2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 23, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 7

[ Page 13863 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a joint special report from the Representative for Children and Youth and the provincial health officer: Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care — Youth Justice Experiences and Outcomes.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Changing our future

D. Hayer: At least three of the most recent shootings have occurred in my riding, and frankly speaking, my constituents are outraged, and I agree with them. Gang violence is not just unacceptable and outrageous; it is a horrendous assault on common decency in our society. It threatens people, it endangers people, and it is deathly frightening for them. We must do everything in our power to try to put an end to it. Never in all my years working in the community and in politics have I heard so much feedback on an issue as the one caused by this outrageous gang violence and shootings.

[1005]

There is a general fear in our community, a fear that innocent children, innocent citizens will die or be permanently wounded during the act of gang violence.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

This is a frightening conclusion, yet our innocent citizens must not become collateral damage. Our citizens must not live in fear as they go to school, go shopping or are on their way to work or their business. They are crying out for justice, for action. I have received many calls, e-mails from my constituents, including from Judy and Pat, saying: "Please be our voice and do something as soon as possible."

Well, we are doing something. We are adding 168 more police officers to the street, tasked specifically to gang violence. We are adding ten more prosecutors to bring the total number to 65 who are dedicated to gang and gun crimes to ensure that criminals get charged, go through the court system and are taken off our streets.

But curbing gang violence isn't just policing and the courts. That is the end result of the violence. To curb it, we must change the way people look at gangs, look at the lifestyles, make it less appealing and encourage by whatever means possible to end the flow of children going into gangland lifestyles. We must end the progression, and thus we may reduce the activity in gang lifestyles and gang crime.

Mr. Fraser MacRae, chief superintendent of Surrey RCMP detachment, told me in an e-mail last week that "the long-term strategy has to include a significant and serious prevention and education component. Otherwise, we are destined to continue to see more and more people addicted to drugs, which creates a market, which creates high rewards — money — for the dealers, which results in gangs, which results in shootings." Those words come from the voice of experience, from being on the front line of gang violence in the city of Surrey.

However, while Superintendent MacRae cautions that "collectively, we are nowhere near where we as a society need to be in this regard, I know that the programs we are partnering with the Surrey school district are leading edge, are recognized as the best practices by other school jurisdictions." Those words are encouraging, Madam Speaker.

Our Premier allocated $1 million further, in addition to $3 million we are spending on youth programs to educate students in our schools, as further proof that government recognizes the need and is taking action to stem the tide of the violence and helping the students out to make our kids aware that the road to gangsterism is the wrong one, that it will surely lead one day to disaster, tragedy and death. Not all the money in the world can bring you back from death by a gangland bullet.

Surrey is the second-largest city in the province, and we are fortunate to have a school district and RCMP detachment along with community efforts leading the way in education and prevention. As Superintendent MacRae pointed out in this e-mail to me: "Much of the work that has been undertaken has to do with drug education and prevention, including DVD production, youth counsellor programs such as Newton Knights, It's A Girl Thing and IR3, along with others."

Indeed, added the superintendent: "The recently announced Surrey RAP program partners dedicated police and dedicated school counsellors with addressing and taking on the individual students who are most likely to become involved in gang activity." He emphasized that "Surrey is the only jurisdiction in the province to have this type of dedicated structures program." He does, however, admit that even with all these efforts, "we do as a society have to do more. We have a long way to go, but we have not thrown up our hands and given up."

Superintendent MacRae also noted that the drug problem in our schools is a significant factor that concerns Rob Terris, president of both the Tynehead Community Association and Guildford Community Partners Society. "Drugs are being sold in Surrey high schools," said Rob
[ Page 13864 ]
Terris. "Many of the dealers solicit innocent elementary school kids coming into these high schools, putting all children at risk."

[1010]

That is where we need to begin in our tasks to end the influence of gangs. We must cut off the drug supply to kids and end the recruitment of children into drug use and thefts, into lifestyles that require illegal acts to gain a sufficient quantity of money to support their habits. We must take away the attractiveness of the gang lifestyle — the fancy homes, the flashy cars, the bling.

We do have the Civil Forfeiture Act, and we must demand that our courts make use of this to penalize those who profit from illegal acts. We must make it unprofitable and unattractive to a gang member, and we must take as many gang members off the street. That is why this government has allocated $185 million to new jail cells. That is why the government is lobbying the federal government to make changes to the Criminal Code, changes to our court system, to lock those guys away and get rid of them off the streets and out of our communities.

But it will take more than just government to eradicate this plague. It will take everyone working together. Throughout the past week, municipalities and politicians across the Lower Mainland have had a meeting on this issue. On Wednesday Surrey's mayor, Dianne Watts, hosted a group of mayors and councillors from neighbouring municipalities, the day before Abbotsford council met, specifically on this topic.

On Sunday at the Central City Plaza there was a non-partisan community rally organized by Trevor and Paul, which I assisted with, where hundreds voiced their concern.

Everyone is coming together to seek solutions, including the community, police, all levels of government and community organizations, including the Surrey Crime Prevention Society, Fleetwood Community Association, Surrey Board of Trade and Fraser Heights Community Association.

I will continue after the member from across the seats responds.

J. Brar: I appreciate the member for making a statement on an issue which is a very important and sensitive issue for the people of British Columbia at this point in time.

People have the right to feel safe. People have the right to take their kids out in the parks without any fear. People have the right to take their kids to sports fields without any fear. But that is not the case anymore.

People are concerned. The gang violence is out there in the streets almost every day. But I would like to look at the record of this government when we talk about the gang violence.

In 2001 this government, under pressure from the community, established a task force to deal with the gangs. That task force continued their work for almost two years. After two years, suddenly that gang task force ended because they had only $1 million funding. Because of the lack of resources police had, there were no positive outcomes. But then, from pressure from the community, this government established another task force, which has been continuing their work.

The record is very straight. The number of gangs has gone from ten to 120 — even more — during the last eight years. This government has in fact cut funding for policing, cut funding for corrections, cut funding for prosecution.

A few days ago I was in a meeting in Surrey where a police chief came to speak to the community members. During that discussion the police chief made it very clear that police do not have the capacity to deal with the gangs.

I think everybody understands that. Even the common person out there understands that. The only people who don't understand that are the members sitting on the other side of this House.

[1015]

The police officer also made it very clear that the gangs have much more capacity when it comes to the prosecution, because they have tons of money, and they bring the best lawyers possible in the court for them. But on this side, the Crown, which is representing the people of British Columbia, has many limitations. They may have many more cases on their desk than that case.

One thing which was very surprising for me to hear was that even to prepare one case for a murder case, the police officials told us that they need to prepare a case, and the case is about 100 pages. That's the depth of information they need to prepare.

This government, the Premier, was here in the House sending a strong message that gangs have no place in B.C. But when we saw the budget, the reality was totally the opposite. There were funding cuts almost everywhere. Now B.C. is known as the capital of gangs. That is the history. That is the record because of the inaction, because of the lack of action of this government.

People yesterday got together in the city of Surrey. They were all concerned. They certainly want changes, and the members on this side want to make sure the gang members are put behind bars where they belong. Whether we need more policing, so be the case. Whether we need more correction facilities, so be the case. Whether we need more prosecution officers, so be the case.

This government has done nothing other than talking during the last eight years. Eight years is a long time to talk about those things, and things have gone from bad to worse. That's the reality when we see the number of gangs going from ten to over 120. People want actions from this government, not talk — real action — and that should start now.
[ Page 13865 ]

D. Hayer: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge for his comments. I was hoping for some more words of support, but like typically, they're always against whatever the government tried to do. That's too bad.

I hope this member talks to his colleagues from Burnaby who sit very close to him. We're trying to put a jail there, and he's against it. Other MLAs, the candidates running for MLA from Burnaby, are against it. He said he supports the jails. On the other hand, actions actually show you what they really do, which is that they are against putting in jails so you can put more gangsters and drug dealers and criminals in the jail. He should actually start with talking to his colleagues, saying he supports more jails, and therefore tell his colleagues to change their minds.

When I was talking about Surrey, the rally that was put together at Surrey Central City Plaza, which was organized as a non-partisan rally by Trevor and Paul and which I assisted with, was attended by hundreds of individuals who voiced their concerns. Many members of the communities are trying to find solutions, including police and community members and all levels of government who want to work together.

Community organizations — including the Surrey Crime Prevention Society, Surrey Board of Trade, Fleetwood Community Association as well as Fraser Heights Community Association, Port Kells Community Association, Tynehead Community Association and Guildford Community Partners association — want to join together, fight and remove this cancer from our society. They're looking forward to the opposition actually supporting the government initiative so it can get rid of the gang problem and we can have more rights for the victims and the society than we have currently.

We have seen the gang violence for a long time. I remember in the 1990s when the Dosanjh brothers were openly murdered, and I remember when my father was assassinated in '98. It was reported in the media that they had used the gangsters and drug dealers in '98 to assassinate him. Nothing happened in '98, '99, 2000 or 2001. We're still waiting for justice to be done on this.

The public is finally saying that we need to see the NDP and the Liberals working together. We need to see the federal Conservatives — the legislation they have…. We need to see the federal NDP and the federal Liberals supporting that. We need my colleagues across the board helping with this.

[1020]

We want to make sure that we work together to get rid of the gang violence, to stop the gang violence and the plague of gang violence. We have to make sure the war against drugs, shooting, illegal guns…. It will require everybody's help to eliminate it.

We have to make sure our community and our police are working and our courts, our judges and our federal government — all levels of parties in Ottawa and all members of this House — work together to eliminate gang violence.

I don't have much more to say at this time. But I have said before my statement that we must work together to eliminate this gang violence.

Power to the People

C. Trevena: Loggers are not usually known for their emotional side, but talk to those who've logged in Bute Inlet, and they speak with a sense of awe in their voices. They talk of looking down on pristine rivers; of the brutal, inhuman winters; of seeing grizzlies and other wildlife on the mountainsides. Others speak of the grandeur of Bute and describe it as Canada's Grand Canyon, as one of the wonders of the world. The mountains rise thousands of feet up straight from the water's edge. In the inlet you have the rare ability to see a mountain in its entirety, from base to peak.

Three rivers run into the inlet: The Homathko, the Orford and the Southgate. They're fed by the Homathko Icefield, the huge glacial-scape in the Coast Mountains. The winter outflows are fierce; in summer it's a wilderness. The logged areas have largely regenerated.

This amazing area may soon disappear, as may inlets up and down the central coast, in B.C.'s latest gold rush, the rush for run-of-the-river power. There are proposals for all the inlets and major rivers in the central coast. Bute is the latest flashpoint because of the size of the project and the potential impacts.

Run of the river can be a relatively benign way of generating power. Small-scale projects, such as that being developed by the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' at McKay Creek in their territory, serve local needs and may provide some power to put back in the grid. But the project proposed for Bute is anything but benign. Plutonic Power is proposing a $4 billion power-generating project larger than Site C, and unlike Site C, the hydro project which would flood farmland in the Peace area, there is no provincewide consultation.

In fact, there were due to be only two opportunities, in Powell River and in Sechelt, to discuss the terms of reference to the environmental assessment until people who live and work close to Bute Inlet, people in the Discovery Islands and in Campbell River, demanded to be included. When I asked one bureaucrat why Campbell River had been forgotten in the consultation process, I was told that the office hadn't realized the proximity of the city and the inhabited islands to Bute.

The project is massive. The plan is to dam and divert rivers in 17 locations, build 445 kilometres of transmission lines, with a two-kilometre-wide clearcut corridor along those 445 kilometres, and build 314 kilometres of roads and 104 bridges. It would be the biggest private power project in the province.

People unfamiliar with the process may wonder how this is allowed and how it can go through without
[ Page 13866 ]
public consultation, and the cynics might retort that it's because there are close links between Plutonic Power and the B.C. Liberals. It is worth noting that a number of people working on the Bute project used to walk the corridors of this building.

But it has also reached this stage because there doesn't have to be public consultation under the present system. Over the last eight years we've seen private companies have the right and the opportunity to pay the government for water leases, the right to use our rivers. The companies say — and I've heard this many times from the head of Plutonic Power — it's only for 40 years. Only 40 years. If a generation is 25 years, we have private companies controlling our river rights for almost two generations.

In 2006 Bill 30 was brought in, and that took away the democratic right of local government to be involved in the decision-making process over such projects. Individuals and their elected representatives have lost the right of consultation.

I won't get into the debate of how much power we in B.C. may or may not need, although a growing number of people say we can deal with our power demand through conservation. However, Bute Inlet, as a run-of-the-river project dependent on the glacial melt, will produce power during the late spring or summer. This is the time when B.C. least needs it. Since once generated, electricity can't be stored, there is only one logical conclusion, and that's that it would be exported.

The environmental impact of such a huge project in such a wild area is huge — tunnels, wires, roads, dams. It's not just so-called tree-huggers who are worried about this. This is the home to grizzlies, to marbled murrelets, salmon, steelhead and Dolly Varden, to start with.

[1025]

We disturb this at our peril. Once this is built, you can't get that wilderness back, nor the fish, the birds and the animals that depend on it. It's gone forever.

We need power. People need jobs. Those are the arguments in favour of this project. The U.S. company General Electric has a 49 percent equity and 60 percent economic interest in Plutonic, and the companies want to make money for their shareholders. I represent communities in desperate need of jobs. Logging seized up. Today the Catalyst mill in Campbell River is closing indefinitely. People need work.

Among the literally hundreds of e-mails and letters I've received in my office about this project over the last couple of months, there has been a good representation from people already working in the area — tourism operators, large and small; kayak businesses; fishing guides; and fishing lodges. They earn a living and contribute to our local economy by maintaining Bute as a wild canyon inlet. The promise of jobs is dangled along with the plans for development.

Members opposite accuse us of being job killers, and the need for work is one of the aspects which engaged the first nations who have been partnering with Plutonic — the Klahoose in the Toba-Montrose project, and the Homalco in the Bute project. These wilderness areas are their traditional territories, and these bands are poor. Their people need work, and they need the promise of a better future.

Governments have failed them. We all know the historical wrongs committed. We know the difficulties faced, and we've seen a glacial move on treaties. A private company comes along and offers money and jobs to exploit the land. It's little wonder that their leaders get involved. One has to ask at what cost — at what cost to their territories, to the land and to the creatures of that land?

I'm just scratching my head over this whole project. It's being pushed forward when large-scale run-of-the-river in B.C. has not been tested. If you think this is the way forward, the way of the future, let's see if it works. The Toba-Montrose project could be a test.

Then there's the size of it — 17 dams and diversions in an area where there are slides, where storms change the river flow, where it's simply inhospitable. But the company plans not only to build through here, to put up transmission lines in places where the winter gales are extreme, but to have their maintenance people on site year-round. Of course, most of the jobs are in the construction stage.

Bute is a wild place. It's not a pristine wilderness, but it's beautiful, remote and perhaps one of the most stunning places in our beautiful B.C. Before we lose that, people across the province should be included in the debate. All the benefits and all the losses should be made clear to every B.C. citizen. Once it's gone, none of us will get it back.

J. Rustad: I am pleased to be able to rise this morning to respond to the "Power to the People" statement from the member for North Island. I find it interesting when I think that currently about 13 percent of the power around this province is produced from independent power production. More importantly, I find it interesting that about 13 percent to 15 percent of the power that we need in this province comes from coal from outside of our boundaries.

One hour in eight, or three hours a day, for the day-to-day operations of our industry, of our homes, of everything we do in this province, comes from coal. Yet the member opposite seems to be opposed to the idea of independent power production, opposed to the idea of clean energy to rid us from that dependency on coal-generated power from the other side of the border.

The speaker says: "Well, maybe just not this river." I think one thing that was very telling from the speaker was that she said: "Why don't we wait and see? Why don't we see how another power project does before we consider going ahead with another independent power project?" The wait-and-see attitude is the reason why we
[ Page 13867 ]
are importing close to one-eighth of our power needs today.

We cannot wait and see. We need to make sure that we are energy-independent. We need to be able to move forward, and in securing the future, our industry needs energy. We need energy. The people need energy. We need to be able to find clean solutions.

The member for North Island talked about the fact that there was no public consultation — there was no opportunity for that. It's interesting to note that all power projects, either public or private and regardless of the size or type, must receive approval permits under the Water and Lands acts.

[1030]

These permits are issued on certain conditions being met, such as environmental and technical information, federal and provincial agency comments, comments from the public, local governments and first nations." It's very interesting that the member seems to think that there won't be any public input, when before a permit could even be issued, before a project could go forward that is a requirement for the projects.

Right now across this province there are a number of independent power projects under construction. This is putting 1,100 people to work, primarily throughout rural B.C. It's driving about $4.5 billion of private investment into our province, attracting those dollars at a time when, certainly, we need it in our economy, but more importantly, it's attracting that investment. That investment helps to create jobs, both in the short term as well as the long term.

I was reading an interesting article written by Tom Fletcher just a short time ago, where he said he went up and was impressed with the views going up into there. But what impressed him even more was seeing two first nations workers, a father and a son, "laughing and joking over a hearty lunch at Plutonic Power's run-of-the-river construction camp. To use an overworked phrase, it looked like hope and change."

When we're talking about these kinds of projects, we're talking about the opportunity for first nations to partner. We're talking about the opportunity for jobs, for people to learn skills, for economic activity to happen in areas that sometimes are desperate to see them.

I've met with many first nations across the province. There are many of them that would like to partner up and look at power projects. They look at them as an opportunity for them, for their people, not just for the short term but for the long term. Having power supply within the area helps to create the opportunity for industry. Industry wants to be able to see stable power.

I find it disturbing, unfortunately, that the opposition seems to be so opposed to the idea of independent power. They seem to be so opposed to the opportunity for jobs and for growth in areas around the province. I find it also amazing that under the NDP during the '90s, they actually approved independent power projects. It's quite amazing that they stand up today and seem to reject the idea, yet many of the members that are part of their caucus seemed to embrace it back in the '90s.

The member for North Island said that the Bute power project is the largest private power project. From my riding, I believe the largest private power project is actually the Alcan project and the dams that are in that area.

To close, I just want to say that I very much appreciate the member bringing this forward, because independent power is an important component for us in the province. I look forward to seeing more projects in the future.

C. Trevena: I thank the member for Prince George–Omineca for his response.

The member is clearly, I think, getting a few projects mixed up here. He talks about investment in private power projects, investment in B.C. I'm not sure that the member realizes that this project, which would be the biggest private power project — which is going to be bigger than Site C, which is seen as Hydro's biggest project — is a $4 billion investment by Plutonic Power and General Electric, its major shareholder.

The issue, I think, very clearly is one of public consultation. It is one of environmental caution and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is one of jobs as well. What is very troubling is that we have first nations who are so desperate that they will, effectively, sell rights to their lands, because they so desperately need jobs because we failed them so badly.

But the member talks about public consultation, how much public consultation there is. I have to challenge the member on one area, where I have had a number of local government representatives, as well as individuals, very concerned about the lack of consultation because of Bill 30, which was passed in this House in 2006, which took away the right of local governments to get involved in this. This has been very, very troubling for not just local governments, but for individuals who see their local governments and see their representative voice taken away.

[1035]

I would ask the member and I would ask the government that if they think there is enough public consultation, then maybe we should follow the same route that Site C is having. In the throne speech we heard that there would be continued consultation on Site C provincewide.

This is what we need to have for a project the size of Bute. We need to have provincewide consultation in every town and city and community in this province because of the impact of this project on everyone in this province. It's not just the people who live in the area; it's not just the people who use that area. It's what is happening in that inlet, in inlets below and inlets all the way up the central coast.
[ Page 13868 ]

We are losing our wilderness. We are losing it in a gold-rush mentality.

I've got to say that there is a certain irony that this gold-rush mentality is focusing at the moment on Bute, because this was the scene in the previous gold rush. This was where Alfred Waddington wanted to develop a route up to the Cariboo goldfields, but that led to the Chilcotin War.

It was also an area where railway magnates wanted to see the railway going through for the northern route, but the topography put them off. So this is an area that has been tested before and has been seen to be too wild.

I would go back to the real issue. Even under the terms of reference, the environmental assessment urges for the precautionary principle to be used. The precautionary principle is: least harm done.

I would urge that this government look at that when looking at Bute power, at the projects of the Bute Inlet, and every other run of the river — that the precautionary principle underlines everything and that they do not go ahead without full, provincewide public consultation.

SUPPORTING OUR FUTURE

H. Bloy: I rise today to talk about the future of our province and what the government is doing to protect our future, and our future is education. I'm going to talk about the great things our government is doing for schools in my riding of Burquitlam which have benefited from the government's ongoing commitment to education.

Budget 2009 maintains and protects funding for kindergarten-to-grade-12 education, resulting in per-student funding of $8,242, the highest level in B.C. history. This is year after year that we have continued to increase funding. This year school districts in the province of British Columbia are receiving an additional $122 million.

I always find it strange when we increase funding in many different ministries that the opposition always call this a cut. I find it hard to figure how 122 million additional dollars is a cut to education.

On January 29 I had the pleasure of speaking at the announcement of $102 million for seismic upgrading for or replacement of six Coquitlam schools in my riding. This will translate into approximately 650 jobs over the life of these projects and will be a great boost for the local economy. In Coquitlam, Maillardville Middle School, Miller Park Community Elementary School, Ranch Park will all undergo seismic upgrading, making these schools safer for students and staff.

Also, in my riding of Burquitlam, Porter Elementary School seismic upgrading is just being completed now. It's been about a year that they've been working on it.

In Burnaby there are six schools slated to receive seismic upgrades: Capitol Hill Elementary, Chaffey-Burke Elementary, Douglas Road Elementary, Edmonds Community School, Gilmore Community School and Cariboo Hill Secondary.

Our government continues to work on improving the safety of our children in our education aspect. Despite the reduction of over 60,000 students enrolled in British Columbia schools since 2001, we are building new schools. One of the great examples is the new school that will be built on Burnaby Mountain as part of the university development.

This was a partnership between the Burnaby school board, the university and the province. It's partnerships like these that continue to build British Columbia. Our government will be putting in $8 million towards this project. The university is putting in $1.25 million, the school board is putting in 1.25 million, and the university donated the building and land that's being renovated.

This new school will be the first-ever green school at LEED's gold. It'll be the first in British Columbia built to these standards. Construction of this new school is expected to begin this April and to be completed for September of 2010. This will support 65 jobs throughout the construction period. There will be space for 40 kindergarten children, and 275 elementary students will be full capacity.

[1040]

We've rebuilt a number of schools. The government is committed to rebuilding schools in Burnaby. Burnaby Central Secondary School will be replaced, much to the excitement of parents and students and staff. In Coquitlam we just announced, on January 29, that Centennial secondary will be rebuilt over the next few years.

But there's another school that was rebuilt — Alderson Elementary School. It's a great school. I've had the privilege of…. I can't tell you, but playing that special heavy-set man every Christmas there for their closing party at Christmastime…. Principal John is a great guy, and it's so vibrant. They just love the new school and the atmosphere that it brings for the building that we replaced.

You know, I talk about some of these things, because you hear advertising on TV — 177 schools closed, 10,000 overcrowded classrooms. I have to say this: it's the union leadership of the BCTF that I have my concern with, not with the day-to-day teacher in the classroom who does a great job and I have a huge amount of respect for.

I'm in the classrooms in my schools on a regular basis. Again this year, for the sixth year in a row, I've given books to every kindergarten child in my riding. I go into each classroom, and I present them with a book. I tell them how, when my children were younger than them, their mom and I would read to them. When they got to be their age, about five, they could read back to us. I'd ask what children can read or know the alphabet. As soon as one child puts up their hand, they all put up their hand.
[ Page 13869 ]

The reason I do this is that not every child has a book. The families that participate in the PAC, scouting and soccer are, on odds, reading to their children. I give the book to the child to take home to read with someone so that they can have it.

I bring this up because it's a cooperation of how you work within your riding — unlike the BCTF union leadership of Irene Lanzinger that actually don't tell the truth when they're out there. They never mention new schools open. They never mention schools, the reduction of students.

To them, it's a numbers game. Their business is being in a union, and they want more members. It's not about providing a better education for students in British Columbia. It's about their union membership. When you look on their website, and you see what they have there…. They talk about some of the references for FSA testing. Well, they don't have any real plan or opponent to it. They just quote a number of other people and letters to the paper that they happen to agree with.

But what I want to say is that since 2001, we've completed seven capital projects worth $65 million in the Burnaby school district. Since 2001 we've completed ten capital projects worth $51.6 million in the Coquitlam school district.

During the same time the province has spent over $1.4 billion to complete 73 new schools and replacement schools, 147 additions, 25 renovations and 20 new site acquisitions across British Columbia. All new and replacement schools have been constructed to meet the latest seismic upgrading.

In these uncertain economic times our government's commitment to education and the future of this province is impressive. I hope the members of the opposition will stand up and agree with me.

R. Chouhan: It's amazing to see the member for Burquitlam talking about our future, the future of our province. Then he's talking about education. But you don't build the future by attacking teachers.

A good part of his speech is just attacking the BCTF. What kind of future would that be, when you're leaving the teachers out, and you're just making them enemies rather than working with them?

When we're talking about the future of this province, you don't build the future by cutting services to kids. You don't build the future in education by increasing the tuition fees to students.

About a week ago, I heard from this member. To help students, he was promoting to build a gondola going to SFU. Is that the future we are talking about?

[1045]

You know, it's amazing that this government is so out of touch. They don't know what the reality is out there. They have forgotten that people out there are suffering. When you're talking about doubling the gas tax, when you're talking about breaking promises not to layer extra costs on taxpayers, that's not the future. It's a very bleak future. It's a very muddy future in what the government has done in the past eight years.

The Premier has increased salaries for himself and for his executives, but there's not much left for the ordinary people. Is that the future we are talking about? Obviously not. The seniors are still waiting for 5,000 new long-term care beds. They're not delivered. So what kind of future are we talking about?

What an out-of-touch and arrogant government that we have seen here. Forestry workers — 20,000 of them have lost their jobs. What kind of future do they have? Let's talk about the truth. The future is so muddy. I think they're struggling for their political future as well.

Earlier the member for Surrey-Tynehead talked about gang violence. Look at what they have done to that. The gangs we have seen increased from ten to over 120.

An Hon. Member: A hundred twenty-nine.

R. Chouhan: To be precise, 129. And then we are talking about cutbacks to prosecution, to other resources that we need. We don't have it. So I don't know what future the member from Burquitlam is talking about.

If you want to build a future — a really good, nice future for our kids, for our seniors — let's work with people. Let's work with workers. Let's work with teachers rather than attacking them. That's the future we would all look to and would like to have.

While families are struggling with their daily lives, the Premier and the B.C. Liberals continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on their pet projects. Look at the roof for B.C. Place — $365 million. A portion of that, if he can spend it to help students and kids, would be a really good future that we would like to have.

This is what I think they should pay attention to, rather than having these empty promises and hollow statements that they come and make here and go back and think that they have done enough. But the people know better. They have seen that this government have done absolutely nothing for ordinary people, but everything for their rich friends.

H. Bloy: I have to correct the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He said that I attack. I never attacked a teacher. I have the fullest respect for teachers.

I do attack the union leadership, Irene Lanzinger and what the BCTF does and the mistruths that they tell all the time. I find it hard, and I find the member's remarks…. He has no interest in education, because other than an attack comment, he had nothing to say about education. He doesn't believe where education is…. Maybe he should spend more time in his own riding working with the educational system in British Columbia.
[ Page 13870 ]

He talked about many things, so if I comment on a few of them…. He says we do nothing for ordinary British Columbians in British Columbia. Well, I disagree with him. They have the lowest tax rate in all of Canada. There are more British Columbians working than ever before.

Yes, these are tough times. These are unusual tough times that are happening, not only in British Columbia but in all of North America. So again, he says, "You shouldn't attack," and all he does is attack.

We've created over 6,000 new beds for seniors. He says we haven't reached the 5,000 mark. So who's telling the truth? We've done the work. He's just adding more stories. Again, there is no truth.

If we want to look at the history of how the NDP and the opposition work, we can look at how they took over government in 1991 and drove it from the first place in Canada to tenth place in Canada. That was when the world was in a huge growth upspurt, and here was British Columbia going backwards all the time.

[1050]

As we talk about suffering, because of the strong management and leadership skills of this government, we'll be able to better weather the storm of the economic crisis going through all of North America.

British Columbia and Alberta are well situated. Yes, there's going to be some pain for some families. Yes, there are certain things going on that we don't have control over. But because of the sound base of what we have and the budget that we've just put into place, British Columbians are going to do much better.

It's been a privilege for me to stand up in the House today and talk about the good things that our government is doing for education in British Columbia, because education is our future. I see we have a number of students up in the gallery today, and every day students come into the gallery. It's part of their education process that they learn how government works, but each student has to go out and find their own and find what's going on so they can participate in the democratic process.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

A. Dix: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: There are some students here from the best high school in British Columbia, Windermere high school in my own constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. They're here to learn about the Legislature, visit the museum and spend a day here in Victoria. I wish everybody in the House to wish them welcome.

Private Members' Statements

Women's rights

J. McGinn: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss an issue of great concern not only to the residents of Vancouver-Fairview but to all residents of Vancouver and beyond. That's the issue of the lack of access to legal aid services in our province.

Access to legal aid, especially as it relates to family law and poverty law, continues to be underfunded by this government. Legal Services Society, the non-profit organization which provides legal aid services to low-income people in B.C., has recently announced that at a time when the demand for legal aid services is on the rise, it's being forced to cut 38 jobs over the next six months, including lawyers and support staff. In fact, the Family Law Clinic in Vancouver is slated to close effective April 30 of this year.

At the end of November 2008 referrals for emergency family law services were up over 21 percent from the previous year and criminal referrals by 5 percent. Immigration and refugee referrals were up by an astonishing 76 percent over the previous fiscal year. According to the Legal Services Society, these increases are expected to continue in 2009-2010.

Coincidentally, these numbers correspond with the increase in the legal advocacy program through Battered Women's Support Services. This non-profit agency provides support services to over 8,000 women a year who are survivors of domestic violence. In fact, in the last year alone BWSS saw an increase of 36 percent in demand for their services across the board.

We all know there is a correlation in the rise of family violence and a downturn in the economy, and we all know that we're facing some very serious economic times right now. So it would equate that these services are needed now more than ever. The cuts to legal aid services will have a profoundly devastating impact on some of our most vulnerable citizens, including women who are experiencing family violence, aboriginal women, women of colour and other low-income people.

These cuts are taking place at a time when Canada is already being criticized for its failure to meet its international obligation to ensure that women have equal access to the justice system. The 2008 UN report on Canada's implementation on the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women drew special attention to the negative effect that cuts to legal aid have had on British Columbian women.

[1055]

I'll quote from the report: "The committee is concerned at reports that financial support for civil legal aid has diminished and that access to it has become increasingly restricted, in particular in British Columbia, consequently
[ Page 13871 ]
denying low-income women access to legal representation and legal services."

The committee also notes with concern the fact that the state party's court challenges program, which facilitated women's access to procedures to review alleged violations of their right to equality, was cancelled. It regrets the absence of concrete reasons in the budget review, an assessment that led to that cancellation.

Legal advocacy organizations state that there is a family law crisis in this province. There are simply not enough lawyers that are willing to take on family and child protection cases.

The closure of the Family Law Clinic in Vancouver and the cuts to legal aid will result in more people having to represent themselves at court. This is especially problematic for women who are survivors of violence and even more so for many immigrant and refugee women who lack English language skills and are faced with a judicial system that is foreign to them.

Pivot Legal Society and West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund are currently circulating a petition to restore legal aid funding. In their on-line petition several people have commented on the imperative to ensure legal services are available to those in need. I'll share a couple of those comments.

"It is appalling to realize what little value the provincial and federal governments put on the lives of women and children. Legal aid is absolutely essential to ensure that women's rights are upheld and justice is reached where it's needed, especially in the case of women who are already marginalized by the system. Making cuts to legal services for women is putting a large number of people in danger and should not be taken lightly.

"To have access to defending our rights is a basic human right and should in no way be denied to anyone, especially women who are systematically more vulnerable. We need not only to reverse the current cuts, but we need to strive to create a system that looks out for the welfare of our women and children."

Another respondent notes:

"I am deeply concerned about cuts to legal aid. Indigenous people are already vastly overrepresented in the justice system and are highly criminalized. Cuts to legal aid will only perpetuate this further. I am also concerned about how these cuts will negatively impact refugee claimants, women involved in the child welfare system and those who commit crimes of poverty. These cuts will have a devastating impact on those who are already most vulnerable. We need more legal aid, not less."

Constitutional rights for all Canadians were promised in 1982 by the Trudeau government. Since 1982 years of jurisprudence have interpreted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what our rights truly are. Section 15(1) of the Charter states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

While Charter rights guarantee that every individual is equal before and under the law, for many battered women in British Columbia these rights are not being recognized and exercised. While it's not expressly said in any legislation, "Do not give women equal rights in the area of family law and legal aid," governmental policies have the effect of making family law and legal aid inaccessible and unequal for women in British Columbia.

Mark Benton, executive director of Legal Services Society, stated that in B.C. we had one of the strongest, most broad-ranging services, which really addressed people's needs substantially, ten years ago. These days it's much more restricted, much more focused on trying to get the best results we can with the resources available.

The Attorney General has said that he recognizes that legal aid is an essential component of the justice system, but he just seems to sit back and let these cuts to the Legal Services Society happen.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

K. Whittred: I thank the member opposite for her comments.

I thought I would just review for a moment the parameters around how legal aid is granted in British Columbia. Legal aid is provided to eligible lower-income British Columbians through an annual grant from the Ministry of Attorney General to the Legal Services Society.

[1100]

There has been no decrease in government funding to the Legal Services Society for 2008-09. Legal aid funding for these years was $65.3 million, an increase of over 19 percent in the past five years. Also, this government has provided $68 million to the family justice service division, and we're spending $29 million — almost $30 million, actually — in '09-10 on access to justice services beyond funding provided to the legal aid system.

In fact, government funding to the Legal Services Society has been increasing since 2005 when the ministry announced a $4.6 million annual increase in family law, legal aid funding. Besides these services, government spends another $29 million annually on services to help British Columbians resolve legal issue and access justice services. The province continues to press the federal government for increased federal legal aid funding for civil and family matters.

Now I'd like to comment for just a moment on an area that is really very near and dear to my heart, and that is on programs that assist women fleeing domestic violence. This, of course, has been a very, very big priority for our government.

I can recall when I was first elected that I was introduced to the transition house in my community. It had a number of issues. Over the years those have been resolved, and we've not only got that support working on a much better system, but we've also managed to get some second-stage housing.

Support for direct essential services has increased more than 40 percent between 2005 and 2008, and this
[ Page 13872 ]
includes transition houses, counselling and outreach. Nearly $50 million annually goes to transition house services, safe homes, second-stage housing, counselling and outreach.

Of course — I'm sure, like other members in this House — I have visited some of the programs for children who witness abuse, and I never cease to be amazed at the wonderful programs that are offered through our various community agencies and the tremendous service that is provided.

Additional funding means that all provincially funded transition houses have around-the-clock, on-site staff coverage for women and children fleeing abuse. Women leaving abusive situations who are eligible for income assistance receive support immediately and are exempt from the three-week work search, two-year independence test and time limits.

The government believes in providing services to women leaving violent domestic situations so that they can help themselves. One good example of this is the bridging program. This was expanded earlier this month to help another 418 women, and that's an increase to 880 from 562. The bridging program will include a new healing component, will assist women in the development of a personal plan and will be expanded to include suitable non–income assistance participants.

Just a few weeks ago we also opened a new building for women on the Downtown Eastside. This was provided through a $9.5 million grant to purchase and renovate the Rainier Hotel, which will add 41 housing units to low-income women. Of course, we believe that if you can add additional supports around the individual, then certainly the legal supports will not be as urgent.

The Rainier residential stabilization and treatment program will help women in the sex trade struggling with addiction and mental health services. These are holistic programs that treat all aspects of the clients' needs. Across British Columbia 156 victim service programs are….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. McGinn: I thank the member opposite for her comments. I believe that we both really do care about the well-being of women in our province. I really do.

[1105]

I had the privilege of being a front-line worker at a women's centre back in the days of 2001-2003 — thereabouts. I worked at a women's centre in north Surrey. I saw firsthand many, many women coming in who were survivors of abuse, during the days the Campbell government decided to cut funding to women's centres in this province and what devastating impacts….

Mr. Speaker: Member, I remind you not to use personal names.

J. McGinn: I saw firsthand the impact of the cuts to women's centres and women's services, and I tell you that it was very devastating for many families at risk of violence. I know that firsthand.

I also know that from women that were coming into the centre. They were telling me that it was harder and harder to obtain legal aid services because of income cutoff. They were not poor enough. They were just maybe middle class, but as a single parent it's so much more difficult to spend that money on legal services.

I just wanted to offer up a quote from the Chief Justice of British Columbia, Mr. Don Brenner. He has also called on an increase for legal aid funding. In a special to the Vancouver Sun last year, the chief justice argues that "the legal profession alone cannot shoulder the burden of ensuring that the poor and the disadvantaged have an effective voice. This requires commitment by governments to provide adequate levels of funding to legal aid."

A 2008 B.C. public opinion poll showed that 93 percent of respondents support legal aid services, and 73 percent agree that government should give legal aid the same funding priority it gives to other social services. If the people of our province understand and support adequate levels of legal aid, our governments should be no less supportive. Without such a commitment, we can hardly call ourselves a civil society.

I'm wondering what this all means to us in terms of human terms. The cuts to legal aid will mean that women will be put in more vulnerable positions than ever before. It means that women and children will often be left no other recourse but to stay in abusive relationships. It means that children's safety will be put at risk. Far too often the abusers have the resources to fight their case, and the victims do not. The disparity is just striking.

In the words of one woman: "I've personally been affected by the sad state of family legal services available to women in British Columbia. I've left an abusive relationship with my daughter and have been forced into poverty by the legal fees required to defend myself against an affluent and controlling man. As I cannot afford to defend myself any longer, I'm forced to sign a custody agreement that I do not agree with and put my two-year-old daughter's life in jeopardy."

Hon. J. McIntyre: I call Motion 5 in the hands of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priority of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.
[ Page 13873 ]

Motions on Notice

FREE TRADE

R. Sultan: I'm pleased to make the following motion for debate.

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of free trade — as embodied by agreements like NAFTA and TILMA — in helping our economy through the current global economic downturn.]

Why is Canada, a small to middling country on the global scale of affairs, further compartmentalized into 13 jurisdictions, each anxious to protect its own commerce by protecting barriers to trade within our federation?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Whether it is our country's 13 securities regulators anxious to police the broad and deep capital markets within each of their own boundaries even when such markets do not exist, or school teachers arguing that somehow professionals from another part of the country are trained to an inferior standard, or municipalities anxious to reserve the printing and stationery business for their friends down on Main Street, we are all guilty of parochialism and protectionism, which ultimately defeats our best efforts to raise productivity and elevate our incomes.

On an international scale, similar timid logic prevails. There's little difference between NDP supporters who see economic threat and low wages embedded in every shipping container on those freighters anchored in English Bay or U.S. Congressmen anxious to shelter their local steel mills from dastardly Canadian competition. Thus, both NAFTA and TILMA are under assault, an assault invigorated by the current economic downturn.

[1110]

There are broader patriotic concerns as well. Our own Premier has declared: "When are we going to decide we're a country? When are we going to decide that the free movement of goods and services is something that's part of what a national identity should be?" But let's stick to the basic economics.

About 150 years ago a Frenchman, Frédéric Bastiat, presented his famous petition to the Chamber of Deputies on behalf of the manufacturers of candles and lanterns protesting the ruinous competition of sunlight. His solution was tighter-fitting shutters and blinds. He was preceded by David Ricardo, an economist who presented a more elegant, and today still generally received, theory of comparative advantage in international trade. Ricardo would argue that British Columbia has a comparative advantage in growing spruce and hemlock rather than orange trees. Therefore, we should specialize in the former and trade those goods to California.

The subtleties of Ricardo's argument are generally lost. Ricardo argued that it is comparative advantage within a jurisdiction. Therefore, we can enjoy mutually beneficial trade with China, even if their wages undercut ours by a factor of ten. Furthermore, even should China protect its markets by tariffs or an artificially low exchange rate, mutually beneficial, income-raising, barrier-defying trade is still possible.

We assume in all of this balance-of-payments discipline. It's safe to say that the rules tend to break down when we believe that goods and services can be paid for indefinitely with a plastic credit card. Unfortunately, our largest trading partner, the United States, has of late chosen to ignore these credit realities, but their day of reckoning has now arrived.

We must emphasize to our friends south of the border that our common pathway to higher productivity and higher incomes out of the gloom of the current economic malaise is still illuminated by David Ricardo. The pathway to even darker gloom was illuminated by two congressmen of the Great Depression, Messrs. Smoot and Hawley, and we don't want to go there.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle will explain with greater clarity than I can offer such factors as the thickening of the U.S.-Canadian border and the merits of TILMA. And across the aisle my always confident but frequently wrong colleagues will, I am sure, explain that in order to protect jobs and incomes, we must invest in tighter blinds and shutters. I look forward to the debate.

B. Ralston: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for his opening comments on that. I think it's significant that the member raises the Smoot-Hawley act passed in 1930 by the American Congress. It was a trade treaty which raised tariffs on imported goods into the United States and had the effect of triggering a trade war around the world, which led to a decline in the total value of world trade by 50 percent in nominal dollars between 1929 and 1932, and 30 percent in real terms. It was a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy, which is discredited, I think, by all thinking economists and citizens who understand something about global economics.

That act by Smoot-Hawley also triggered imperial preference within what were the remaining jurisdictions of the British Empire. Also in Europe there were other trade agreements which led to an overall shrinking of world trade. I think at this time, as we enter into a recession, the depths of which we're not really sure, that it's important to reaffirm that commitment to open trade and fair trade around the world.

[1115]

It is significant that at the recent meeting of President Obama and Prime Minister Harper, a very brief one in Ottawa, there was discussion about the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although President Obama at some points in his campaign had expressed some interest in opening up the free trade agreement to the perceived advantage
[ Page 13874 ]
of American manufacturers, consumers and citizens, it was very evident in the discussion with Prime Minister Harper that he has somewhat retreated from that position. Indeed, the major improvement that he offered for the North American free trade deal was to take what are called the side agreements in environmental protection and labour standards and incorporate them into the main agreement in order that they might be better enforced.

That's something that has been a subject of the debate here in Canada. Those on that side of the House have, of course, rejected that, but they are clearly out of tune with the leadership that both the Prime Minister and the President of the United States are providing on this important issue of trade here between our two partners.

Of course, it is our biggest trading relationship. There are difficulties occasionally in the North American Free Trade Agreement. There are dispute settlement mechanisms, notably in softwood lumber, which were resorted to over a number of years. Those were set aside, though, when a new softwood lumber deal was struck rather than pursuing the dispute settlement mechanisms within NAFTA.

There are bilateral issues between Canada and the United States. Certainly, the United States since 9/11 has focused on its security perimeter. It has an understandable concern that security of its borders and citizens be paramount in governing its relationships with other countries. That has had some unintended consequences, I think it would be fair to say, in terms of the transborder relations between Canada and the United States. That's something that is being worked upon by both sides and, I think, is supported by all sides in the parliament.

In order to continue the trading relationship that we have, there has to be an effective resolution in the minds of American legislators and the American executive of the impact of those security regulations so that trade can continue relatively unencumbered and both Canada and the United States can continue to gain the benefit of that trading relationship.

The member also references TILMA, and I'm a bit disappointed. The member has some impressive academic credentials but seems to have not put those to use when considering some of the intellectual rationale that has been advanced in favour of TILMA.

One of the principal supports for the agreement was a study done by the Conference Board of Canada. That study was a 45-day contract which the Conference Board won. It was the sole bidder on the project. It completed a very shallow survey of a number of businesses and organizations — relatively few — and then purported to extract from that an economic rationale and description of the economic benefits that would flow from the agreement.

Now, Prof. John Helliwell, who is a very distinguished economist, a professor emeritus at UBC, was hired by the Saskatchewan government to analyze that Conference Board report. He, I think it's fair to say, published a very devastating critique of the sole intellectual argument that's advanced by those on the government side to support the TILMA agreement, at least the perceived benefits of it.

I'm going to quote from what he said, because I think it's more effective than anything that I might say.

"The principal source of data for the paper was a survey that asked representatives of firms, organizations and government agencies and departments to list what they thought to be the most important barriers to interprovincial trade in their company, region or industry and then provide qualitative rankings of winners and losers by region and industry. The latter were then converted to measures in long-term change in income and employment by Conference Board staff. Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis and, hence, cannot be treated as evidence."

In the politest, academic way, that is saying the study is completely valueless.

[1120]

What he went on to say is that when he looked at the Conference Board study, which is often trotted out by members opposite…. When he was asked about the purported benefits of TILMA, he said this: "My reason for putting such a small upper boundary on the possible gains, whether static or dynamic, and how they might be shared or shifted among partner provinces is that the differences between TILMA and the AIT, in terms of potential cost reductions, is very small — a tiny fraction of the magnitude of what was at stake in international trade treaties. This is because trade is essentially unfettered already among provinces."

I'll just repeat that. "This is because trade is essentially unfettered already among provinces." This is not me saying that. This is Professor Helliwell, a distinguished economist who has analyzed this treaty, and that's his conclusion.

The members opposite use TILMA as a rhetorical sounding board, but when it's objectively analyzed by someone of that intellectual calibre and standing, it doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. That's his conclusion, not my conclusion, but I think it's important in this kind of debate to sometimes cut through the rhetoric and look at an objective analysis of what's being proposed.

We on this side of the House, I think, recognize the obvious principle that fair trade is essential to the economic well-being of citizens here in British Columbia and Canada and that the policy prescriptions of the past — certainly those that were tried in the Depression and failed — are not the direction forward, particularly at this point in the economic cycle.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

V. Roddick: I want to thank my colleague from Richmond-Steveston for relinquishing his spot so that I might rise this morning to heartily support Motion 5.

Despite the rather hysterical protestations of the members opposite, trade is as old as mankind. Our world, as we know it today, has been built on the premise of
[ Page 13875 ]
continuing trading growth. Free trade, as embodied by the forward-thinking NAFTA and TILMA agreements, is hugely important, especially now, in helping our economy through the current global downturn.

We are being faced with enormous challenges threatening our overall trade and its connected jobs with the United States, our biggest trading partner. It's called border thickening, which is being aided and abetted by the Homeland Security sector created after 9/11.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning, I've done a fair amount of travelling on behalf of the province on both sides of the border: federal, provincial and territorial Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Agriculture conferences in Newfoundland, Toronto and Whistler; SARL, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Legislative Chairs Summit in St. Louis; PNWER, Pacific NorthWest Economic Region in Vancouver, which included Alaska, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., Idaho, Oregon and Washington State; and the Western Association of State Departments of Agriculture, which was 17 states, in Monterey, California.

At these meetings border thickening was definitely a prominent issue. I'm speaking of agriculture products only here, which can be highly perishable. There is grave sectoral concern as to the ability to move goods and services around North America in a timely fashion — because, of course, we all have to eat to live.

A perfectly good local example is last Thursday noon at the Pacific truck crossing. There was over a 90-minute wait.

[1125]

We simply must work together, with our Canadian and American counterparts, to keep the spirit of our trade agreements up and running. One can have all the agreements in the world, but if the spirit isn't willing, we are in deepening trouble. Our country, our province, depends on trade, as was thoroughly discussed at the two-day B.C. Economic Summit held in Vancouver at the beginning of February.

I want to thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for putting forward this most important and timely motion.

M. Sather: I wanted to discuss the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — known as TILMA for short — that the member opposite has brought up. TILMA is simply a solution looking for a problem. As the member for Surrey-Whalley commented, there are essentially no significant trade barriers between provinces in Canada.

It's been interesting to note how this government has shifted the debate on TILMA. It is, of course, a three-part agreement: trade, investment and labour mobility. But the discussion from the government side has been reduced to talking about labour mobility, pretty much. That's understandable because the trade barriers are minimal at best.

Listening to the minister try to come up with examples of trade barriers between Alberta and British Columbia has been really laughable. In fact, he frequently…. I think he came up with two in total. The first one was about hay bales coming from Saskatchewan and having to be reloaded at the border. So, in effect, there are no trade barriers.

Labour mobility issues — there are some. As the current Premier of Saskatchewan pointed out, those issues can be resolved without TILMA. That leaves us to discuss, I think, the thing that the government doesn't want to talk about in this agreement. That's investment and the fact that this TILMA agreement is an investors' rights agreement. I cannot get the minister to address the issues in any meaningful way. What we get, in fact, is a lot of obfuscation on the matter.

In TILMA there are two significant articles. Article 3 is known as the no-obstacles article. It ensures that no rules, legislation or policies of the government of B.C. or Alberta shall restrict or impair investment between the provinces. That's a very wide-ranging article. There are no riders or qualifiers on article 3, and it states what amounts to carte blanche rights to investors.

Now, this government consistently says that the clearly stated thrust of article 3 does not, in fact, have any meaning because of article 4, which is the non-discrimination article. It says, essentially, that Albertans must be treated equally to British Columbians and vice versa. It suggests, for example, that if you are an Albertan with land in the agricultural land reserve in B.C., you have to go through the same process for removal of that land as a British Columbian would.

The B.C. government argues, in effect, that the non-discrimination clause trumps the no-obstacle clause. This is, at best, a very debatable argument. In fact, I think, generally in law you cannot have a piece of law, if I can use that colloquial expression. That has no meaning. Essentially, the government is trying to say that article 4 renders article 3 meaningless.

[1130]

We have asked the government to amend the no-obstacles clause in TILMA, which is provided for under article 21 — they can amend it — to clarify that there are not, in fact, carte blanche rights for investors under this agreement. They can clarify the language in that article if they so choose. But they will not. They will not make that clarification because that would weaken the investor rights of this agreement, which was the primary and only actual reason for them bringing in this agreement in the first place.

The member for Delta South brought up agriculture. That's one of the things I've discussed with the minister about this agreement and how it could be affected by TILMA. Now, there is a whole range, or a fairly wide range, of subjects that are exempted from the provisions of TILMA, called exceptions under the agreement.
[ Page 13876 ]
Whether you call them exceptions or exemptions, it amounts to the same thing.

Under this agreement, there is no exception for the agricultural land reserve. I was astounded last spring when I brought this up. The minister said: "You're wrong. You're wrong." In fact, one of the other members in the House, I believe, was sitting here this morning calling a point of order, where he was going to upbraid me on that very subject. The member for Peace River South said that it was a point of order, that in fact I was incorrect.

I would beg the minister to re-read the agreement. I hope that by this time he is aware that the agricultural land reserve is not exempted from the provisions of TILMA. We'd asked the government: why not? Why not clarify the fact that the agricultural land reserve is off-limits to investor rights of TILMA?

For example, if you own land on the urban boundary in Maple Ridge or some other rural-urban community, you can't say that you want to develop it — the land that you have there — using the argument that it would be offending your investor's rights. Investors' rights…. Investment is widely defined in TILMA. Any sort of monetary issue, any sort of business endeavour, is part of the agreement. We're asking that you not be able to use this agreement to say: "Hey, if you don't allow me to develop my land, which is in the ALR, you're offending TILMA."

The minister says: "Oh no, no. It's all covered under the non-discrimination clause." But it's not, and if this government truly wanted to protect the rights of the agricultural land reserve, they would make it exempt from this agreement.

I was interested in some of the things that the well-considered member for West Vancouver–Capilano said about: why would we want to mess with security regulations? Well, I found that rather astounding, considering the complete mess that we're in right now due to the lack of regulation around securities. It has brought this world to its knees, so I would think that we would, in fact, be looking at some reasonable securities regulations to keep us from falling into the kind of pit that we have as a result of the lack of regulation — the deregulation agenda not only of the Bush regime and the Harper regime but of this government as well.

There may be a lot of small differences between qualifications in different provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, that can be fairly readily resolved. However, you have to look at others — like, for example, the qualifications for social workers. Under this agreement, a social worker in Alberta with a two-year diploma should be able to practise in Alberta, where a social worker is required to have a four-year degree.

If we're not going to go to the lowest common denominator — and the minister says that we're not — then what's going to happen? What's going to be the resolution of these significant differences in qualifications? And it's not just in that area. There are other areas of concern as well.

[1135]

My concern is that if we go to the lower qualification, then we're in effect saying that higher education has no particular value, that it doesn't matter whether you have a degree or a two-year diploma. If that, in fact, is the case, then it's something that we ought to be considerably concerned about.

This is a trade deal that has a lot of issues that need to be resolved, and I see no appetite by the government to do that and to protect the rights of British Columbians.

R. Thorpe: I rise to speak on the fine motion put forward by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano with respect to TILMA.

You know, it's amazing to me, as I listen to members on the other side of the House talk. Why do they only see the darkness in the sky? Why can they not see the sunshine of opportunity?

It's about creating confidence and opportunities. We are a province, British Columbia, so rich in resources. A province rich in lumber resources, pulp, oil, gas, minerals, agricultural products, high-tech, biotech, movie industry, new green technologies.

We are traders. Why don't we give the young people that are up in the gallery today the confidence to look forward to the advantages and the opportunities that they will have to have jobs in their communities so that all parts of British Columbia can be strong? And how can we do that? By trading freely and openly. That's how we can do it. So let's give young folks that are visiting us here today confidence and opportunity that they can look forward to in British Columbia.

Why are the NDP always against jobs? Why are they always against Canadians having the ability to move and work and live and prosper where they want? This is one country. It was the NDP that wanted to join together with….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

S. Fraser: I'd like to reserve the right to rise on a point of privilege, please.

Deputy Speaker: So noted.

Debate Continued

R. Thorpe: It was the NDP that spoke against and wanted to join with the Bloc — the socialists coming together with the separatists — to destroy Canada, destroy the future of the young citizens of British Columbia that
[ Page 13877 ]
are here today with us. This is unbelievable for me. That's why I'm so proud to be a member of this side of the House, with a Premier that has a vision.

When are we going to decide we are a country? When are we going to decide that free movement of goods and people and services is something that's part of what our national identity should be? When are we going to decide that?

I hear the member for Surrey-Whalley talk about the internal trade agreement, one that they would not agree to — the only province. They held out across Canada. I know that as a fact because I was the minister given that file. Within a year British Columbia was a signatory to the internal trade agreement in Canada. Because we believe in trade and TILMA.

TILMA is about creating opportunities. It's about job creation. It's about opportunities for communities, and why would you be against that?

M. Sather: Saskatchewan's not signing onto it.

R. Thorpe: Just wait, my friend. Just wait, because there are leaders and there are followers.

Let's just look at one thing about TILMA. In September of 2007 two doctors from Alberta wanted to start a practice in Kitimat — you know, the member for Skeena's riding. But they had problems coming here. They had problems working here. In a time when we have need for doctors in rural communities, we weren't able to do that. We weren't able to serve the citizens of our community.

The member for Skeena said: "We should be able to do that. We should be able to do that." And we agree with the member for Skeena.

Then we hear members talk about the softwood lumber agreement. The NDP leader and her big brother in Ottawa want to tear it up, but without that agreement and access to those markets — the American market — trade would be restricted more than ever before. Our industry would be paying more than double in duties and taxes, and we would have lost $2.4 billion back to the United States.

This agreement creates stability for the companies, and when the companies have stability, the employees have stability, so that we can move forward.

[1140]

I know there are a lot of people that want to speak today, so I'll wrap up here shortly, but, you know, we should be listening. We should be listening. President Obama was in Ottawa, as a member pointed out earlier, and what did he say? "I want to grow trade, not contract it." That's what we want to do on this side. We want to grow trade, not contract it.

We have so much opportunity as we go forward. So let's look to the future. Let's have confidence in British Columbians. Let's have confidence in our children and our grandchildren. We are blessed with some of the best and brightest in all of the world being right here in British Columbia. We've made significant investments in K-to-12 and in advanced education so that we can create clusters around our universities so that we can have the high-tech, the biotech and the green technologies as we move forward.

Let us take trade and seize it as an opportunity. Yes, there are some challenges in the world today, but those who see the brightness in the sky, as opposed to those who see the clouds in the sky, see opportunity — opportunity for our youth, opportunities for our families, opportunities for our communities and, most of all, opportunities for British Columbia. I support this member's motion.

A. Dix: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: Today in the galleries and all day there will be students from Windermere School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. It's a great day to be here in the Legislature, to be here with them. They're here to learn about our government and how it works, and I think they're going to get a chance to go and see our extraordinary museum as well. I wish everyone in the House to please give them a great welcome.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to talk about TILMA. I represent an area that has heavy cross-border activity. There are two groups from the areas that I represent that have questions about TILMA, and those questions have largely gone unanswered. So this is an opportunity to just talk about that aspect of any discussion on TILMA.

Of course, the questions that local government has, those are well recorded and are certainly there on the record for everyone to look at, and those answers, many of them remain unanswered. Then there are also others that have questions as individuals. There's a local group very active in one of the communities that I represent around this issue. They even organized a demonstration up at the border when TILMA came into effect. They had a hunt for local trade barriers, and they asked questions about the specifics of TILMA.

I think, as the member who put forward this resolution would recognize, with any of these trade agreements, you can have a discussion in general about trade, but it is the specifics of any trade deal which are really important, and with TILMA the devil really is in the detail. What I would put to members of this House is the following, and I think all members share in being remiss in…. I think the government in particular is remiss in not
[ Page 13878 ]
allowing the proper debate that should have taken place in this House, that should have had questions, allowed the answering of questions.

TILMA was, of course, never put in front of this House for debate. When TILMA was put forward from the opposition side as a private member's bill so that it could be debated, the government chose not to bring it forward. So questions were not asked in the place that they should have been asked around TILMA.

When enabling legislation was put forward to make TILMA work, it was put in front of this House. I think members here will remember it as one of eight bills that were passed without proper debate. So at the end of the spring session TILMA was one of eight bills that were not properly debated. It raises questions. It raises legitimate questions that the minister should have sat here and should have explained in a detailed committee stage debate on TILMA.

But the government chose to ignore that, chose to make sure that the public did not have a committee stage debate in this Legislature. I would say that those debates are significant, because if a minister gives an answer here on Hansard, then that is different than a speech he gives out in a private or in a public place. This is his interpretation, on Hansard, of what specific language in the TILMA agreement would mean.

[1145]

This government chose deliberately to avoid that debate. It sets a very low standard, and I've said this before. It sets a very low standard for governments in the future, and it points to an attitude from this government which really isn't acceptable.

So when people ask me specific questions, there are many things that they raise as concerns and say: "Well, don't you think that TILMA means this or TILMA means that?" And I have to honestly say: "That would be an interesting question for someone from the opposition to ask the minister responsible, so that on record, here in the Legislature, we could have that and I could tell you, because what we hear is: 'That's one interpretation, and the government will insist there's another.'"

But given the chance, they avoid it. They avoided their proper legal duties to explain in a rational way what the details of TILMA mean. I'm sure the member who put this forward as a motion to be discussed would agree with me that that is a problem and that is a fault, and the fact that that was one of eight pieces of legislation that were dealt with in that way is a tremendous black mark on this government and on this Legislature.

With that, I am going to…. I know there are a number of other speakers. I'll sit down, but I really think that's what we need to reflect upon as we consider TILMA — that it did not go through a proper process and that the government, given every opportunity to properly explain it, chose, through a changing of rules that really is not defensible, to avoid that proper discussion. With that, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak.

R. Hawes: It is a pleasure to stand today and speak to this motion that, particularly in light of the economy that we all see today, I think is a particularly apt motion.

I was sort of happy to hear the member for Surrey-Whalley in essence defend the NAFTA agreement and say that the NDP are in favour of free trade, which is a remarkable turnabout from just a few years ago, when the sky was falling when NAFTA was first discussed. So I'm quite pleased to hear that there seems to have been a bit of an epiphany and a conversion on the road to Damascus, if you will, and we should applaud that.

I'm going to talk mostly about TILMA — trade, investment and labour mobility. If we agree on trade, we should then talk about investment and labour mobility. I think there was a mention here…. The last speaker, my friend from the Okanagan, mentioned a couple of doctors that had some difficulty in moving from Alberta to British Columbia.

Well, it's not just doctors. It's teachers and other professionals that are very, very hampered in moving from province to province in our country. British Columbia students often will go to other provinces for education and come back here. They'll teach school, or they'll become accountants or whatever. There are many, many universities in this country that are highly accredited. Yet when we throw up barriers that will stop Canadians who want to come to our province to invest their lives and pay taxes, and they're stopped from doing so because of artificial boundaries put up between provinces, that's tragic, really.

So we are moving…. TILMA, between Alberta and British Columbia, breaks down those barriers and will allow the movement of professionals back and forth. We are very, very hopeful that this agreement will spread right across the country. Ultimately, it will. I'm very, very confident of that.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows jumps to a bunch of conclusions here about: "Well, this whole thing is about investment." Well, to start with, investment is pretty important. We live in a time right now…. In fact, we met last week with the Investment Industry Association, who are actually the people who put capital together for some of the junior companies in this province that are absolutely critical to the advancement of our economy.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: Now, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows chirps off. Well, when he was speaking, people allowed him to speak, and it would probably be courteous if he would listen. Maybe he could learn something.

The bottom line here is that as today's capital markets are highly restricted, it's very difficult, and I'll give some examples. Mining companies, junior mining companies, that have begun…. I'm quite familiar with one in the Kootenays, a company called Merritt Mining.

[1150]
[ Page 13879 ]

Merritt Mining opened one of the first mines in our tenure as government. It opened and went into full production. Their mill is set up. They are producing the mineral that they need, or that their mine is supposed to produce, and they've just got into production. Funding comes from the capital markets in Norway. Because of the worldwide crunch, the capital has dried up, and they're having to close down because they can't access capital anywhere.

Anything that we can do that will help investment move freely from province to province rather than the 13 regulators that we have across this country — and my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano is very familiar with that — including, I think, Nunavut. It has its own securities regulator — absolutely ridiculous.

Any move we can make to go to a single regulator, which is the kind of thing that is contemplated in TILMA, is very, very helpful. So we on this side of the House don't go through life seeing bogeymen under every bed. Every time that something gets put forward, these folks, the NDP, see a bogeyman hiding under the bed. "Oh, there must be something wrong. It's brought forward by capitalists. It's terrible."

I grew up a long time ago knowing there are no bogeymen under the bed, and if you're afraid of it, just look under the bed and get real. The member speaks about how the ALR is going to be compromised — the agricultural land reserve — by TILMA. Absolute rubbish.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Companies from Alberta that want to do business in British Columbia will follow the exact same rules as companies from British Columbia and vice versa. So if the ALR is in place in British Columbia, if a British Columbia entity wants to do something on ALR land, they will follow the ALR rules, and an Alberta company wanting to come to B.C. and do something on ALR land will follow identical processes. The same thing is going to happen in Alberta. B.C. companies will follow the Alberta law and process.

I'm tired of hearing about bogeymen. I think it's time to get on, as my friend from the Okanagan said earlier, and let's let our young people have access to the job market that they need. Let's build the economy that we need by trading, at least within our country, and letting investment move and professionals move the way they ought to within the borders of our country.

It's been a real pleasure to speak to this, and I support it wholeheartedly.

J. Les: It's also my pleasure this morning to rise to support the motion from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

A number of very insightful comments have been made this morning, and I won't belabour the issue too much longer. I just wanted to indicate that it's clear that, over the last eight years, our B.C. Liberal government has taken the lead in opening our country to freer trade. I think we are an acknowledged leader across the country in opening those trade relationships, and we're going to continue to do that.

We're going to invite others into TILMA. Eventually the effect of TILMA will emanate across our country to the benefit of every economy in Canada. It is, indeed, time that we properly recognize that we are all Canadians and that we should deal with these things as one country, not this balkanized effect that we've had for too many years in this country.

As we look forward, there's one other comment I would like to make, and that is the leadership that the Premier has shown on the file of extending a proper Open Skies agreement in this country. We have again been the victim, I would argue, of a cabotage policy in this country that is inappropriate, that is increasingly out of date.

I am hopeful that we will continue to pursue a proper, modern, up-to-date Open Skies agreement for this country, because that, too, is an aspect of opening up trade that is extremely important to this country, but certainly to this province, given that we are becoming increasingly this country's gateway to the Pacific.

With that, once again, I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by speakers on this side of the House this morning, and without further ado, move adjournment of debate.

J. Les moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. McIntyre moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175