2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th 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, May 30, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 23, Number 4

[ Page 7515 ]

MONDAY, MAY 30, 2011

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

By-Election Results

Clerk of the House:

May 27, 2011

Hon. Bill Barisoff
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On March 17, 2011, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Gordon Campbell, member for the electoral district of Vancouver–Point Grey. On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a writ of election for the electoral district of Vancouver–Point Grey on April 13, 2011, ordering a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy. The writ specified general voting day to be May 11, 2011. The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to me.

[1005]

In accordance with section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individual to be elected to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly: Christy Clark for the electoral district of Vancouver–Point Grey.

Sincerely,

Craig James,
Acting Chief Electoral Officer

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has sworn the oath, signed the roll and claims the right to take her seat.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the certificate of the acting Chief Electoral Officer of the results of the election of the member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Christy Clark, member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Premier of British Columbia, you may now take your seat. [Applause.]

The hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey took her seat.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to take leave to introduce some guests in the gallery today. Jonathan Whitworth, CEO from Seaspan Marine; John Shaw, VP, program management, shipyards; Gary Ley from Gary Ley Public Affairs; George MacPherson, president, Shipyard General Workers Federation in Vancouver; Jim Fitzpatrick, business manager, Local 191 Boilermakers, Iron and Ship Builders, Esquimalt; Jan Noster, president, Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers, Vancouver; Percy Darbyson, business manager, Marine and Shipbuilders Local 506, North Vancouver; and Marten Krysse from the district of North Vancouver.

I trust the House will welcome them to the House and the exciting events that will occur later on this morning.

Hon. C. Clark: I am honoured to be able to introduce my son Hamish Marissen-Clark, who is joining us today, and his caregiver today, Chris McGrath, joining us from West Vancouver.

R. Cantelon: Joining us today in the gallery is Mr. Ron Van Wachem. He is the president of the Pacific Coast Shipbuilders Association, and he is also president of the Nanaimo Shipyard Group. He, as well, is here to take great interest in the proceedings today, so please make him welcome.

N. Letnick: Between 1939 and 1945 the world was entrenched in a war which hopefully will end all world wars. A lot of the people from Kelowna and the B.C. Dragoons, who have just celebrated their 100th anniversary, made their way over to Europe to help liberate Holland.

In the gallery today we have with us the mayor of Veendam, one of the cities liberated by those brave fighters from Kelowna and British Columbia. We have Ab Meijerman, the mayor of Veendam; and his wife, Ike Meijerman-Loos. Would you please help me to help them be welcome.

J. Horgan: Also joining us in the gallery today to observe the motion we're going to be debating in the next number of hours is Greg Baynton, president, Vancouver Island Construction Association; Ross McLean, chair of Vancouver Island Construction Association; Phil Venoit, the business manager and financial secretary for IBEW Local 230. I see beside him Mark Curtis, also from the Sheet Metal Workers. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

PreventativE Health Care

N. Letnick: In a world of aging boomers placing greater pressure on service delivery with their sheer
[ Page 7516 ]
numbers and high expectations, an increasing percentage of the population is suffering from chronic diseases. The economics dictate that system change must occur if we wish to maintain true to the five tenets of the Canada Health Act. We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility.

[1010]

Health care in B.C. will soon be at a crossroads, but we are fortunate enough to see it coming. By 2026 Canadians 65 and over will increase from 13 percent of the population to 21 percent. Health care spending on Canadians between the ages of one and 64 averages an estimated $1,735 per person, in contrast to $9,500 per person over 65 years of age. The OECD estimates that the aging population require an additional 2 to 3 percent of GDP for health care, not accounting for technological advances or residential care.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The budget impact of serving people with chronic diseases is approximately 80 percent of MSP, PharmaCare and acute care budgets being consumed by 34 percent of the population. Canadians with one or more of the seven high-prevalence chronic conditions use 67 percent of all visits to community nurses, over 50 percent of all visits to family doctors and specialists and 72 percent of nights spent in hospitals.

With current technology, we cannot eliminate all chronic diseases, but we must make every effort to reduce their frequency and severity. In addition to genetic factors, there are many other major influences contributing to the epidemic of chronic disease. Many are complex issues that will require sustained, long-term societal effort to alleviate. However, prevention is the first step to chronic disease management, with 80 percent of some chronic diseases being preventable.

Cardiovascular disease remains the most common cause of morbidity and mortality. However, from '83 to 2003 British Columbia enjoyed a 50 percent reduction in CD mortality. This success can be replicated with other chronic diseases, in part by working together to reduce modifiable risk factors. For example, by improving our diet, getting physically active and stopping smoking, we can avoid 90 percent of type 2 diabetes, 80 percent of chronic heart disease and one-third of cancers.

By reducing identified risk factors within a decade, Canadians can gain another five years of healthy life expectancy. With only one fewer teaspoon of salt per day, the reduction in high blood pressure in Canada would save taxpayers an estimated $430 million a year. A 1 percent reduction in blood sugar levels has been linked to the reduction in kidney disease, eye damage, a 14 percent lower rate of heart attack and a 21 percent reduction in deaths due to diabetes.

It can take many years for chronic diseases to develop. Most disease reduction and prevention strategies benefit from professionals working together across disciplines and organizations focused on people-centred strategies. These strategies can include primary care reform, timely feedback systems, training, coaching, monitoring and support networks.

The recent expansion of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutrition program and financial help to quit smoking are great initiatives by this government. Changing a lifetime of bad habits isn't easy though. It's only been in the last few months that I've not searched high and low at home for that hidden stash of cookies or opted for fruit for breakfast instead of eggs with hash browns and sausages. Actually, it makes my mouth water just thinking about it.

Helping people help themselves to reduce common risk factors for chronic disease is why Premier Clark announced the healthy families strategy last week. To fight chronic illness, we need to implement these strategies, which encourage individuals to take positive action to improve their own lifestyles and fitness.

The cornerstones of B.C.'s strategy include healthy lifestyles — supporting British Columbians in managing their own health and reducing chronic disease by working with physicians to ensure consistent delivery of proven prevention; healthy eating — initiatives aimed at supporting healthy choices in the home, the school and the community and creating environments that support the provision of healthier foods that make their choice easier; healthy start — helping the most vulnerable families in British Columbia get the best start in life; and healthy communities — encouraging British Columbians to lead healthier lives where they live, work, learn and play.

Some of the government's supportive services designed to support patients in achieving their individual lifestyle change goals include physicalactivityline.com, which offers physical activity and healthy-living information to both public and health professionals. It offers guidance on becoming more physically active, overcoming barriers and staying motivated.

We also have quitnow.ca. Delivered through the B.C. Lung Association, it provides a wide range of free smoking-cessation services. Trained coaches will help develop a quit plan, deal with cravings and provide ongoing support.

Healthlinkbc.ca/dietitian offers free nutrition information and advice to meet personal nutrition goals and maintain a healthy lifestyle. We also have bouncebackbc.ca, which is a skill-building program for adults experiencing low moods or stress with or without anxiety.

[1015]

These progressive programs — along with others with targeted subsidies of up to $50 towards programs such as gym memberships and nutritional programs — will go a long way to increasing the number of British
[ Page 7517 ]
Columbians who are not overweight, increasing the number of British Columbians who get physical activity, reducing the number of British Columbians who smoke, and overall reducing chronic illnesses and helping to keep our publicly funded health care system sustainable and strong for years to come.

S. Hammell: It gives me pleasure to rise in response to the topic of preventative health care. It is interesting to note that the member began with discussing the increase in the seniors' population that we expect to see in the next number of years. But if you look at the statistics and dig deeply, it isn't so much the increase in aging that is causing the great pressures in the health care system; it's the increases in pharmaceuticals and in new technology. These will always challenge us as we search to deliver the very best health care services that we can afford.

It is good to hear, and of course, we all know that it is critical that we pay attention to our diet and exercise. We know that we have become a very sedentary community where we move much less. All of us would recognize that in our daily lives, but also, we recognize that that choice of food has often been heavily laced with an addiction to things like sugar or white flour that have been heavily processed. We understand that that needs to be part of our future when we think of prevention.

I think there are, also, some other aspects of prevention that we need to discuss other than a program that is heavily targeted across a broad sector that may not dig down deeply into individual lives. We had an example where last week we saw the results of cutting preventative services to communities in British Columbia.

On March 4, 2010, the Liberal government released an information bulletin called Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients. In that bulletin, it described the key cuts that were being made in the elimination of medical equipment and supplies, such as glucometers for diabetics, electrotherapy devices for people suffering joint and muscle pain, orthotics, medication delivery devices and contraceptives.

Those things were only to be delivered if there was an immediate or direct and imminent life-threatening health need. It was suggested at that time by a number of people that the government needed to look very closely at the consequences of eliminating these preventative measures in terms of the community.

Robin Loxton of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities was quoted as saying: "This was totally unexpected, and we only heard about the information late. There was no consultation that these things were going to happen."

Dr. Gabor Maté, a prominent doctor working in Vancouver, said: "It doesn't need a medical genius to know that cutting essential supports for people on low-income assistance will simply leave them in worse health." We know that poverty is a clear indication of your health or of how you will live your life in terms of health, and to cut services to low-income people seems, to me, to fly in the face of a preventative program.

In fact, the minister of the time said: "We felt these were, frankly, odd ends that weren't necessary to healthy living of folks on social assistance." Well, we saw last week the horrific consequences of some of these decisions. I'll focus particularly on the orthotics. I have trouble getting that word correctly.

[1020]

We have seen where the consequence of that decision and not allowing people on low income to access proper foot care has resulted in serious, serious pain and discomfort for many people, who have suffered as a consequence. In fact, it has been said that it has led directly to amputations of both foot and knee.

On that, Member, I would just raise the issue that prevention is larger than a big program. It's also specific.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for entering into the debate. The member is quite right. The impact on the health care system is, in large part, due to social determinants of health, due to pharmaceuticals and technology changes. We have to make sure that we look at new, innovative ways to address these challenges that we're going to be facing.

One of the ways to do that is by looking across to other countries. For example, in the United States the employer has a direct financial stake in the health of his or her employees, and shifting health care spending away from treatment and towards prevention is possible, as private insurance companies lower their premiums and charge employers based in part on the reduced medical claims costs generated by their workforce. So these partnerships work well.

Studies have correlated higher medical claims due to diabetes with obese, physically inactive employees. Different companies are using different strategies, but a common theme is to use carrots rather than sticks to encourage staff to attend diet and fitness programs at the office at their convenience and to eat lunches in corporate cafeterias that offer many low-calorie choices.

Staff are motivated to quit smoking by some form of financial incentive, as well as the support of co-workers to get through tobacco withdrawal. Some companies promote the use of annual health risk assessments, HRAs, and offer incentives for participation in health promotion and fitness programs, which have been found to be positively associated with lower absenteeism and higher health costs.

A 2007 survey of over 570 U.S. employers found that 72 percent were offering HRAs, 42 percent had obesity reduction programs and over a quarter offered reduced health insurance premiums for participants in health management programs.
[ Page 7518 ]

At Johnson and Johnson HRAs include individual behaviour and psychosocial assessments, and staff are supported through health-habit changes, early disease detection and chronic disease management. Through this program, J&J is achieving cost savings of approximately $225 per employee per year, with most benefits occurring in the first three to four years after the programs start.

For Canadian employers the benefits of a physically active and healthy workforce may include decreased employee benefit costs, absenteeism, short- and long-term disability payments, workers compensation benefits; and increased satisfaction and productivity.

Canada Life Assurance Co., for one, shows a return on investment of over $6.85 per dollar invested in supporting active living. Metro Toronto, B.C. Hydro, Canada Life and Toronto life insurance companies have all significantly reduced or realized savings through lower turnover and absenteeism through their programs.

A strengthened provincial strategy and investment in prevention can improve the health of British Columbians and potentially avoid up to $2 billion in yearly health costs, according to a report released in September by the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. The Premier's healthy families and four-prong prevention program just makes sense, saves dollars and is a positive move to help people in British Columbia improve their lives.

Caring for Seniors

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise today and to participate in a private member's statement — I think the first one in six years. In my previous role I didn't get to do this great thing; now I do. So I am up on a private member's statement. The topic is seniors. My colleague the member for Kootenay West is away today. I'm actually giving her private member's statement.

[1025]

As we all know, all of us in this room — none of us are getting any younger….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah yes. I actually thought the Minister of Education would have responded to that comment, but it was the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

Anyway, hon. Speaker, as my colleague across the way says, time is ticking. And it is ticking. We face a demographic challenge here in British Columbia and right across the country, but here in British Columbia it's particularly interesting.

Over the next ten years the population of seniors will increase significantly, depending on the age cohort. From 60 to 64, the population will increase by 29 percent. From 65 to 69, the population will have grown by 52 percent. The age group of 70 to 74 will have grown by 65 percent. The age group of 75 to 79 will have grown by 79 percent, and the increase of people over 90 will have grown by 63 percent.

It's a reflection that we're living longer, we're living healthier and we're living better. But it also points out some significant challenges that we as a province will be facing. In terms of health care costs, each decade that you live sees a significant increase in the amount of health care services required.

For example, a person in the 65- to 69-year-old age group uses more than twice the health care services of someone in the 45- to 49-year-old age group. A person who is 75 uses twice the health care of someone who is 65, and an 85-year-old uses twice the health care services, on average, of someone who is 75 years old. That tells you that we have some significant challenges, hon. Speaker.

There are all kinds of ways of meeting them, but one of the most effective is through home care and services that keep seniors in their homes longer. This requires a proactive approach by government to ensure that those services are there not just in terms of directly delivered by government and directly delivered through our health care system but also by communities adopting innovative ways of ensuring that we look after our seniors.

One of the biggest things taking place is the emergence of a sandwich generation, where you've got people in their 50s who are looking after their kids and looking after their aged parents. In many cases, aged parents are wanting to downsize and be closer to their kids.

One of the effective ways to do it is for the province to be working with local governments to encourage housing options, for example, that allow aging parents to stay with family members, by being innovative in terms of the addition of housing options that aren't quite there, by using the tax system to create opportunities and incentives for people to look after their aging parents. Those are things we can be doing that will allow aging parents to remain in the community close to family members, which relieve some of the care burden that otherwise would not be there.

The other issue in many communities is that there are programs in place that are community-driven, which allow, for example, volunteers to check on seniors who are living at home.

We had an example of a program like that in Port Coquitlam. The city hired a coordinator, who ran a volunteer program which ensured that 200 seniors were able to stay in their homes because the volunteers checked on those seniors on a regular basis — usually once or twice or three times a week — took them to medical or dental appointments, delivered groceries to them.

What it depended on was a lottery grant of some $78,000 a year. When it was eliminated, placing that
[ Page 7519 ]
program in jeopardy, the community stepped in to fill the gap, and the result was that the program was saved.

The problem is that it shouldn't have to be that way. There should be, I think, a comprehensive program that allows for those kinds of initiatives to take place. After I've had a response from the government member, I will continue on in that frame of mind.

[1030]

B. Bennett: It's an honour to rise and respond to the hon. member. I appreciate the fact that he talked about the issue and didn't lower himself into partisanship, and I think that's particularly important with this topic.

For my generation, this is the issue of our generation. It's the challenge of our generation. We find on the government side many, many challenges in all areas of government. Often those challenges come down to money — not having enough money to do the things that we'd like to do and even some things that we really badly want to do — and it usually relates back to the cost of health care.

Politicians, governments from across the country, and that includes our federal government, need to take this issue beyond partisan politics and start to look at solutions that we have not tried yet. The federal government needs to take an open-minded look at the Canada Health Act, and provincial governments and oppositions really need to step back from the partisanship and decide what we are going to do to improve the situation for our children and our grandchildren, because they are definitely going to inherit this challenge.

In terms of what the member spoke of, this side of the House has actually done an effective job of trying to meet the challenge that the member described. We've built 6,327 net new residential care beds, assisted-living and supported housing units and replaced 7,453. You can always do better, but it's very impressive compared to what we started with in 2001.

I agree with the member on his focus on home care as well. There's no question that we have to find ways to integrate home community care with primary care if we're going to even approach meeting this solution. But again, you know, the government has spent $2.44 billion on home and community care just this year. That's up almost $900 million from ten years ago. We're serving more clients — 23 percent more clients. Clients are getting, on average, more hours of care. Enough? Probably not, but it's more, and certainly the trend line is moving in the right direction.

Importantly, about 71 percent of all home support recipients end up paying absolutely nothing. We have focused a lot over the past ten years in trying to shield the lowest-income British Columbians from the costs of care and also the costs of room and board, of accommodations and food — very important, I think.

In my area of the East Kootenay, when I first got elected, I had seniors and their families. Usually it was a daughter or a son who would come into my office. They would say, "We've waited for a year and a half. We can't find a residential care bed for dad" or for a grandparent. Apparently the provincial average wait was a year. I can tell you that in the East Kootenay it was closer to two years.

That has now come down to about 90 days on average. We have literally hundreds of new residential care beds in the East Kootenay, both in the riding that I represent and in the riding north of me. Is it perfect? Are there enough? No question you can always build more and you can always provide more services, but great strides have been made in terms of accommodating the needs of seniors.

Just from an experiential point of view, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that in my office as an MLA, I don't receive nearly the number of complaints or inquiries around these issues as I did even four years ago. So we must be doing something right, and I think we are doing something right.

But again, I agree with the member that this is a huge challenge for all of us, and we've got to try to do better. We've got to try to meet this oncoming grey tsunami. I'm certainly a well-established member of that bubble that's moving forward. I've got two boys. One is 27, and one is 32. They are both gainfully employed, and I'm encouraging them to make as much money as they possibly can. They're going to have to pay the taxes for those of us who are going into those residential care beds, and there are going to be lots of us doing that.

[1035]

Just one final comment. The new care structure that we established in the fall of 2009 seems to be working quite well. Most people, certainly people on low income — 25 percent of the clients, in fact — saw a reduction of their rates.

M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his comments. The member quoted some statistics. I think they are that we spend more now than we have done before and that the length of time on the wait-list is shorter than it was before. I think that's great, but what's important is that we need to recognize that we need to be much more innovative. We need to recognize that communities have solutions, the province has solutions, and seniors themselves have solutions. We need to be bringing them together so that we can put solutions like that in place.

That's why I raised the example of the lottery grant. The elimination of those gaming grants…. Yes, it saved some money, but the consequences of that particular grant go far beyond the small amount of money that's being saved.

What it does is impact on the health care system. We saw that in the previous member's statement around the
[ Page 7520 ]
issue around orthotics. Cuts in another area of government have an important impact, a negative impact, in other areas of health care spending.

The point we need to recognize is that there needs to be, I think, a much greater examination of the impact of government policy in other areas that government is responsible for on our health care system, particularly when it comes to seniors.

As I said, that program, which cost $78,000, made sure that 200 seniors were able to stay in their homes. The cost of one senior being in a care facility or an acute care bed over a few months would eat up that $78,000 without any difficulty.

That's the type of approach we need to recognize — that our seniors deserve better than what's happening right now. We need to recognize the role that health care workers play in the delivery of seniors care — not just doctors, not just nurses, but registered community health care workers.

Care aides have important roles in our health care system. When a facility changes, a contract changes and they receive their layoff notices and have to bid back or see if they're going to get rehired, that gives a significant degree of uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why there's been a tremendous turnover rate in health care workers at the seniors care and community care level. That's a real problem. Without retention, without recruitment, we are not going to be able to deliver the kind of care that seniors and all of us expect.

I mean, at the end of the day, seniors are not just numbers. They're not just stats. They are our parents, our grandparents, our aunts, our uncles, our neighbours' parents, and they deserve better.

What we need to have in place is a strategy that recognizes many things: (1) the need to be innovative, (2) the need to be working with communities to provide housing options, (3) government needs to be aware of the impacts of its decision-making process in other areas of government outside of health care, and (4) we need to be treating health care workers with respect and recognize that they are a key component of seniors care delivery in British Columbia.

British Columbia's
Unconventional Gas Resource

B. Simpson: My thanks to the Government House Leader for enabling me to stand this morning and speak for seven minutes on a topic that would probably capture this House for many an hour, and that's the topic of our unconventional gas resources in British Columbia.

British Columbia has a long history of natural resource exploitation. The original founding of this province was fur, forests and fish. The neck of the woods I come from was the gold rush. If history dictates anything to us, it states that we need to be much more careful in how we use our natural resources.

In particular, in a world in which natural resources are becoming further and further constrained, more difficult and more costly to obtain, and as our population grows, I think it's a fair discussion for legislators to have about any of our natural resources: whether we have the right tax regime, whether we are pricing those natural resources appropriately, whether we're regulating the extraction of those natural resources appropriately and, in particular, whether the government subsidies are actually distorting the marketplace in a way that causes those natural resources to be exploited too quickly and in a way that actually damages the environment and impacts public health and safety.

[1040]

Our new wild west, of course, is what's happening with unconventional gas development in the Peace. I didn't come up with that term. That term was raised with us when I was on the Finance Committee. We visited the Peace region two years in a row, and that was the phrase being used with the Finance Committee. The oil and gas development in that area was the new wild west — in particular, some of the social issues and the social costs, the housing of the workers and how the communities were bearing the costs and infrastructure.

More recently, the question has been asked by the Peace Environment and Safety Trustees Society — that's the very large group of individuals and organizations from that region — as to what the health and safety implications are. They've called very specifically for a public inquiry to be held into just that aspect alone, the health and safety aspects of it. Their main question is: do current government law and policy governing natural gas production — wells, facilities and pipelines — adequately protect the public from sour gas and other health hazards?

That was signed onto by the MLA from the South Peace, a former Energy Minister. He signed onto that request. It's been signed onto by Northern Health. Today we still haven't seen if the government is going to take a look at that particular aspect of things.

Now, the government indicates that one of the things they believe is that this has been an exercise or a practice that has gone on for a very long time and has been done safely. Therefore, it's a don't-worry-be-happy approach.

I'm sure, as government members and opposition members know, shale gas development is a relatively new trifecta, to use the Minister of Finance's favourite word these days, of three technologies that have come to bear: multi-well pads, horizontal drilling — so not just drilling down but drilling very long ways horizontally — and then the use of hydraulic fracturing, the pressurized use of water, toxins and sand to create small seismic activity in those shale beds to open them up and allow the gas that's trapped in there to come out.
[ Page 7521 ]

That trifecta is what's new, and that trifecta of technologies is what's being brought into question because of the massive amounts of water required for this. B.C. has taken pride in holding the two largest fracs in the world. The one done by Apache at Two Island Lake used one million cubic metres of water alone — one million cubic metres of water for that one frac alone. That's equivalent to about 390 Olympic swimming pools just to open up that one well bed. So 274 successive fracs on 16 wells. And 1.1 million pounds of sand were used and about 5,000 cubic metres of toxins — one well pad.

It's fair for people to be saying: "Is this the right thing to do? Are there public policy issues about this?" That one well pad is repeated throughout that entire region and has huge implications. Water use alone, as we have found recently…. We have a situation in which there are two pipeline withdrawals from the Williston reservoir before government. I've asked the questions about that, and we're not quite sure how that's going to be permitted.

The issue we have, of course, is that the Oil and Gas Commission is the regulatory body for this. It's a permitting body, but the Oil and Gas Commission does not have responsibilities for cumulative impacts. It doesn't look at the cumulative impact of this exercise on land, on water, on health and safety issues, and on greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Here's a quote that I thought some of the members might be interested in. It's from the 1986 Ministry of Environment document on the requirements of the Ministry of Environment for management of petroleum activity in northeast British Columbia. It's from the Social Credit era. It's talking about cumulative impacts. It says: "Ideally, strategic planning precedes the sale of petroleum rights. This ensures all parties involved are aware of the concerns and constraints associated with development in an area before development is proposed."

That's really where the missing link is as we develop British Columbia's unconventional gas resources, particularly in the Peace region. We don't have an agency or entity of government that is actually looking at the cumulative implications for water, for land, for health and safety — all of those things.

[1045]

So the member for Delta South and I have been asking for a special committee of the Legislature to actually examine that. It's an appropriate public policy exercise for us.

Now, the other aspect of this that the government raises is that natural gas is a green substitute for other sources of energy. One of the things I would reference for the members in this Legislature is the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, an entity that was designed and funded by this government, which in its recent report asks the question: shale gas and climate targets — can they be reconciled? That's another area that requires a more fulsome study.

P. Pimm: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the fracturing issues in northeastern B.C. Also, thank you to the member for Cariboo North for bringing this issue forward, and Delta South as well.

Now, the member talks about water, and all of us are obviously very concerned about water. That's one of the reasons that the oil and gas companies are taking huge steps forward in the water issues. He talks about the environment, Peace environmental society, sand and water issues, pipeline withdrawals from Williston. We're aware of all of those things, and we're working towards making those things happen. So let's see if we can address some of his issues.

First, before I do that, I want to talk a little bit about why the member opposite all of a sudden has decided to take such an interest in worrying about the great folks in northeastern B.C. I mean, I'm happy you are, but I think that's why we have 85 MLAs, and I think I can look after my needs in that neighbourhood quite well.

I'd also like to ask the member opposite if he's going to be seeking election in northeastern B.C. next time around or if he would be content in trying to represent his own constituents in the Cariboo North. Last time I checked, certainly they could use a little help in that area, and I think he should be dedicating his time to their concerns instead of grandstanding in this House about northeastern B.C.

I'd like to ask the member for Cariboo North when the last time was he was actually in northeastern B.C., because…

Deputy Speaker: Member.

P. Pimm: …I'd like to offer an opportunity to meet with the politicians up there and talk about that.

Deputy Speaker: Can I remind the member of the nature of private members' business, please.

P. Pimm: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I'll certainly carry on and try to talk about….

Deputy Speaker: And to speak through the Chair, please.

P. Pimm: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let me just address myself to the Chair. Thank you, Madam.

I'd like to bring the member up to talk to some of our contractors in our area and to talk to some of the mayors, as well, in our area to see what their concerns are and see if what he's bringing up is actually what they're concerned about in our area. I'd really like to go through that process, hon. Speaker. So I offer that through you to the members to come up, and we'll bring you on a tour of our area and go through some of those problems with you.
[ Page 7522 ]

He talked a little about the Oil and Gas Commission. You know, the Oil and Gas Commission is widely known around Canada and, in fact, North America for the fantastic job that they do as regulators in our industry. They do a fantastic job. They've got 250 folks working for the Oil and Gas Commission. They're not government jobs. These are fee-for-service jobs. They go out, they inspect, they regulate, and every area in North America is looking to our Oil and Gas Commission when they set up their regulations. They do a darn good job, and I certainly think they deserve that respect as well.

Fracking is something that has been done for years in northeastern B.C. — many, many years. We started natural gas operations in 1957 in northeastern B.C. We've been doing it for 50 or 60 years, and doing it quite well, I might add. It's only the past few years, five years or so, that we've been doing multi-pad drilling.

You talked about the environment, but you forgot to mention…. Madam Chair, he forgot to mention the fact that when you go to multi-pad drilling, you're using about 20 percent of the land that you use under conventional measures. Twenty percent of that land — that's it. They're little tiny bit bigger pads. They're like five hectares instead of the two hectares that used to be, but you get 20 wells off of one pad, so your footprint is absolutely nothing. That's the kind of stuff we should be talking about in this House, and absolutely, we better start talking about that sort of thing.

[1050]

You talked so much about water. I want to talk about one of the companies. You mentioned Apache and didn't mention EnCana, but Apache you talked about. They have a joint venture up there. Apache and EnCana have a joint venture. They drill into a Debolt water system that is about 300 metres below surface. It brings in saline water, a saline aquifer that's down below the surface. Then they bring it up. They go through a treatment plant. They paid $30 million to build a treatment plant to do this.

In the last project, the last frack just done by EnCana in the Horn River basin, they recaptured 90 percent of the water they used from that saline thing. They are making great strides in looking after the water in our area, and I give them great kudos for that.

One of the things we didn't talk about, but I'm sure it's probably coming….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Your time has elapsed.

B. Simpson: Where to begin on a response like that to a call for reasoned debate.

First, we don't have a balkanized situation where MLAs only represent their areas or areas of interest. B.C.'s unconventional gas resources are distributed throughout British Columbia. They are owned by all British Columbians, not by the people of the northeast, and any public policy that impacts that is done in this House in Victoria. So unless there's a House of the Legislature in the Peace that only deals with the Peace issues, it is absolutely appropriate for any MLA in this House to address those issues in this House.

Second, I did visit the Talisman site. I watched fracking operations going on. I visited the Williston dam. I visited the Peace. I've been up through that area and intend to get back up again.

The issue we have is whether or not the public policy we have is the right public policy for the expansion of this publicly owned resource in which all 85 MLAs have a responsibility. Otherwise, why do we have an Energy Minister from Langley? I don't understand that aspect of it. It must only have an Energy Minister from the Peace.

Here's one statement that speaks to the issue of public policy. This is, again, from an entity established by the provincial government to give it advice on climate change issues. It states:

"The potential rise in emissions from shale gas will make it extremely difficult for B.C. to achieve its CO2 reduction targets. For the province to meet its legislated emission reduction of 33 percent below 2007 levels, it must reduce total provincial emissions by 33.6 million tonnes a year. However, our forecast shows that shale gas development alone would increase provincial emissions by almost 10 percent."

That is a public policy issue because the government has mandated by law greenhouse gas emission reductions that its own entity, funded by government, says cannot be achieved by that one natural resource extraction activity alone. That's a public policy issue. All I'm asking for, and all the member for Delta South is asking for…. I would challenge the member that if there's nothing to hide, let's take a look at this as a public policy issue.

We can either do public policy by protest, or we can do public policy by reasoned debate and dialogue with the public. That's really what's at stake here. So what's wrong with a special committee to examine this? If the Oil and Gas Commission is solid, it will prove to be solid. If the public policy is a good, solid public policy framework, it will prove to be so. If we have baseline studies for water, and our water utilization is appropriate, it will be proved to be so. There is nothing to be lost by having a more reasoned approach to this issue.

The Forest Economy

N. Macdonald: One of the sad realities for us is that forestry, which we're going to be talking about for the next few minutes, is often perceived as less relevant to many British Columbians as our population concentrates in urban and suburban areas. But what we in rural areas know is that forestry remains critically important not only to our rural communities, but it also impacts
[ Page 7523 ]
the Lower Mainland and other built-up areas to surprising degree.

[1055]

Our public lands and our forests are the most valuable asset that we have in British Columbia. There have been estimates as high as a trillion dollars in terms of the value of those public lands, so this is our most valuable asset.

It is in everyone's interest in the province that we manage our public lands effectively, that we do that for social reasons and environmental reasons. But the focus of today's discussion will be for economic imperatives.

We have to get the most that we can out of this valuable, valuable resource, and in recent years our province's forests and our forest industry have faced unprecedented challenges. Everyone would agree on that. These have been difficult years. On the economic front, while there are generally, in the last number of years, pretty decent prices for pulp, and to a certain degree lumber is starting to recover, there's no question that there has been a huge loss in terms of employment and in terms of manufacturing base.

China has increased imports, but the U.S. remains our largest buyer, and they are at a fraction of the value that we saw in the boom years of 2004-2005. Even in the boom years, though, we were losing jobs, and that trend increased significantly over the past number of years.

Now, bioenergy is one of the answers, but the challenge with bioenergy is that I've seen figures as much as one job for 13,000 cubic metres, compared to more traditional manufacturing where you get one job for a thousand cubic metres. So it provides some opportunity, but it's pretty limited in terms of meeting the economic needs that we have.

Value-added offers, I think, enticing opportunities. Value-added jobs tend to be in small corporations. Those businesses not only are small, but they tend to be nimble and make efficient use of the resource. This is not a suggestion that they would replace existing industries, but it is an opportunity to build employment.

In my constituency there are a number of these value-added manufacturers, but a surprising number of them, actually — as the member who's going to debate will know — are in the Lower Mainland. So it is an employment base that will benefit not only rural areas but urban areas as well.

Government policy can play a big part here with value-added. There are other opportunities that exist with the biomass, and while we are still to get to a place where we fully understand what those possibilities can be, government will play a role, I think, in looking at what we can do with biomass.

On the environmental front there's no question that there's a perfect storm of events in the Interior. Pest disease linked to climate change is having dramatic impacts, and in the mid- to long term the forest is changing. It means we need to plan for the changed forest, plan for the dramatic changes in hydrology. There is a need for the province to take the lead in research, a need for inventory work, a need for silviculture work and a need for reforestation.

There is also a need to understand how to pay for it. We used to get $2 billion a year from forestry into public coffers. We now lose money. That has to be figured out as well. At present the minimum stumpage is 25 cents a cubic metre, and 60 percent of the wood harvested last year was at that minimum rate. So a truckload of fibre is sold for the equivalent of three cups of coffee. We are simply not getting the money that we used to, and there are good reasons, which the member opposite can explain, why that's the case. It's just that we are not receiving the revenue that we used to on these issues.

Every crisis creates an opportunity. We know that we need to revitalize our forest economy. We know that we need to restore our province's impoverished forest lands, and we know that we need to reconnect the land to rural communities.

I think members will agree that these are critically important issues that require this Legislature's full attention, and it requires us to look at how we as lawmakers lead and enable the change that is needed.

[1100]

One of the opportunities that I've had as the critic is, with the member for Nechako Lakes, to go to a number of conferences together. What we find often in those discussions is that on an awful lot of issues, we have agreement and mutual understanding. I think that provides a basis for how we can move forward as lawmakers.

I look forward to the comments from somebody who has spent a lifetime in the forest industry and has heard many of the same things that I have and, coming from rural B.C., shares the same commitment to doing better with forestry. I look forward to hearing what he has to say and to react in a very short way to some of his statements.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for bringing forward this statement on Monday morning. Typically these Monday morning statements can sometimes border on being a little too partisan, so I very much appreciate the approach the member has taken to be able to discuss such an important topic.

Forestry has gone through an incredible transformation over the last 50 or 60 years in the province. A logging camp that used to bring in a certain amount of wood would have 125 people. Because of technological advancements, today we've got maybe 15 or 25 people bringing in even more wood than what they used to be able to. So the industry has transitioned. There's no question.

Going forward, what will the industry look like? I think that gets to the point of what the member was talk-
[ Page 7524 ]
ing about. What is it that we need to do in the province? What should we be thinking about for policy that is ultimately going to be able to strengthen the industry, to preserve what can be done in terms of our traditional industries but also to set the stage to be able to transform into new industries or into expanded opportunities.

Recently we have seen a number of jobs that have come back because of the uptick in forestry as far as forest activities. Companies have managed to get their pricing points under control, and prices have improved. Of course, China has played a big role in being able to do that for our traditional industry. But that still leaves the question: where will forestry be in ten or 15 years? And what policies do we need to put in place to enable that and to make sure we maximize that value?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The member talked about value-added and the potential for value-added, and I couldn't agree more. We need to find ways to be able to do more with the wood — very clear. One of the things that I've been talking about now for a number of years is our stumpage system. Our stumpage system is set to extract a royalty, if you want to call it that, from the log when the log is harvested. But what that means is that there's no incentive for doing anything more with the wood once that wood comes in.

It also creates a problem because if you've got wood that perhaps is marginal or that you don't necessarily want to use, bringing it in actually reduces the amount of fibre that you could access as a mill.

So one of the things we looked at, of course, is a receiving licence to be able to offer some of the opportunities. But stumpage itself, and perhaps this is a radical idea…. I just think the whole stumpage system should be thrown out. If we want to be looking at value-added and looking at the opportunity to really reshape our forest industry, the stumpage system is an antiquated system. I think its time has come and gone, and we should actually look at something like a value-added tax on the system so that there can be credits that work through the system. When wood can flow to remanufacturing and to value-added, there are ways that credit can flow through to be able to help restructure and strengthen that type of opportunity.

Similarly, you're looking at things like opportunities in China. I was over there recently and talked to a bunch of people, around an opportunity with furniture. You think: "How does B.C. wood fit into that?" The furniture industry just in northern China alone needs about a billion board feet a year, and not just from our traditional softwood. They could also be looking at birch that we currently do not use or alder from the coast — a number of products, even aspen and cottonwood that we currently don't utilize, which they would be interested in using. So there are opportunities for that kind of transition.

Ultimately, I think bioenergies and fuels also need to play an enormous potential for how our forest industry will look in the future. We have the traditional sawlog and pulp mill and plywood types of operations, but really there is an enormous amount of fibre, about 20 percent today, left behind in the woods, plus an enormous amount of opportunity with lower-quality fibre that could be used for all kinds of different purposes. We need to be able to set the stage to use that. Ultimately, if there's a stand that maybe has 20 or 30 percent sawlog component, we need to be able to go in and get that sawlog component and have somewhere else for the rest of that fibre to go to and be used.

[1105]

The member touched briefly on silviculture as well. I want to touch on that for my last closing comments. If we're talking ten to 20 years out for our forest industry, it's not just about how we can utilize but how we manage the land base. How do we go through and make sure that we can capitalize on the potential for growth and the potential for capturing fibre?

Sweden has done some great work on a land base that's a third the size of ours, and they've got a cut that's larger than ours. How do they manage to do that? We've looked at that through some intensive silviculture, through how the land is managed. They, of course, have more private land than we do, but if we could duplicate a type of system to be able to drive those innovations, there's enormous potential.

I'm very happy that the member has brought this forward, and I look forward to his closing comments.

N. Macdonald: One of the interesting things about this topic is that because you're dealing with issues that are so long-term, you almost need to come to a place where there is general consensus in terms of how you move forward. It's not an issue that is well suited to massive political fluctuations, because if you enter into a path on, for instance, changing the stumpage system to go, in four years, in a different direction, it is hugely problematic.

I guess what it comes down to is something that the member and other members have talked about for quite a long time: trying to figure out how we as lawmakers and as policy-makers do the work on forestry in the most effective way.

One of the proposals that has long been out there is a standing committee of MLAs dealing with the forestry issue. I would say that that is a logical proposal that's been there for five or six years, and I would hope that at some point we get to a place where the good work that's possible actually takes place.

One of the interesting things about estimates was that with the minister answering in such a non-
[ Page 7525 ]
partisan way, it became far more conversational and far more of a sharing of information than I've seen in the past. It was a very useful exercise because of that, I think.

The other thing that I want to finish off with, which I think is something that this Legislature needs to think about, is the possibility of an independent forest commission. It's been 20 years since our last forest commission. Properly tasked, it could draw on the expertise that we have here in British Columbia.

The member opposite for Nechako Lakes talked about some interesting ideas, but they really need to be thought through. Any of the things that I talk about, in terms of value-added, open up very complex issues that need to be thought through. To do that, I think that one of the things we should consider is the idea of a forest resource commission.

I want to thank the member for the opportunity to participate in this debate with him. We both agree, and I think all members agree, that forestry is incredibly important and that we as lawmakers need to do whatever is possible to make sure that it thrives again and continues to provide wealth not only for rural communities but for all British Columbians.

Hon. B. Penner: I call debate on Motion 12 on the order paper.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 12 — NATIONAL SHIP
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Sultan: I offer a resolution for consideration by the House.

[Be it resolved that this House support the efforts of our federally-qualified marine contractor in acquiring contracts for building large vessels for the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard, recognizing that capitalizing on the $33 billion National Ship Procurement Strategy will expand British Columbia’s economy and shipbuilding expertise.]

Madam Speaker, if I may just address a few remarks on this resolution.

[1110]

Canada needs this $35 billion program for defence of the realm. Our navy frigates do not last forever and must eventually be replaced. Patrol of our third coastline, the Arctic, is becoming a necessity much faster than any of us had predicted. Relying upon the Americans or anybody else to defend our coastlines and our interests abroad is simply unacceptable. A strong Canadian defence is the price of Canada's freedom.

Secondly, we're in competition here with eastern shipyards. From the perspective of eastern Canada, it's all too easy to dismiss western Canada as remote, unsophisticated and not terribly important. Well, we beg to differ.

The centre of gravity of the world is shifting towards Asia. The centre of gravity within Canada is shifting as well. The west is the big new kid on the block in terms of population, trade, economy and political influence.

Vancouver's the busiest port in Canada by far, and our marine industries match any standard of excellence. Unlike some I could mention, our British Columbia shipyards are efficient, productive and solvent. They routinely deliver on time and on budget.

Thirdly, thousands and thousands of high-paying jobs are at stake here in Vancouver, in Victoria, in Nanaimo and in the hinterland. We're prone in this House to get excited if a billion-dollar project comes along. Members, this one is 35 times bigger than that.

I ask this House to unreservedly show its support for our British Columbia shipbuilding industry as they pursue these vitally important, job-intensive, family-strengthening contracts in Ottawa.

M. Karagianis: I rise to respond to this motion. The first thing I'd like to say is that it's about time. It's about time that the other side of the House actually became involved in a very aggressive way in this topic. We on this side of the House have been talking about saving shipbuilding jobs, fighting for shipbuilding jobs and making sure we invest in shipbuilding jobs for years and years in this House.

Last April the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to write to the Prime Minister with regard to this. So a full year ago we were already aggressively seeking some kind of support from the federal government. I would like to quote from the letter that was written by the then leader, Carole James, on April 28, 2010.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member.

M. Karagianis: Sorry, Madam Speaker, the then leader, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, to the Prime Minister: "A national procurement strategy must fairly reflect the full range of resources available across our country to fulfil your government's renewal plan. Therefore I ask for assurance that British Columbia's shipbuilding industry is given appropriate consideration and is fully included in the strategy that the throne speech outlined to Canadians."

One year ago. We were asking then for attention to this issue. I wrote, myself, to two ministers in Ottawa, one to Minister Rona Ambrose and the other to Minister
[ Page 7526 ]
Tony Clement in November of 2010, again asking for the same considerations here.

I'd like to quote from my letter because I think it represents clearly our position on this side of the House: "I enthusiastically support shipbuilding in British Columbia. These jobs are skilled and well-paying, and the ripple effect in our local economy is significant. Years of shipbuilding work here have nurtured a pool of skilled workers that is second to none." That is on record, Madam Speaker, from my constituency.

Now, I know that we are in a very critical time frame in this national procurement, because there is going to be the conference, the CANSEC, which is going to be held June 1 and 2 in Ottawa. It seems to me that we are again in an urgent situation here to ensure that Ottawa hears clearly from British Columbia that we are willing to advocate for those jobs.

I see we have a number of supporters and friends here in the audience today, people from my constituency and representatives from the shipbuilding industry on both sides of the water. My friend Phil Venoit is here from the IBEW.

[1115]

I'd just like to quote a few statistics that he has given us here, because it shows the immense impact this will have, not only on the economy of my constituency but the entire province: $15 billion injected into this economy for good-paying, skilled trades jobs. That's $9 million in the Lower Mainland and $6 million here on the south Island.

That will be a huge and immeasurable input of money and job opportunities here on the Island and on the west coast: 2,000 direct-paying jobs potentially, a spinoff that is recognized as three to four jobs for every shipyard job and a potential of 8,000 to 10,000 new jobs for British Columbia. Think how refreshing it would be to have these kinds of family-supporting jobs instead of the half-time, minimum-wage jobs that we have seen created in the last number of years here.

These are vital to an economy that would support British Columbians far into the future, a potential of up to 30 years of work. That's not a job; that's a career for many, many individuals here in this province and for the future. That will have ripple and long-term effects forever. This supports apprenticeships, colleges, training institutions.

I thought it was rather bittersweet that the head of B.C. Ferries, David Hahn, had the audacity to print a letter in support of shipbuilding here in the Times Colonist recently because this is the very individual who, under the B.C. Liberals' guidance, sent shipbuilding jobs to another country.

It was a hugely controversial issue. We fought it on this side of the House, and now to see that even the head of B.C. Ferries is touting the effects of winning these contracts here in British Columbia…. I mean, that's a bitter pill for the entire industry, as we watched those jobs go to Germany.

I do certainly agree with the comments that were made by Mr. Hahn here about the vitality that this multi-million dollar opportunity would bring to British Columbia, but certainly he wasn't so willing to do that, and neither were the B.C. Liberals, when our jobs went to Germany earlier.

I think that it's interesting to see the government bring forward this motion in the face of what other provinces are doing, so I did take a look at what Nova Scotia's doing. Nova Scotia is also competing with us for these contracts, for these dollars, and they are so far ahead of us that it makes us look late to the game and amateurish at best.

There is a website that is so exciting. It is so progressive, so aggressive on getting these contracts. This is "Nova Scotia: built to build ships." They have a huge, proactive process that's been underway for some time, and what do we have now? We have a motion that's debated here for a few minutes — just literally hours before an important conference starts in Ottawa.

Where have we been for the last number of years? Well, this government has not been paying attention to this issue, and I think that has been to our detriment. But I will say that even coming in at the eleventh hour like this is better than not coming in at all.

For us at this time to do everything we possibly can to send the strongest possible message from British Columbia that we are in the game, that we are interested in competing for these contracts and that we will do so aggressively…. We may be months behind other communities that have already tried to lobby strongly in Ottawa. Perhaps we will even take the step not just of a motion, not just of a few moments of debate here on the floor, but of sending a contingency to Ottawa to ensure that our voices are heard and our industry is well represented.

There would be an action that I would offer up to the government right now: to send a contingency to Ottawa. Take some of our fine, very skilled, eloquent and cogent members of the shipbuilding industry with you. Go to Ottawa, knock on their door, and say we want a part of this. We do not want to see the competition for this go elsewhere.

Now, there will only be a couple of choices in this contract, and we are not the only one bidding on this. They're likely to pick only two locations. There are three very aggressive competitors here. We know the politics back east. It's a long way to British Columbia. I see the new Premier has taken a seat here, so I would offer up: let's go to Ottawa. Let's ask for these jobs.

That is billions of dollars into our economy. It is careers. It is the renewal of our shipbuilding industry. It is insurance that our shipbuilding industry is not going to disappear, that we will no longer make the kinds of
[ Page 7527 ]
mistakes we have in the past of sending our jobs, our taxpayers' money, out of this province.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to rise to support my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano and ensure that this House understands — which we do; we've got some government members up here right now — that this deal would ensure the stability of the shipbuilding industry in B.C. for years and years to come.

[1120]

According to an independent report by Meyers Norris Penny, commissioned by Seaspan — and our friends, I understand, are here; I introduced them earlier today — it is estimated to create 3,700 jobs between 2013 and 2020, and from 2023 to 2032, 8,500 jobs, direct and indirect, in the marine industry. These are well-paid, family-supporting jobs, averaging $80,000 a year, including benefits.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The same report for Seaspan estimates an additional 740 construction jobs will be created between 2012 and 2014 as a result of infrastructure needed to build the ships in both Victoria and Vancouver. According to the same report, the combat vessel package will add, from 2013 to 2022, $283 million GDP annually and $693 million annually from 2023 to 2032.

The benefits of this contract extend beyond Seaspan. As part of the deal, Seaspan must commit to contributing to a viable marine cluster around it and incorporate other shipbuilders and marine suppliers into its supply chain. This has potential to dramatically increase the size of the marine industry, which has been subject to extreme economic cycles.

B.C. Ferries has publicly stated that the contract will result in shipbuilding infrastructure which could help to keep their future shipbuilding in B.C., an advantage to all of us.

The federal government's $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy is designed to rebuild and refit the country's marine fleet over the next 30 years. It's revolutionary, and it is intended to create two centres of shipbuilding excellence in the country that are sustainable over the long term.

Time is of the essence. The deadline is July 7. I am rising to support this initiative from my colleague in West Vancouver–Capilano and encourage everyone in the House to come out and support this procurement strategy with Seaspan.

R. Cantelon: Let me briefly comment that I think a way to build a strong economy is to build on your strengths, to build on the strength of your resources. In B.C., of course, we have lumber. We have mining. But one of our great comparative advantages is our wonderful harbours — Vancouver harbour, as mentioned — and our access to international Pacific markets.

This proposal to expand and take advantage of this great federal opportunity is one that will benefit broadly. It's a strength that we can build on. It's a core industry in British Columbia.

As mentioned briefly by my colleagues, not just North Vancouver but shipbuilding industries on north Vancouver Island will greatly benefit. As this huge contract comes towards us, and I hope and trust it will, it will expand the job opportunities in Nanaimo, Port Alberni and other places — firstly, by direct benefit, by taking parts of the job, but secondly, by displacement.

Some of the other maintenance work that won't be able to be done by the large industries, Seaspan, will displace to the smaller shipbuilding. It'll have a great impact throughout the coastal areas of British Columbia.

The spinoff effect too. It's supporting industries not only directly in the shipbuilding but also in the secondary industries that feed into and that support these core industries.

This is a monumental opportunity for all British Columbians. I support what other speakers have said. This is an opportunity we must seize. We must take full advantage of this because of the great and long-term benefits to the employees and to the families of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to take my place and speak to this motion, which I support wholeheartedly, as do all of us on the opposition side.

I'm familiar with shipbuilding and ship repair. It's employed members of my family for 160 years and continues today.

We live on the west coast of Canada, the country with the largest coastline in the world, yet our record when it comes to shipbuilding is nowhere near what a province of this size and this wealth should have.

[1125]

This national ship procurement strategy, which is worth $35 billion, represents the single greatest opportunity to create a long-term, sustainable ship-repair environment in this province's history. The federal government is going to choose two shipyards. There are five in the running for it — only one on the west coast — yet what we've seen, I think, has been a virtual silence from this province on this issue.

What's required is serious, determined action by the province to let Ottawa know that we want this contract. In fact, we expect this contract. The days of leaving these types of contracts just to the Maritimes and Quebec have to end. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, most of all, Quebec are aggressively pursuing this contract.

We know it's highly likely that Halifax is very strongly in the running. After all, the Minister of Defence is from Nova Scotia.
[ Page 7528 ]

The Quebec government is trying to revive a bankrupt shipyard, the Davie shipyard in Lévis, Quebec, to be a contender, yet the rules of the program say that it's got to be a functioning shipyard. Well, that's not stopping Quebec from trying to do everything they can to make sure that one of those yards is in Quebec.

We have to send a strong message. There's something wrong when the team that comes out from Ottawa to evaluate our yard here on the west coast did not realize how close Esquimalt naval base is to the shipyard that would be doing the jobs, hon. Speaker. That tells you something. We need to have a much stronger and much greater, aggressive presence on this contract and in Ottawa than we've had to date.

Let's look at what the opportunity is about: $35 billion, our navy ships, our frigates, our Coast Guard vessels. Guaranteed certainty of repair and replacement, and when it's over, it starts all over again.

The ability to train, for people looking for apprenticeship in the marine trades, is phenomenal. You don't have to worry about a boom-and-bust cycle. What this will do is create certainty. It'll encourage men and women to go into the marine trades. They are extremely well-paying jobs, very well-paying. You can look forward to a lifetime career.

Businesses can start up with a sense of certainty, as well, that it's not boom and bust, something which has characterized the shipbuilding industry on this coast for far too long.

What it requires is some commitment, and I will tell you: if we get one of those yards, hon. Speaker, B.C. Ferries will never, ever again have the excuse of saying we're sending our ships offshore because "we don't have the talent here in our province."

The trouble is that all the signals we've been sending to Ottawa from the west coast, by sending our ferries to Germany to be built, have been sending exactly the wrong message: that we don't care. That needs to change. It needs to change today.

There may have been correspondence going ahead. It has been done very quietly. We need to have a strong, vocal, public presence that we want one of those yards here in British Columbia. We expect it. Western Canada will not sit silent, as we have done for far too long in this country, and let other parts, particularly those closer to Ottawa, get the plums.

Our time is now. What it requires is the commitment of everybody in this House to send a strong message to Ottawa that those jobs and our fair share belong here in this province.

[1130]

Hon. C. Clark: I am honoured to take my seat in this Legislature and to make my first speech as Premier of this province. I am honoured that I have a chance to do it on one of the most important issues that is facing government today, one of the three issues that our government has taken on to really give some focus to.

We are focused on opening up government and listening to British Columbians. We are focused on making sure that families are at the centre of our agenda. And you cannot make sure that families are at the centre of your agenda if you are not talking about jobs.

What's the most important way to make sure that you are able to do your job as a parent or as a family member for the people that you love? It's making sure that you have what you need to be able to put bread on the table and support them, and it all starts with a job. So job creation is a central focus of this government.

I'm also delighted, by the way, to be able to get up and speak on an issue which has bipartisan support. I'm delighted to hear the member for Port Coquitlam get up and speak so passionately about an issue that has been important to his family — an industry that has put bread on the table for him and his siblings, an industry that made sure he didn't go to school hungry every day.

That's what we're talking about when we're talking about jobs. We are talking about families — families like his, families like all of ours. Today, in moving this motion, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is making an important point. He's making a point that we have a chance to work together on issues where we have common cause. And surely, on this one, we do have common cause. Surely, when it comes to creating jobs, we can find some common ground.

Now, we will not always agree on the way to get there. In fact, we'll probably, more often, disagree. But we can stand together — united as British Columbians and as a Legislature that has traditionally been deeply partisan — and talk about the things that we care about together.

Now, in this particular case, we're talking about a national procurement strategy for shipbuilding. We're talking about a $35 billion contract, a $35 billion fund, that is of tremendous importance not just to Canada but to British Columbia. It's important economically, it's important socially, and it's important for our sovereignty. It holds the possibility of huge economic benefits for British Columbia.

Seaspan Marine Corporation is one of four federally qualified shipyards that is competing. Seaspan is strong. They're experienced, they're viable, and they're secure. There is every reason that they should be able to secure this contract.

Now we have before us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring these jobs to British Columbia, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cadre of skilled workers who will grow up, work in this industry and raise their children to believe that they could have a future in that industry too.

How often are governments, how often are politicians, societies, companies…? How often do we face these op-
[ Page 7529 ]
portunities? How often do we have the chance to grasp an opportunity like this one? This is a big deal for British Columbia, and it requires a big commitment from all of us. It requires a big commitment from the workers. It requires a big commitment from the company. And it requires a big commitment from all of us here in this Legislature.

So I stand today, in my first speech in this Legislature as Premier, to say to you: if you are looking for commitment, you have it here. Our government is committed to doing what we need to, to support the bringing of these jobs to British Columbia, to grasping this once-in-a-generation opportunity and making sure that we can help create that generation of skilled workers which British Columbia families will rely on, not just in this generation, not just in this decade, but in decades to come.

Hon. Speaker, to the workers at Seaspan, I say: "We're with you." To the company, I say: "We're behind you." To the people of British Columbia, I say: "We have the commitment because we recognize the benefits that this will bring to our entire province." And to the members of this House, I say that I am delighted that we have a chance to work together on something where we do, truly, have common cause that will make a big difference for British Columbia. Let's get started.

[1135]

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the motion, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Division.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, division requested during private member's times are deferred until 30 minutes prior to the ordinary fixed adjournment time. Therefore, division on Motion 12 will take place at 6 p.m. tonight.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Motion 14 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MOTION 14 — GOVERNMENT
ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

M. MacDiarmid: I move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the positive results that have arisen from government’s investment in a multi-faceted approach to reducing street homelessness, so that British Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens have access to stable and secure shelter and housing.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In 2006 our government released the Housing Matters B.C. framework. Through this framework we provide wide-ranging programs that address housing needs for British Columbia's most vulnerable citizens. Housing is one of the most basic human needs, and we have made significant progress in recent years in addressing the housing challenges that some of our citizens face. Our comprehensive housing strategy has been supported by the highest housing budget in the history of our province.

People have very different needs when it comes to housing. For some, the need is very simple; they simply require monthly financial support to help with the cost of their housing. But for others, the needs are much more complex, and because of that, we're providing housing with a variety of support services. In this way, we can make sure that people with more complex needs — the homeless, those living with mental illness and addiction, women fleeing abuse — will get the support they need.

British Columbians care very deeply about taking steps to end homelessness, and they clearly understand that it is simply the right thing to do. We're also aware that it makes financial sense. Every homeless person uses approximately $55,000 each year in services such as health care, emergency services, social services and involvement with the justice system. In contrast, it costs about $37,000 to provide homeless people with housing and appropriate supports.

So we're attacking the problem of homelessness in a number of different ways. For example, the provincial homelessness initiative has committed to more than 6,500 new and upgraded supportive housing units and shelter beds. Currently, there are 5,400 units, compared to just 1,300 in 2001. Then there is the homeless outreach program, which operates in 49 communities, and the aboriginal homeless outreach program, which operates in nine communities. These programs help individuals who are homeless to find housing and support services and have housed over 3,000 people since April of 2010.

I want to speak specifically about successes in Metro Vancouver. Overall, homelessness slightly declined in Metro Vancouver this year for the first time in many years, in contrast to the increases seen in many cities in North America. This year's Metro Vancouver homelessness count saw 54 percent fewer street homeless individuals. More individuals are accessing shelters. This has increased by 74 percent.

The province invests about $231 million each year to address homelessness across Metro Vancouver and to provide affordable housing. In partnership with the city of Vancouver and the Streetohome Foundation, we're investing more than $300 million to build more than 1,500 new supportive housing units. Three are al-
[ Page 7530 ]
ready open, 570 will be running by the end of this year, and another thousand will open over the next two to three years.

We recognize that there is more work to be done. There are some critical areas — in particular, housing for people who are homeless, have mental health issues or substance addictions. The homelessness intervention project brings together all provincial and community social housing, health services, support services and income assistance to reduce homelessness and ensure that help is available when and where people need it most.

Our government is also investing in long-term housing solutions, building new housing in communities throughout B.C. in partnership with local governments, First Nations and community organizations so that we can all make the most of our resources.

[1140]

We will continue to build on our successes. The partnerships we have are critically important. No single level of government can fully address the housing challenges that some of our citizens face. There is great power in partnerships, and we are grateful to those who have stepped up to work with us. Together, we're truly making a difference, and we absolutely depend on the hard work, dedication and expertise of all of our partners as we plan and deliver housing that is tailored to the needs of communities around B.C. This is key to ensuring that housing assistance is available to people when and where the needs are greatest.

Last December I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a 62-unit supportive housing unit development in Vancouver, the first site to break ground in a partnership between the province and the Streetohome Foundation. Each government and community organization representative at that ceremony received a work of original art from someone whose life had been impacted by either housing or other supportive services. We absolutely saw from these people — a human face — how important it is for us to address this issue.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join in this debate, this discussion, of the motion in regard to the question of homelessness.

I think that when we talk about this issue, we need to look at the broader question. It clearly is the case that in terms of people accessing shelters, we saw significant improvements in the last homelessness count in the Lower Mainland, which the member spoke about. We did see significant improvement.

The most disappointing thing in some ways is that we saw essentially no improvement in terms of the overall number of homeless people. The improvement was in the number of people who would access shelters. We haven't seen the progress there. We still see somewhere between 12,000 to 15,000 people as the projection across British Columbia who are homeless. That's an issue that continues to be challenging.

The member speaks about some housing that is coming in the future, and that's always a positive thing. I'm pleased that's going to occur and that that's going to take some pressure off. But we're not seeing, necessarily, a strategy here that begins to address some of these more critical housing issues.

I would note, and I'm sure the member who moved the motion would agree, that one of the most troubling things that we saw in that homelessness count was an increase of 29 percent in youth homelessness — increasing numbers of young people who, for whatever reasons, have made the decision that their home, their family, isn't a place where they can be, and they've left. There's a gap. We're seeing that gap there.

They're young people, many of them vulnerable. They're on the street. We know, and I'm sure everybody in this House agrees, that these are young people who still have a future in front of them. We need to capture the opportunity to be able to find the resources to support them so that they don't get captured in a cycle long term, which will be detrimental to their futures and certainly has no positives for us. We have a chance to break that cycle now by creating opportunities there.

I think that leads, again, to the discussion and the concern that I have. While the government has moved…. I know that the Minister Responsible for Housing has been focused on the issue of homelessness over the last number of years, and that's a positive.

But there are those people in the housing community…. I note the chair of the housing committee for Metro Vancouver, Mayor Wright of New Westminster, made these comments in relation to the homelessness count report. The concern they have — it's a concern I share, and it reflects on the Premier's call for families first — is that we have about half a million people in this province who live in poverty today. About a quarter of those are children, about 120,000, and we have not had a housing strategy in this province for the last decade that has looked at addressing the issue of family housing.

We know that in many instances people there aren't finding the housing they need — appropriate and affordable housing. I worry that the cycle that creates in relation to poverty is a cycle that will be very hard to break. While I think we're all glad that the shelters have been opened, and we're all glad there's going to be some housing opened in the next few months, there's a huge gap here in terms of dealing with the issue of poverty, dealing with the issue of families, of children, of young people who are on the street. Those are gaps.

[1145]

I think we can take a moment and the government can take a moment to congratulate itself on this. But there needs to be a strategy moving forward, particularly if the Premier's call for families first is to
[ Page 7531 ]
be taken seriously. It's those most vulnerable families who have to come first in our society. It's those 120,000 kids and their moms and their dads and their families. We need to figure out how we get at addressing their issues.

We all know that the foundation to that, one of the core questions there, is the question of housing — safe, affordable and reasonable housing. We need to get at that. My plea certainly to the government would be that we see a strategy that starts to talk about how we get our head around that and how we deal with that.

The rent subsidy program has worked for a small number of people, but it has been a very small number of people — maybe 12,000 families in total. There are a lot of people who aren't fitting the criteria for a whole array of reasons, including the fact that people on income assistance don't qualify.

So we have big challenges there. I would hope that the government will broaden its horizons and see housing as a broader issue with broader concerns, and move forward on that. With that, I will sit down and let some other people take their place in this debate.

K. Krueger: It's a real pleasure to stand in this House and support this motion. This government has just entered its 11th year as government, and it has made many notable achievements. I really appreciate the member who spoke last in mentioning that this is an issue where the government should take time to congratulate itself. Most of Canadians are rather modest about doing that, but I am thrilled with the progress that we've made on the housing issues in our time in government and with the performance of the minister of housing, who carries this file around under one of his massive arms and thinks about it all the time.

I was at the Leadership Prayer Breakfast in Vancouver recently. A thousand people there listened to the woman they called the Mother Teresa of Vancouver talk about homelessness, homeless people and the tremendous advances that have been made by the city of Vancouver. She mentioned the minister in particular — matters that made everybody in the room feel tremendously good about the progress that's being made.

The minister, as I said, has a particular soft spot in his very large heart for the needy, for people who find themselves in a homeless situation. It has always been our pleasure as a government to see his results, to see how deeply he cares and how that caring turns into homes for people and lives that are greatly improved.

In my time as the Minister of Social Development, I was so thrilled to get to know the civil service, see how deeply they care and how hard they work and how much progress they're making. It is inspirational.

They go out and meet the homeless people in the street, become their friends, find out why they're homeless, find them a place to live, begin to connect them with programs that can help them on the issues that caused them to be homeless in the first place.

They teach them basic living skills and connect them with non-profit societies, where they often volunteer. In the volunteering process, they learn how to be part of an organization. They form a network, just like the rest of us do, just as we each have in our respective caucuses. They ladder on into employment, and they are trained in employment programs throughout the province. We're seeing tremendous results.

The city that I live in, Kamloops, I think must be one of the most egalitarian cities in the best place on earth. It's just truly a great place to live, and people really care about these issues. There is a program called the homelessness action plan. The two MLAs from the city, the Minister of Environment and I, were asked to be a part of the board of the homelessness action plan. We're really pleased to do that and, again, very pleased with the way our citizenry pitches in and the things that we're getting done in Kamloops.

During our time as government the province has purchased the Rendezvous Hotel. It used to be a notorious joint, frequented by drug dealers, and it was a bad operation. It's being converted into a 40-bed co-ed homeless shelter that will be run by the Canadian Mental Health Association and ASK Wellness, of the AIDS Society of Kamloops. It'll open later this year.

In 2009, I was privileged, as was my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, to be part of opening Henry Leland House, a 28-unit supportive housing development for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. And there have been more. I don't have time to speak to all of them. I want to give other members time.

[1150]

Currently in Kamloops this government subsidizes 1,093 housing units, and that is a tremendous achievement. Just on Friday we opened a brand-new, beautiful seniors development.

Early on when I was elected, people came to me talking about Thrupp Manor. It was a home right on the South Thompson River, a much-loved home that was built some 40 years ago for people who were getting older and needed support in having a place to live. Those people aged in place, and suddenly we were being told that we really are going to have to do something about more of an intermediate or even extended care facility for these folks. That building is no longer suitable. In fact, it's not really suitable for its original intent anymore; it's too old.

We were urgently wanting to do something about that, in addition to the many seniors residences that we've built all around the city. So this amazing deal came together where an elderly man who lived on the north shore of Kamloops had passed away and left a will that included provision of some of his land for Thrupp Manor. There
[ Page 7532 ]
had to be a payment to the estate to share with his other beneficiaries, but it was a very modest sum compared to the worth of the land. We found a way to purchase that land and hold it for Thrupp Manor until all the other components came together.

It's a wonderful public-private partnership, 99 market units and double the number that were in Thrupp before.

M. Elmore: I'd just like to make a few points. I know our time is coming near. In terms of the results from the Metro Vancouver homeless count, we've seen a drop in street homelessness, but it also, on the other hand, has been offset by an increase overall of the total homeless numbers. I just wanted to highlight a couple of points.

My previous colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned that there's been a very disturbing rise of 29 percent in increased youth street homelessness from 2008 to 2011. Additionally, we see the disturbing trend of one in four aboriginal people in need of housing and certainly overrepresented in that area. The need really points to an overall necessity for a provincial plan to address a comprehensive housing strategy.

We've seen the trend over the last number of years. Supports to address street homelessness and these other aspects…. But I think we've really fallen back in terms of the provisioning of independent housing and supportive housing. These are the units where we have fallen behind, and that's a pressing need that we see right across British Columbia in terms of providing a foundation for folks who find themselves in need of housing, to give them that stability to be able to break the cycle of poverty that we see.

Certainly, it's ultimately the issue of affordable housing that is going to bring the needed solution to street homelessness and also broad aspects of homelessness.

E. Foster: It's a pleasure today to rise and speak to this very important motion and very important issue. I just have a few things to say. One of them is the number of housing and shelter units that we now have in the province compared to what we had some ten years ago. So 5,400 beds exist today, whereas there were 1,300 in 2001.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'd just like to make a few comments on the Okanagan, the area that I live in, and a lot of the initiatives that have taken place there over the last few years. In Kelowna alone the province subsidizes 1,989 beds, housing units; 325 are new since 2001.

[1155]

Just in the last year or so: Cardington Apartments, which is a low-barrier alcohol addiction recovery run by the John Howard Society, heavily supported by the province; Willowbridge, in partnership with the Canadian Mental Health Association, which is an integrated support service and shelter for people with challenges; a new initiative called NOW, which is New Opportunities for Women, is a shelter that helps marginalized women get off the street, works with them to develop plans for their future, helps them with drug addictions, alcoholism and housing, and prepares them to go into the workplace.

The Rutland supportive housing is another partnership with the John Howard Society.

Another initiative that's been undertaken by this government is the rural housing for seniors. Across the province in small communities…. I know in my riding, in Lumby, there are 16 brand-new housing units for seniors on limited income. These have been set up, I know, all over the province. People pay based on their income. This is a fully supported initiative by the partnerships with the federal and provincial government under some of the infrastructure money.

We've seen over the last while some great initiatives. I'll just take another moment or so. I have a quote here: "I want to personally thank the Minister Responsible for Housing for his leadership on homelessness in Vancouver and across the province. His ability to secure $8 million of new funding during difficult economic times reflects his strong desire and a dedication to helping people who are living on the streets put their lives back together." That was from the mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, last year.

The efforts of the minister have been recognized by civic leaders and people from the Mental Health Association and the John Howard Society. There have been huge initiatives. Great amounts of money have been spent, and we are seeing the results of that with 6,000 more people having a place to sleep now than did some years ago.

E. Foster moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 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 © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175