as a national business, labour, government and educational non-profit organization which would provide national and international leadership, innovation and program development in reducing the socioeconomic costs of disabilities to workers and employees in society. An initial $6.5 million core endowment was raised, which provided employees, workers, unions, compensation boards, and provincial and federal governments with sustainability in perpetuity as well as qualitative independence.

It was launched in 1994, and the society included an international advisory council with senior representatives from the United States, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. Today NIDMAR is co-chaired by senior business and labour leaders, including senior officials from Weyerhaeuser; Canfor; Abitibi-Consolidated, CPR; Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; the steelworkers union; Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union; the Canadian Labour Congress; the Yukon workers safety compensation board; and University of Northern British Columbia.

Today NIDMAR operates in three principal areas related to return of work and disability management: educational programming, professional education and program measurement.

NIDMAR offers programs on line with approximately 1,200 student models each year to participants from across Canada, the United States, Europe, South Africa and Korea. The total investment in curricular development between 1994 and 2007 has been approximately $3 million. Through collaborative process with all the major stakeholders across Canada and the funding of HRDC, NIDMAR developed professional occupational standards in return-to-work and disability management.

The immediate goal of NIDMAR is to create a pre-eminent international educational institute here in British Columbia designed to address a global challenge with major economic consequences of social costs and human tragedy. The new university will be a catalyst for innovative solutions to reduce the number of workplace accidents, diseases and associated economic costs, human suffering and significant social consequences. It will be a worldwide centre of excellence in education and international research in occupational health and safety, disability management, and rehabilitation.

Wolfgang Zimmermann, the executive director, sits on the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance has launched a new initiative, the 10 by 10 Challenge, to increase the employment level of persons with disabilities by 10 percent by 2010.

This is an ambitious and achievable goal. This is a worthy goal in and of itself for the benefits to those with disabilities. But in a broader context, all of B.C. will benefit not only because of the shortage of workers but, more importantly, in increasing the acceptance of persons with disabilities in the workplace among us.

S. Fraser: With all due respect to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Parksville, I agree. Contrary to popular belief, we do sometimes work together on issues that are of common good, and there is a time and a place to set aside politics and partisanship. This initiative, NIDMAR, is one such cause for non-partisan and, I dare say, bipartisan support.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Parksville and I have been working on this collaboratively over the last year, and we both agree that NIDMAR spans politics.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Joachim Breuer, the general director of the federation of German workers compensation boards and chair of the technical commission on workers compensation in Berlin. Joachim heads the largest workers compensation board in the world. We in B.C. and in Canada have much to learn from that German model. Joachim's assessment of the work done by NIDMAR and by the executive director, Wolfgang Zimmermann, is nothing short of brilliant. My German is a little rusty, but Joachim basically stated that for NIDMAR to be formally recognized as a degree-granting institution functioning as a global centre of excellence for B.C., from B.C., is a "no-brainer," I think was the translation.

The tireless work of Wolfgang Zimmermann and the inception of NIDMAR itself, I am proud to say, are from the constituency that I represent. Port Alberni has been a leader in the implementation of disability management programs in the workplace. We've also been the leader in setting up the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, with its headquarters at North Island College in Port Alberni. The insti-

tution was set up at North Island College, with much of the curriculum produced in Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley.

The sad fact is that discrimination in the workplace occurs against those with disabilities, and we all lose with attitudes like that. Those individuals that face the unique challenges of overcoming disabilities grow in a way that many of us will never understand, and that growth is often reflected in leadership qualities that society must recognize and utilize. That will be to the benefit of all of us.

NIDMAR's mandate is to offer innovation, leadership and improved collaboration between employers and workers in achieving better return-to-work and socioeconomic outcomes for all stakeholders. This collaborative effort of major companies and unions has been successful to the point that NIDMAR developed professional program standards in disability management that have been formally licensed by a number of countries throughout the world.

I support the directors of NIDMAR. I support their attempts to establish the Pacific coast university of workplace health and sciences as a global centre of excellence designed to provide international innovation and leadership in the areas of occupational health and safety, disability management, and rehabilitation.

For the last 20 years Canada has tied for the worst place in the western industrialized world for industrial fatalities, and it has the worst record for reducing fatality in industrial accidents and diseases over the same period of time. In fact, over the last ten years in Canada the number of industrial fatalities has increased by more than 30 percent, and British Columbia has recorded in 2005 the highest number of industrial fatalities in over 25 years.

NIDMAR's collaborative model, through its professional and program standards, has taken the lead in creating the first consensus-based code of practice for disability management. It has become, through the support of unions, business, employers and government, a standard across Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland to date, and others are in the mix now.

In 2005 the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, NIDMAR, signed a memorandum of agreement with the province of British Columbia for the creation of a degree-granting institution functioning as a global centre of excellence for education and research in workplace health and safety, disability management, and rehabilitation. It is now 2007. It's time to make that a reality.

R. Cantelon: I would agree with the member for Alberni-Qualicum that we are happily agreed on this subject that much needs to be done and that there's a great opportunity, with NIDMAR establishing a worldwide centre of excellence, to give a place for the leadership they've shown in innovation and in creating programs for disability management research that are used worldwide.

But it is also a broader problem than simply disability management and research. There's much to be done about removing the stigma of people with disabilities in the workforce. This stigma is part of what causes the reluctance and the difficulty of people re-entering the workforce.

In a recent international labour conference — yes, I'm quoting the International Labour Conference, quite proudly; the 95th session in Geneva in 2006 — they recognized the global magnitude of occupational injuries, recalling that the protection of workers against sickness, disease and injury arising out of employment is among the objectives of the International Labour Conference, and that occupational injuries and diseases have a negative impact on productivity. It goes on to say, it will offer a way forward to ensure that those with disabilities enjoy the same human rights as everyone else in education, employment, access to buildings and other facilities, and access to justice.

I would add that this, of course, is one of the prime objectives of the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, who has enlisted Mr. Wolfgang Zimmermann, the executive director of NIDMAR, to assist them in their ambitious 10 by 10 Challenge program, which is to increase the employment — which I mentioned before is at a low level of 44 percent of all people by disabilities — by 10 percent by the year 2010. It's an ambitious program that all members of labour and union are united in doing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is from the Secretary General of the UN on rights of people with disabilities. His comments are: "Today promises to be the dawn of a new era — an era in which disabled people will no longer have to endure the discriminatory practices and attitudes that have been permitted to prevail for all too long."

This thought and this initiative that's taking place — and it certainly had its genesis in the riding of Alberni-Qualicum — is one that both sides of this House can enthusiastically embrace. We look forward to it coming to full fruition.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 43 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

M. Sather: For the benefit of this House and those that may be watching on television, the motion reads:

The trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — or TILMA, as it's called — is an agreement that was signed between the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta in April 2006. The agreement is scheduled to come into effect on April 1 of this year.

There has been no opportunity for public input into TILMA. Citizens of this province have had less right to comment on this agreement than is ensured to the province of Alberta under TILMA. Under article 7.2 of TILMA, Alberta has the right to comment on any measure that the province of B.C. intends to adopt that might have an effect on TILMA.

It is the position of the opposition that this government must provide the public with an opportunity to engage in a conversation on TILMA. This is an agreement with potentially far-reaching consequences, as we will outline this morning. Despite these far-reaching consequences, this government has chosen not to bring this agreement before the House. We submit that it is incumbent upon this government, in the name of good government and in the name of open and honest government, to bring legislation on TILMA before this House.

With TILMA there is an underlying assumption that there are significant interprovincial trade barriers. However, there's been a lack of evidence to support this contention. The Conference Board of Canada, in a document entitled "Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts," stated that there are a thicket of provincial barriers resulting in the balkanization of our national economic space. However, they provided only two examples: Quebec's prohibition of coloured margarine and Ontario's restriction of vegetable oil–based substitutes for dairy products. No doubt the Conference Board could provide some other examples, but there is a dearth of objective data that (1) there are a significant number of interprovincial trade barriers, and (2) these trade barriers have a significant economic impact.

In a 1998 study by UBC economist Brian Copeland, he noted: "Because trade barriers between the provinces are low, efforts to liberalize those barriers that do exist are likely to have a small effect on trade flows. Much of the debate is not really about interprovincial trade but rather about how decentralized the policy regime should be in Canada and how much flexibility government should have to intervene in markets."

I think that speaks to the general intent of this government. Since first being elected six years ago, this government has consistently shown their intent to allow corporations to operate with as little input as possible from the provincial government. Our concern about TILMA, and the reason we are opposed to the deal, is that it allows corporate interests wide-ranging powers, to the considerable detriment of the interests of the public of this province.

British Columbia and Alberta enlisted the Conference Board of Canada to study the effects of non-tariff interprovincial barriers to trade investment and labour mobility between British Columbia and Alberta. The Conference Board claims that implementation of TILMA could create 78,000 new jobs and an increase of $4.8 billion in GDP for B.C. However, this claim is not backed up by solid evidence.

First of all, only one-third of the business lobby groups bothered to respond to the Conference Board study, providing a very small sample size and suggesting that the business groups are not that concerned. The responses from government departments in British Columbia to the deal were described as mixed — certainly not a ringing endorsement of TILMA.

The methodology used by the Conference Board study is also flawed. Arbitrary scales of estimated impact on GDP were used, and there is a basic arithmetical error in the calculations. At least 60 percent of TILMA's estimated provincewide benefits are based on industries that are wholly or partly exempt from the agreement — such as utilities, energy, mining, forestry and fishing — or that barely engage in interprovincial trade — such as retail trade.

Furthermore, the board didn't count the costs alongside the alleged benefits of TILMA. If we gain by exports to Alberta, there's a cost of imports from Alberta.

Madam Speaker, in the time I have left, I want to challenge one statement made in this House last week by the Minister of Economic Development. He said that a lot of the language contained in TILMA goes back to the agreement on internal trade, or AIT, and that the same interpretations spill over into the TILMA agreement as we go forward.

Although the two agreements have some similar provisions — for example, prohibitions against government measures that are obstacles to trade — the AIT has riders that TILMA does not. First of all, the AIT is largely a voluntary agreement that allows screening of complaints to prevent those that are frivolous or vexatious or intended to harass. There are no such clauses in TILMA.

Secondly, AIT dispute panels do not grant monetary awards to complainants, as is allowed under TILMA.

Thirdly, article 3 under TILMA, "No obstacles," notes that each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict investment. The AIT, on the other hand, in article 600 excludes the no-obstacle provisions for investment. The no-obstacles article is a powerful provision under TILMA that will restrict the ability of the dispute panel to override the objections of an investor to government decisions.

Finally, under TILMA, article 1, in the event of an inconsistency between the AIT and TILMA, investors will be able to use whichever agreement is more favourable to their case.

There are better ways to deal with whatever interprovincial trade barriers exist between British Columbia and Alberta than through the heavy hand of TILMA. Businesses could compile publicly available lists of trade barriers. Citizens could be involved in responding to those concerns. The governments of Brit-

ish Columbia and Alberta could then work together to remove any barriers that have an economic cost but do not serve to protect important issues of public policy.

I am hopeful that the government will reconsider this agreement, that they will allow for public input and that if they intend to continue with the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, they will bring it before this House for full debate.

R. Hawes: It's interesting that the member speaks so strongly sort of in favour of TILMA but yet opposed. I have to congratulate him on the way he read that speech, which I'm quite sure the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives had some hand in writing for him.

The first thing I want to touch on is a number of the comments that were made by the member — first of all, about secrecy or the lack of any kind of consultation. I just want to read something here, which is a quote from the minister, but I think any kind of investigation by that member or any of the members opposite would reveal that this is quite factual.

"The province has not tried to hide the initiative to open up British Columbia's economy. Our record of joint cabinet ministers going back three years is available on the websites. We've consulted with ministries, business groups, self-regulatory bodies, local government, small business groups, industry associations and academics." That was in the Campbell River Mirror on February 1 of this year.

This has been the subject of pretty wide consultation. That's number 1. Number 2: as we all know, any barrier to trade hurts our economy. The member did quote the Conference Board and their numbers. He questioned their numbers, and I'm sure they are different than what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives would put out as they churn out their left-wing diatribe.

However, the Conference Board is a well-respected organization, and they have produced numbers that would indicate that the barriers to trade in this country and between our province and Alberta are very, very significant and do cost our economy.

In 1994 the NDP put the AIP — the Canadian agreement between all provinces, the AIT, the agreement on internal trade barriers — together without debate in the Legislature, without public input. Now they're crying for public debate, and they're crying for debate in the Legislature. We are about to move into estimates, and as we move into estimates, they'll have ample opportunity to talk to the minister to ask whatever questions they want to ask. There is lots and lots of time.

R. Hawes: The member talks about the time being cut back in estimates, but interestingly, they don't like the budget debate process. They don't like the throne speech debate process, but they want a process for debating TILMA. On one hand, they want longer time for estimates. On the other, they seem to be arguing for less time on estimates. It's very typical of what happens with the opposition. They frequently try to suck and blow at the same time, and everyone knows that doesn't work. Really, it amounts to hypocrisy.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the member spoke about all the problems that are going to arise — the social problems, the problems with municipalities, etc. None of those are true. There are exemptions. There are all kinds of protections put in place for our province, and we know that the government will not go ahead with any agreement that could possibly do any damage to our province. We have been busy for six years trying to repair the damage that the previous government did to our province.

I can tell you, it is a daunting task. But we are succeeding, and we are going to continue on with TILMA because it's good for our province and it's good for the citizens of British Columbia. Everything about the TILMA agreement is right, and it will have a broad public airing providing that the opposition wishes to speak to it in estimates. If they do wish to, then it will be broadly canvassed.

At the same time, if there are any amendments to any legislation required due to TILMA, those will also come in front of the House, and the members opposite will have ample opportunity to discuss TILMA in the amendments that may come forward as a consequence of TILMA moving forward.

This agreement, in short, helps us build an economy that competes with the east. It creates jobs; it creates wealth. I know that these are all things the opposition doesn't seem to like, but we, on the other hand — who are building an economy, who are building a province that our children can inherit and be proud of — are moving ahead and are dedicated to that purpose.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm happy to rise to speak to this motion, which I support very strongly. It's particularly good to be rising after that incisive and content-laden presentation that we heard from another member.

One thing the member did say — and he repeated — was that the government considers this agreement to be very important. He reiterates what we've heard from the minister and others on the government side talking about this legislation. But despite the importance of the agreement, the government is unprepared to bring it to the House.

Madam Speaker, isn't that what we do here? Isn't that our job — to debate important proposals that impact the people of British Columbia? I thought that's what I was elected to do. But this government claims that this important issue somehow is not appropriate to be brought to the floor of this House.

Now, everybody knows this is a government that doesn't have compassion, but I would argue this is another example, another piece of evidence, that this is a government without courage. This is a government without the courage to bring what they claim is an important economic initiative to the floor of this House.

In addition, it's part of a pattern — isn't it? You cancel the fall session. You mess unilaterally with the schedule. You take important issues that should be

discussed in the House, and you don't bring them to the House. I think it says something about the commitment to democracy of this government, and I think it's something that we need to be very concerned about.

Just one small issue — it's not so small — one issue with respect to the agreement that this government has entered into that's very, very important and I want a debate. I want an opportunity to debate. I want an opportunity in this House to question the minister, to go through committee stage, to look at amendments on this issue — one among many, many others.

Government claims, and the minister has claimed, that the government has reserved the right to supersede the agreement when they're pursuing what's claimed to be a legitimate objective. Well, if you look carefully, you find that it's a bit more complicated than that. I would have thought that the government would want to debate and discuss this notion of legitimate objective in article 6 of TILMA, because it turns out that a legitimate objective has to meet some tests.

The test that government is pursuing, which is one of the very few objectives that TILMA defines as legitimate; and the test that the measure is not more restrictive than "necessary" — interesting word — might be worth a discussion in this House. And third, that they are not engaged in "a disguised restriction on trade investment or labour mobility…."

D. Chudnovsky: …qualifications — thank you, Member — that would allow government to supersede TILMA. It's all three of them. You have to pass all three of the tests.

Who decides? Who decides if you've passed the test? Is it the Legislature? Is it local communities, local governments? Is it regional districts? Is it somebody who was elected by somebody in British Columbia who gets to decide whether these tests have been met? No, Madam Speaker. An extrademocratic, appointed trade panel gets to decide.

Now, I would have liked to have discussed that with the minister and the government and had an opportunity to have questions asked and amendments put forward and committee stage dealt with, but not this government. This government has no compassion and no courage, not prepared to bring this agreement to the House.

If we're going to race to the bottom, which is what this agreement prepares us to do, let's at least have a debate about it in the House before we move in that direction.

B. Bennett: Sometimes the things that I hear in this place defy reason. The member just said that this government is in a race to the bottom. The member ought to take a look at the unemployment rates for this province. Every single region in this province has the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the province. We've got the second-fastest growing economy in the country. If that's a race to the bottom, boy, I'd hate to see what they think success is.

This agreement was signed on April 28, 2006. That meant we had about a month left of estimates last year, and I don't recall that the opposition asked any questions. Now, they may have, but I don't recall that they asked any questions about TILMA last year when they had that opportunity.

TILMA, as my colleague said earlier, is similar — it's not exactly the same, but it's similar — to the agreement on internal trade. I think the point there is that former Minister Clark signed that agreement in 1994, and there was absolutely no discussion of that agreement — absolutely no discussion of that agreement in this House.

The New Democrats are naive about how the economy works, and they may believe that our country is cruising along with all those large surpluses that are announced in Ottawa on a regular basis. But our standard of living in this country is at risk. Canada is, in fact, not keeping up with other countries in the world in terms of economic performance, and our national economy is starting to show some signs of trouble and neglect.

The balkanization of Canada into ten separate provincial fiefdoms, each with their distinct rules for commerce, trade, training, education and the environment, is causing a deterioration of our position in the world. I go back to 1986 when the Canadian average income was about $2,000 less than the average income in the States. By 2003 that gap had grown to $6,000. In 1990, in this country, we ranked fifth in the world in per-capita income. Today we have fallen to tenth. We're going backwards as a nation.

Every day in this country, forward-looking Canadian businesses and ordinary Canadians struggle through a complex entanglement of barriers to success. Federal, provincial and municipal governments command companies to reregister their businesses, relicense their staff. They subject them to its unique approval processes, procurement policies, technical requirements and environmental standards, and they establish their own separate disclosure and privacy regimes, often for the sole purpose of protecting a local industry from competition.

Canadians can't move easily to work in other provinces. Industries cannot recruit easily. Students face difficulties in transferring credits from one post-secondary institution to another, and supply chains across provincial borders face obstacles that have been eliminated anywhere else in the world.

TILMA will create the second-largest economy in Canada, and it'll give B.C. more clout in Ottawa. That's got to be a good thing for British Columbia. TILMA will reduce the complexity, the duplication and the waste, and it will allow British Columbians to focus on creating jobs, developing their good ideas, new ideas, getting an education and building a better future.

TILMA — despite what we have heard in the House and read in the media from the opposition — does not jeopardize the ALR or municipal bylaws.

TILMA does not require harmonization of our regulations with Alberta's. It requires the two jurisdictions to cooperate on removing unnecessary barriers to trade, investment and training. TILMA does not impair the ability of the B.C. government to act in the public interest. TILMA requires B.C. to finally start building a relationship with our neighbour to the east and start treating at least one other Canadian province like we already treat the rest of the world.

The Conference Board of Canada said in its 2007 report Mission Possible: Sustainable Prosperity for Canada that interprovincial trade barriers cost money and stifle job growth. Combining B.C. and Alberta economies could add $4.8 billion to our GDP — maybe it won't be $4.8 billion; maybe it will only be $4.6 billion or $4.5 billion — and create 78,000 new jobs in B.C. alone.

At a time when the world is shrinking, when information, people, services and products are moved about the globe at an unbelievable pace, it ought to be an embarrassment to all Canadians that our nation is balkanized into trade fortresses. B.C. and Alberta have been congratulated by the Conference Board of Canada and by Maclean's magazine for entering into TILMA and taking on the decades-old problem in Canada of interprovincial parochialism.

Now if the NDP understood concepts like productivity and competitiveness, they would recognize that TILMA is a good thing for B.C.

C. Puchmayr: Well, we heard from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, and his comments were quite interesting. Everything to him is either left or right, and he didn't really give us any real reason why TILMA should be acceptable. Yet he bought into the equation as if it was the best thing that was ever brought forward without debate.

I'm very concerned when I hear members on the other side who really haven't looked at the potential impacts of TILMA and the fact that we're not going to have this debate in the House where we can actually go into committee stage and clarify to the members opposite the impacts that TILMA may have on their very communities…. Their very communities could be affected to such a degree that they are going to take planning in those communities out of the hands of the elected municipal officials, out of the hands of the regional districts, and into some fear that they may be challenged in a court of law and have to pay significant fines and penalties with respect to breaches of TILMA.

Oregon is an example of that. That is happening right now, as we speak, where municipalities are not risking litigation, and development is running roughshod on those communities.

I look at the aspects with respect to trade. There are very few restrictions left in cross-border trade. Those restrictions have left, certainly after NAFTA, and there's a lot of liberalization of trade across the borders already.

There's not a border there. You don't need to have documents in two languages. You don't need a passport. Most of the workforce does move freely across the borders, other than workforces that have certain governances and different colleges that govern certain workers.

I'm surprised that the members across have all this wisdom about the virtues of TILMA. Yet when we met with the staff this morning, and we put some questions to them — questions we would be putting through committee stage if this bill were coming here — they didn't have the answers. They absolutely didn't have the answers.

I was absolutely shocked that the questions that we brought forward, that we have been bringing forward and trying to get into this House, that when we finally were able to get a bit of a briefing on them, those questions couldn't be answered. It scares me that the other side is just able to accept this agreement with all these unanswered questions. That's why you need a full debate in the Legislature so that we can flush these issues out.

With training, one of the examples that was given were locksmiths. In Alberta a locksmith doesn't need to have the same training as in British Columbia, but merely has to have a certification, a records check, and can carry locksmith tools — or breaking-and-entering tools you could call them as well.

That concerns me. Now we have to lower our standard to that, so that someone can merely go out, get a records check and then buy locksmith tools and travel around legally in British Columbia. It concerns me.

The standard of training. You know, when we put the question to them with respect to the standard of training: what do you yield to if one province has a lower standard of training? Do you yield to that lower standard of training?

The way I read TILMA is that you do. I would love to be able to flush this out in committee stage here as the bill was being democratically debated in this House. I would like to flush those things out.

Why would you want to take a trade and lower it to the lowest standard, when the lowest standard is not only a standard with respect to the technical qualifications? It's also a standard for safety — with young people being able to get the best type of training and education in the trades, where they go out and work safely, where they're able to come home safely, where we're not having this high incidence of young people that are dying on the job today.

TILMA does not give me comfort that we are going to protect our young people in this province who are getting trades when we're yielding to the lowest common denominator.

Those concerns are there, and those are concerns that we need to address on TILMA. It is not something that is going to create the billions of dollars — the $4.8 billion — that Conference Board, which is also the board that's now patting the government on the back for going into this direction….

Trade is trade. If there is a push, there's zero gain. There is a push. Do you think Alberta would sign a deal if they knew that at the end of the day, Alberta is

Hon. C. Hansen: It gives me pleasure to be able to participate in this discussion this morning. I know the time is very brief, with just five minutes, but I'll try to touch on some of the points that have been raised.

Most importantly, I think I want to start just by asking a question: why do we need TILMA? I've heard the member for New Westminster and others saying that there are no real barriers, impediments to trade across provincial boundaries. I would suggest that that member get out and meet with some of the industry organizations. They can walk him chapter and verse through the kind of impediments that are faced.

Let me just give two quick examples. One example is of a nurse who lived in a community in northern British Columbia with her husband. Her husband got transferred to Alberta. Now, B.C. is short of nurses, as we have heard from the Health Minister from time to time. Alberta is short of nurses.

That nurse moved with her husband to northern Alberta. She would love to have started nursing the very next day in Alberta, but she couldn't because she had to go through a whole bunch of new tests so that she could get registered, accepted and certified as a nurse in Alberta. In my view, a nurse is a nurse, and we need them working, not sitting at home waiting for them to do tests and exams and applications and more red tape in order for them to be practising their profession in another province.

Let me give you another example, and that's of a business owner. A business owner in southeastern British Columbia sees a tender that comes up to supply a product in a community on the Alberta side of the border. He has to then put in his tender, but he has to incorporate in Alberta separate from his incorporation in British Columbia. Under TILMA, that duplication of paperwork, red tape, expense and time won't be necessary. If he gets a contract to do a job in Alberta, he can go and do it, and he doesn't have to actually go through that kind of duplication.

I could go through case after case after case of examples that aren't the big thing about tollbooths or customs booths at the border. They're about real costs — real costs that ultimately get borne by consumers in B.C. or Alberta because, at the end of the day, somebody has to pay for them.

The agreement on internal trade that was signed ten years ago actually contemplates that provinces would move forward to liberalize trade. There's an article — it's actually article 1800, which is under the title of "Trade enhancement arrangements" — that permits parties to the AIT to enter into additional arrangements to liberalize trade. That's exactly what we have done with TILMA going forward.

There have been lots of consultations over the last couple of years — consultations with the various licensing bodies that are going to be affected by that, with the UBCM and with various organizations that have provided us with advice as we have negotiated TILMA. But more importantly, I think there has been a broad public debate for the last ten years about the inadequacies of the agreement on internal trade, the need for us to move forward to liberalizing that far and the absolute failure of progress on the agreement on internal trade.

As other members have pointed out, there was no debate in this House on the agreement on internal trade that was signed by Glen Clark when he was the Minister of Employment and Investment, I think it was at the time.

There is going to be a great opportunity for all of the members of the opposition to ask as many questions as they want for as long as they want when we get into the estimates debate on the Ministry of Economic Development. I invite them to come to the estimates debate….

Hon. C. Hansen: I invite them to come to the estimates debate, and they know the rules. They can take as much time as they want to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development. They can spend weeks, if they want, on TILMA, asking whatever questions they want on TILMA, and I will be there willing to answer them as we go.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the short time that I have I will try to focus in on just a couple of quick things. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talked about what would happen if there was a disagreement between TILMA and the AIT. He said it would be that the business would get to pick the terms most favourable for their case.

You know, that's not what the agreement says. If he actually took the time to read it, it says: "In the event of an inconsistency between any provisions in parts 2, 4 and 6 of this agreement and any provision on the agreement on internal trade, the provision that is more conducive to liberalized trade investment and labour mobility prevails" — not what works best for business, as that member said, but the provision that is the most open.

That's just one example. We can go through lots more examples when we get into estimates.

J. Kwan: My first response back to the minister is this: a rose is a rose by any other name. Let us be clear what we're debating in this Legislature today. The motion reads: "Be it resolved that this House urge the BC Government to introduce the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta to this House for full debate before it comes into effect on April 1, 2007."

This minister has been around this House for a long time, and he knows very well that chances are the estimates debate would actually not be before this House before April 1. Today is March 5. The clock is ticking, and TILMA is going to kick in.

The reality is this: this government, this minister — in fact, this Premier — signed this agreement behind closed doors with the former Alberta Premier, Ralph Klein. That's what happened. They negotiated it behind closed doors. There was no public consultation. There were no public meetings regarding this. To date, there are no public meetings regarding this.

The community is calling for this government to actually step up and be accountable. That's what we want. That's what this motion speaks to. We're asking for the government to be accountable to British Columbians.

If this agreement is as great as they tout it to be, then what are they afraid of? Isn't that what this legislation was meant to do — to engage in full debate around laws that would be brought in to impact British Columbia? Why wouldn't the government commit to that? Isn't that your very basic level of accountability and openness that this Liberal government claims that they want to have and aspire to?

It's funny. The Alberta Liberal members actually call for the backroom deal to be brought to the public. In fact, they say: "If the agreement is so good, then what are they afraid of?" Why are they afraid to shine a light on it in the respective legislatures? That's the question that I have for this government.

Interestingly — let's just be clear — the New Democrats do support and want to promote interprovincial trade, but we want to do it in a responsible manner. We want to do it in an open manner, and we want to do it in such a way that actually ensures there is protection for British Columbians. You know, if the answers were there for everyone else to see and it was just the New Democrats who don't get it, then tell me this…. I just came out of a briefing this morning with ministry staff, and virtually every question that was put to them, they could not answer.

Let me begin with this question to the minister: "Did the government conduct a legal opinion on TILMA? What was that legal opinion in terms of the impact of TILMA for British Columbians?" The answer was: "Don't know. Going to have to get back to you on that."

We asked the question: "Was UBCM consulted before signing TILMA?" The answer was: "Don't know. Going to have to get back to you on that."

"Is the Islands Trust exempted from TILMA?" The answer was: "Don't know. We have to check into that."

On implementation, April 1, 2007: "It applies to every area with the exception of the list that was identified." So this question: does the government now have a comprehensive list of all the areas that would be exempted that is available for us to see? "Well, we're going to have to try and get that for you."

What happens if an area is missed in that identification period, as the chopping block is coming down on April 1? In less than a month this thing is going to come into effect, and what happens in the oh-so-public-and-complete consultation process the government has engaged in? What if they just missed an area or two? What happens with that? Oh, I guess that list remains that is unresolved.

Well, great, then. It goes before a panel. Then that means that British Columbians' interests will rest on a panel, without debate in this Legislature. I ask the question: on the onus, whose responsibility is it to make sure that professional associations are consulted? The onus rests with the line ministries. I have a lot of faith in that — or not.

I cannot tell you how concerning it is in terms of the lack of answers that this government has provided with respect to this. The government says: "Oh, don't worry. On the issue around standards, in terms of professional standards, the higher standard would prevail." Really? Where does it say that in TILMA? Put that in writing. Amend that in the Legislature. That's what we would call for. That was a question put to the ministry staff. And you know what. The answers were insufficient. That's why this motion has to be passed today.

J. Rustad: We've heard some lively and passionate debate. It's interesting. The mover, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, came out and said in his statement that he and the NDP do not support TILMA. We've just heard now from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that they support interprovincial trade. However, they do say that they support interprovincial trade but they want to protect B.C.

There you go. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to have provincial trade, but they want to be able to protect. That, quite frankly, is the definition of socialism. I read from an interesting little article here from a few years back. It says: "Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of our people and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation."

J. Rustad: You know what is very interesting about this, despite the heckles from the member…. One of the authors of this is, quite frankly, very well known. But let me get into what they would like to see.

The NDP are not interested in free trade. They are not interested in the ability of businesses to be able to expand and prosper. Here is what they are interested in. The little manifesto that was written a number of years ago calls for public ownership of the decisive sectors of the economy — in particular, the resource, finance, manufacture, transportation and communication sectors. This is what the NDP are upset about, about TILMA. It doesn't follow to the core of the socialist principles that they believe within their party.

The mover of the motion here actually also came out and said that our goal in doing this is for businesses to have as little input as possible from government. In other words, what they are saying is that they want regulation. They want to be interfering, having their hands in and disrupting businesses, just like they did in the '90s. It's quite clear that they learned absolutely no lessons whatsoever about how they drove out business in the '90s and how they drove our economy into the ground.

They aren't happy about the fact that we have seen businesses rise up. We have seen economic activity. We have seen progress and success in this province that has been unparalleled. They're not happy in that. I find it quite interesting that the member for New Westminster who got up and spoke said that this morning they went and asked some questions about TILMA.

They went and had an opportunity. They said: "We went and asked some questions." TILMA has been around since April of last year. We're here now debating today, and they didn't have any thoughts whatsoever about TILMA. They didn't go and ask any questions, and they didn't do the prep. They went this morning and asked a few questions. It's very clear, from my perspective, that this whole debate here this morning about wanting to be able to have this motion move into the House and have TILMA in the House is purely….

J. Rustad: It's clearly about nothing more than ideology, and that's why I talked about the ideology from before. Clearly, the difference here is that they are against trade. They are against opportunity because they cannot have the types of controls and balances that they want to be able to have, which they had in the '90s when they drove things into the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to keep my speech quite short, because I know the member for Peace River South would also like to get in some comments. His riding borders on Alberta, and the opportunity for trade back and forth is so very important. I'm very pleased that TILMA has been done and that we are proceeding with this. I look forward to hearing the members' questions in estimates, because there will be ample opportunity to debate this in the House.

L. Krog: I think it's worthwhile, for the benefit of the viewing audience today, to actually read this motion. It is a motion by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, which says: "Be it resolved that this House urge the BC Government to introduce the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta to this House for full debate before it comes into effect on April 1, 2007."

I have listened to government members brag and brag and brag about all the good things happening in British Columbia that they take credit for. That leads me to the obvious question: if this is such a good deal for British Columbians, why aren't we in this House day after day hearing about it? Why aren't we debating it clause by clause so they can tell us how great it's going to be for every British Columbia businessperson, for every entrepreneur, for every labourer or worker who wants to cross over into Alberta or every Albertan who wants to come into British Columbia? Why don't we hear that? That's my very simple question this morning to the government side.

I've sat on a government back bench. I've sat back and perhaps let things slide through that shouldn't have slid through. I'll be candid with the members of this House. So I'm appealing today to the members of the back bench on the government side to actually sit back and consider the impact of this, and most particularly for them to go back to local government representatives — who are now beginning to understand the potential implications and ramifications of this agreement and who are raising concerns — and ask them what they think about it.

If this is so good, why can't we debate it? If this is to have the kind of impact the government and the minister talked about this morning, why can't we debate it? It's a very simple proposition. By refusing to debate and saying that we can deal with this issue in estimates, with great respect to the government side, I think they show contempt for both parliamentary practice and tradition.

If this treaty has the kind of impact that they suggest, then it should be debated in full in this House. To talk about a consultation process that involves consultation with individuals in British Columbia is no answer whatsoever. The fact is that members of this Legislature are elected to represent the interests of the people of British Columbia. We are the ones who should be debating this full out in this House so that the people of British Columbia can actually determine whether or not what the government says is true.

Until this government is prepared to allow debate around this treaty in this House, then what I say to the government is: don't be afraid. Don't be chicken. If it's that good, let us have our go at it. Let us do our job as members of the opposition. Instead of being restricted to asking questions in estimates and being able to debate this motion this morning, let us have a full and open debate in this Legislature.

B. Lekstrom: I rise to speak against the motion that's on the floor today regarding wanting to bring the debate of TILMA onto the floor of the Legislature. We are here to debate legislation. This isn't legislation. It's an agreement that was negotiated between two parties:

I think that we elect governments to govern on our behalf, whether it's the New Democrats in the '90s or the B.C. Liberals now. That's the job that we're elected to do.

I live right next to the Alberta border in the northeast part of our province, and I heard the member for New Westminster, from the opposite side, say that there is not a border there. Well, let me tell you: there is. We live with it each and every day — the differences between B.C. and Alberta.

In my lifetime I have heard nothing except the fact that we want to streamline. We want to work together with our neighbours to the east of us. We want to work with B.C. and Alberta to ensure that the playing field that we operate on — as business, as workers, as industry — is as level as possible so that we can benefit from each other. That's what this agreement is about.

I also heard the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who introduced this, talk about article 7.2 and say that Alberta would have the ability to discuss something and that B.C. wouldn't.

I do want to read article 7.2 for the public who may be listening to this debate. It says: "A party proposing to adopt or amend a measure that may materially affect the operation of this agreement shall, to the extent practicable: (a) notify the other party of its intention; (b) provide a copy of the proposed measure to the other party on request; and (c) provide the party with an opportunity to comment on the measure, and take such comments into consideration."

I don't see where Alberta has a benefit over British Columbia there. I see this as both sides working together.

The document is 36 pages long. If the members opposite haven't read it or if members on this side of the House haven't read it cover to cover, I encourage you to do so. I also encourage the public to do so.

We get a lot of debate. That seems to be politics in British Columbia, where people will write e-mails to you. They'll be upset or concerned about something, and when you write back to find out where they got their concerns, they heard about them from somebody else. When you write back with the proper information, what I find…. I'll speak to my experience. Many times people are quite amazed that the factual information is different from what they heard.

I think that's the biggest issue we face in British Columbia, right across. Whether it's TILMA or any other piece of legislation, be informed about what you want to speak about. If you're not informed, you leave yourself wide open.

I do want to comment briefly on the fact that we're hearing a request that we bring this forward to discuss and debate in the Legislative Assembly. The agreement on internal trade — and I know it's been said many times, but I want this clear for the public — was not brought before this Legislative Assembly by the New Democrat government in 1994 to debate it. So to stand up and be as righteous as what I'm hearing, to say: "My God. Government, you're way off base. We want this on the floor…." I don't think that happened in 1994.

This is a good document. I'm going to read another thing. Nothing in TILMA requires B.C. municipalities to change land use decisions applying to areas like sign bylaws, building height restrictions, zoning, agricultural land reserves or parks. TILMA also does not apply to measures related to water, taxation, labour standards — which I've heard members indicate that it may — or social policy.

This is a good document. It's one that builds bridges between the two provinces. It grows our economic opportunities for both British Columbia and Alberta. It isn't about major corporations — although, let me tell you, we're lucky we have corporations that will employ both British Columbians and Albertans.

I don't know if it's an anti-corporate view that the opposition brings forward, but corporations aren't the devil. We're lucky we have people out there that take the capital risk, that invest to create jobs for people like ourselves and our children and our grandchildren. What this document does, I think, is build a bridge that has been broken for some time. We're moving forward.

Also, the exemptions under part 5 are laid out very clearly. There are concerns that people have expressed, but what I want to make sure of is that when they express their concerns, they're actually well-read on the document and are not believing some of the rhetoric that's put out there.

It's a good document. I support this document. It will not only help the people of British Columbia. I'm going to be somewhat greedy here, Mr. Speaker, and tell you that we in the northeast have been waiting for this for a long, long time.

B. Ralston: This agreement has potentially sweeping implications for a number of sectors of society, and there appears to be a growing concern about how it might apply. In particular, municipalities have begun to express a growing concern about the implications of this agreement for the operation of municipal government.

The motion is a very simple one. It's that this agreement come before the Legislature for a full debate. This is a very short and truncated debate on a motion, and it doesn't comprise the kind of full debate that's really necessary on this agreement to meet the concerns that people are beginning to express.

This agreement was signed by the two governments of Alberta and British Columbia behind closed doors, without any prior notice or public discussion. Since then, the agreement is due to come into effect on April 1 of this year — no doubt a propitious day for this agreement to come into force.

There is a concern that the public has not been brought in to understanding the agreement, and there is a requirement, we say, for a full debate in order that

the full implications of this agreement can be understood by the public. People can make up their own minds, as members opposite say, as to whether to support it or not. Rather than simply bringing this into effect without public discussion, we are of the view that full public discussion in the Legislature is the appropriate place for that discussion to take place.

Noting the hour — and I note the commitment of both sides of the House that this come to a vote — I would ask that this matter…. I will conclude my remarks by making that comment and expecting that the matter will come to a vote.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to adjournment. Therefore, the division will take place at 6 p.m. tonight.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.