2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, April 23, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 35, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

QUENCHING CANADA'S THIRST
FOR B.C. WINES

J. Slater: Our B.C. jobs plan, Canada Starts Here, and B.C. Agrifoods, A Strategy for Growth allow us to continue to work with our federal and provincial partners to open domestic markets for wine.

[D. Black in the chair.]

British Columbia produces world-renowned wines, and we want to see residents in all provinces enjoy our product. We support the efforts of Dan Albas, who I met with on last Friday, who is the MP for Okanagan-Coquihalla, to amend the antiquated Intoxicating Liquors Act.

This amendment complements our ongoing commitment to further support and foster the free flow of goods and services across our provincial borders. Our support for this amendment only builds on our success in securing regional free trade agreements with other provinces and modernizing liquor laws here at home.

Unlike the NDP, we believe free trade should extend north to south and east to west.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder of the nature of private members' business this morning, please.

J. Slater: Okay.

Under the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, passed in 1928, alcohol cannot be imported, sent or transported across provincial borders without going through the receiving province's liquor board. That means visitors from other parts of Canada cannot buy wine from B.C. vintners and take it home for their personal use, or have the winery ship it directly to their home.

Once intended to stop bootlegging during the Prohibition era, the law is now frustrating winemakers and wine drinkers. While no one has been charged under the law in recent years, it limits wineries' direct consumer sales. Many major couriers refuse to ship bottles to customers out of province, and wineries are hesitant to sell to out-of-province when they come and visit their vineyards.

[1005]

For example, the law prevents a winery of B.C. from shipping or selling a bottle of wine to a customer in Ontario. Strangely enough, that same winery can ship to a customer in Texas without difficulty. It is easier for our winery to ship 20 cases of wine to Beijing, Germany, Dubai or Switzerland, than one case to our neighbour in New Brunswick.

Dan Albas, the MP for the Okanagan-Coquihalla, is working to change this through a private member's bill, Bill C-311. If passed, it will amend the importation of intoxicating liquors, allowing individuals to bring wine in from another province for their consumption.

It would allow individuals to directly import, send and transport wine across provincial borders for personal use. It would still be illegal for retailers and businesses to buy large quantities of wine from another province to resell in their home province without going through the provincial liquor board.

The bill has received widespread support and currently awaits third reading in the House of Commons.

Bill C-311 will only benefit B.C.'s world-renowned wine industry by increasing sales and further promoting agritourism in British Columbia. British Columbia has over 700 vineyards and produces enough wine every year to fill nearly 15 million bottles. Placed end to end, that would stretch from Vancouver to Toronto.

Total sales of all B.C.-produced wine reached $304 million in 2010. In 2011 B.C. wines won more than a thousand awards and are coveted by buyers around the world in a long list of jurisdictions, including other Canadian provinces. As such, Bill C-311 brings greater certainty to B.C. wineries and further opportunity for Canadians to taste our award-winning wines.

Bill C-311 works seamlessly with our agrifoods strategy, which outlines an action plan to assure consumers across Canada can access wines from all producing regions of our province. Bill C-311 further aligns with the steps we've been taking to support the free exchange of goods and services between provinces.

We signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA, with Alberta and Saskatchewan, ensuring secure access to the other provinces' markets for business, investors and workers. The new west partnership trade agreement builds on TILMA, making B.C., along with Alberta and Saskatchewan, the first jurisdiction to commit to full, mutual reconciliation of rules that encourage free movement of goods, services, investment and people within Canada.

Our support for this measure is in line with our recent decision to modernize liquor laws in British Columbia. Licences are now available for theatres who wish to serve alcohol during screenings of films. The support for modernizing the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act spans the country, garnering support federally and from municipalities, local businesses and wine enthusiasts here in B.C.
[ Page 10950 ]

For example, the federal Standing Committee on Finance voted unanimously to approve Bill C-311 and received support from all federal parties in the House. Here at home, Kelowna city council voiced its support, as did a number of chambers of commerce. Local wineries and wine associations also see the potential for the amendment to grow local businesses, agritourism and related businesses.

L. Popham: It's my pleasure to rise to respond to the government motion this morning. My background is from the wine industry. I have had much experience on the growing side and the winemaking side.

In the early '90s I participated in the planting of a vineyard on Vancouver Island. From that point I was participating in the Vancouver Island Grape Growers Association. It was there where I learned about the passion of grape growing and the importance of the wine industry to B.C.'s economy. The travels that the B.C. wine industry has done over the last 20 years are quite amazing.

[1010]

This morning it's encouraging to see the government side of the House stand and support a motion, catch up to where the New Democrats have been for the last little while. We have been calling for the support….

Deputy Speaker: Member, a reminder of the nature of private members' statements, please.

L. Popham: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I established my own vineyard, I realized that we had an employment shortage in the viticulture industry on Vancouver Island. We had a long way to go to catch up to where the Okanagan was. So I established a viticulture crew on the south Island, which I called the motley crew, and the interesting thing about that….

It was a lot of young people who worked in the restaurant industry at night, who were catching the excitement of the Vancouver Island wine industry and the B.C. wine industry. They wanted to know more, and I allowed them to come into the vineyards, where they were learning that good wine is actually made in the vineyard. So from that I always remained connected, and I saw that the passion around the smaller vineyards on Vancouver Island was really around establishing a regional identity. That's part of the economy of British Columbia as well.

The competitiveness that we may have seen at the beginning of the wine industry, as Vancouver Island took its place, really left after we realized that the Okanagan, Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands all had a place in creating a strong tourism economy. As far as supporting Bill C-311, it's very, very important, because nothing was more frustrating, as I worked in wineries, to call couriers who picked up boxes of wine as the tourism buses left with people who we had sold on our product.

They were in love with the story of B.C. wines. The bus left, the courier left with the boxes of wines, and we were to be called a few days later, saying the wine had been stuck at the border and the courier would not ship it across the interprovincial border. So that was very frustrating. It's still very frustrating.

I think we should have been, probably, working at this a little sooner, because right now we have such an amazing wine industry that has this deficit in it, and so, as we encourage people to come to our province and enjoy our products, hear our stories, hear our different regional stories of our identity and the reasons why we are taking part in grape growing and winemaking, it's very concerning that we cannot legally encourage them to take this wine across the border.

I am very happy that this is a non-partisan issue, so to speak. We have been supporting this motion and this bill for quite some time. In fact, we had a letter in the Vancouver Sun not too long ago from the leader of the New Democratic official opposition, Adrian Dix, and he says that regional vintners need provincial….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're not to use their names. Would you…?

L. Popham: The Leader of the Official Opposition. Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Regional vintners need provincial legislators to relax rules around purchasing directly from vintners. Experience in other jurisdictions shows that broadening the market for small wineries transfers revenues from provincial liquor boards in the range of about 1 percent, which has proven to be recovered with growth in tourism and agriculture.

It's a strong bill. It's something that brings strength to our province and strength to our wine industry. As far as the House working together, I think this is another case where we can join forces and lobby the federal government and support the bill that is going through the House right now.

I'm going to take my place in the debate, and I'd like to hear the response from the member.

J. Slater: I appreciate the support from both sides of this House. You know, the greatest benefit is going to be to small and medium rural communities with their businesses. The U.S. experience has showed us that every state that has allowed winery-to-consumer sales has had their local wine sales increase dramatically, and most small wineries cannot or will not sell their wines through liquor boards. Also, wine and culinary tourism will increase.

If you think about it — certainly, in our province, in B.C., and Nova Scotia for sure — these industries aren't just wine stores. They are tourism. They're agriculture. They're manufacturing. They're all the things that we have talked about. There are all of these elements built into rural economies across the country, and I think the
[ Page 10951 ]
impact would be significant.

[1015]

It's about opening up the market. We talk about export markets, looking over to China and Asia, but really, the export market for us is still Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That's where we really want to grow.

In B.C. the majority of the vineyards are small businesses, and we continue to support them by cutting small business tax. I think this Bill C-311 is certainly going to be a real asset for our communities. With that, I'll take my leave.

PROTECTING VULNERABLE WORKERS

R. Chouhan: Thirty-one years ago a workplace accident happened. Four workers — Donald Davis, Gunther Couvreux, Yrjo Mitrunen and Brian Stevenson — fell to their deaths from the top of the Bentall IV tower in Vancouver after a wood and metal form that they were standing on broke away from the building.

That tragedy, which we saw 31 years ago, repeats itself many times over in our workplaces — in the construction industry, in the wood industry, all over. So it's important that we stand together and try to understand what causes it and what could be done to prevent it.

The B.C. construction industry alone has an average fatality rate of about 26 workers per year. A similar, actually much higher, rate of fatalities we have experienced in the forest industry, and the mining industry is not far behind.

In 1981 a farmworker called Jarnail Deol, spraying herbicides, got poisoned and died. In March 2007 three female workers were killed in a roadside accident while travelling to work in an unsafe vehicle driven by a labour contractor. In September 2008 three mushroom workers were killed, and three were seriously injured, at a mushroom farm in Langley. In 2005 we have seen a tragic accident at a gas station. A young man, Grant De Patie, was killed while working alone.

So these are just some few examples. These accidents, which kill people, workers going to work, are happening every day in our lives, and 99.9 percent of the time these accidents are preventable. When somebody goes to work in the morning with the hope that he or she will go there and be back at the end of the day…. When a tragedy occurs, it not only kills or injures that worker, but that's a tragedy for the family and for the whole society.

We have seen and we have read about these tragedies every day, and we continue to do that. But then we look back and say: "Have we learned any lessons? What are we doing? What steps are we taking to prevent these accidents?"

This is not only happening in the private sector. It is also happening in the public sector. I have spoken with many workers in the health care industry, in long-term-care facilities, in hospitals, where workers have been attacked by some patients. They were feeling very vulnerable, to the point where they were not able to defend themselves.

[1020]

Then we have also, year after year, seen in Canada — not only in British Columbia, but throughout Canada…. The latest information that I have…. In 2010 alone 1,014 workers were killed in work-related accidents and illnesses. Although I don't have the 2011 figures, I'm afraid that the number of workers who died during this time last year probably would be the same, if not higher.

Since 2000 over 10,000 Canadians have died because their employers failed to keep their workplaces safe. So what can we do?

As lawmakers, we sit in this House. None of us want to see people getting killed or injured.

We have to pay attention to making some stronger laws — and not only making strong laws but making sure that they are enforced. As lawmakers, it's our responsibility to society that we at least take some important steps.

That's why we have this National Day of Mourning all over British Columbia on April 28. Many of us will be attending that. Workers will be looking at us, expecting from us that we will make some laws, take certain steps to prevent these deaths and injuries.

When this National Day of Mourning came into effect in 1991, some people at that time were saying: "There's no need for it. We can do it by ourselves. We can self-police. We can do all kinds of steps to make sure that workers are protected." What we have seen is that none of that occurred.

As a result of that, the Canadian Labour Congress in 1991 started this day, National Day of Mourning. It was accepted and recognized by the Parliament of Canada. Since then 80 countries across the world have now also recognized April 28 as a national day of mourning. I urge all of us to sit together, put our heads together, and have certain steps taken to prevent these deaths and injuries in the future.

M. Coell: I'd first like to thank the member for his statement and also for his keen and sincere interest in the safety of workers in British Columbia.

I want to assure him that our government takes the safety of workers in B.C. very seriously and has taken significant steps to ensure that workplaces meet the highest safety standards possible. We have addressed farmworker safety by strengthening the Motor Vehicle and the Employment Standards acts that have increased the efficiencies at WorkSafe B.C. and facilitated the increase of inspection officers there.

As a result of the government's initiatives, workplace injuries and rates have hit an all-time low. But we still have more work to do.

We introduced Grant's law to protect the late-night workers, which has virtually eliminated the gas-and-dash
[ Page 10952 ]
incidents in the province.

We continue to protect the rights of foreign workers with laws that apply to everyone, regardless of their nationality or immigration status, and we are providing services in a wide variety of languages.

We have improved the efficiency of WorkSafe B.C. so that it can focus on stronger enforcement and penalties. Since 2004 WorkSafe B.C. has increased the number of safety and investigation officers by over 30 percent. In 2011 there are now 244 officers.

New measures were introduced in 2007 to strengthen new and young worker orientation and training, including an interactive website, and young worker injury rates have declined significantly over the last decade. In 2011 WorkSafe B.C. produced approximately 30,000 inspection reports and imposed 351 penalties, totalling over $4.8 million in noncompliance and health and safety laws and regulations.

[1025]

We started reforming WorkSafe B.C. in 2002 to improve the appeals and workers benefit processes, and that is now in place. Our changes have been successful in ensuring the sustainability and affordability of WorkSafe B.C., while providing some of the best benefits in Canada. It is now operating at a surplus.

I want to talk about farmworkers. Farmworkers make an invaluable contribution to our province, and like all workers in B.C., they deserve safe workplaces.

Since the 2007 tragedy in Abbotsford our government and other private sector agencies have made a number of positive changes that will improve farmworker safety. The B.C. coroner made 18 recommendations related to this incident. Actions to address all of those recommendations directed at the province have been completed or are ongoing.

We have changed the Motor Vehicle Act to make seatbelts mandatory for all passengers in 15-passenger vans and required a notice to be posted in each vehicle respecting driver seating and seatbelt regulations. We amended the Employment Standards Act to hold farm labour contractors accountable for the safe transportation of their employees and to ensure that the farmworkers are paid in Canadian currency and by direct deposit so that all wages earned are paid.

Our government also created an interagency agricultural compliance committee in 2007 that ensures that the rights and safety of workers in the agricultural sector are protected. The committee conducts random roadside inspections of farmworker transportation vehicles in addition to annual maintenance inspections that continue to remain mandatory for commercial farm vehicles.

The deaths of three workers and the injuries of two others at a mushroom farm in Langley, which both the member and I met about a number of times, were very tragic. Nothing can ever compensate for the loss of life from this event, but our goal is to prevent it from ever happening again. Our government takes worker safety very seriously, and after this tragic event WorkSafe B.C. inspected every mushroom farm. WorkSafe now inspects 50 percent yearly.

Our government works hard to protect the rights and promote the safety of temporary foreign workers. Our labour laws and workplace safety standards are strong, and they apply to all workers regardless of their nationality or immigration status.

Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for his statement. I think that many of the things that he has said…. Both sides of the House agree that we must always work to make sure that workplaces are safe for people, and it's a job for all of us in this House.

R. Chouhan: I really appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. As he had said, much has been done, but a lot more needs to be done. It can be done, and we should do it.

I also want to state that the majority of employers in British Columbia are very responsible employers. They take every step to make sure the workers are taken care of and their safety is not compromised. But there are some employers who do not comply with the safety laws that we have in this province. As a result of that, we have seen these tragedies and these illnesses at workplaces.

For those employers, it's important that we make sure that the laws we have and the laws we will be making are enforced, and if somebody is not complying with them, then there should be stiffer penalties in order to prevent these tragedies in the future.

The other form of unsafe condition that we have seen at workplaces is bullying — workplace bullying. Many people feel very vulnerable when they go through that experience. They don't feel very productive, and as a result, the economy loses and the employer loses productivity. Everybody loses.

Again, I want to say thank you to everyone for your concerns about the safety of workers. We must work together to make sure that our workers, when they go to work, return home safely.

[1030]

THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
OF CRUISE SHIPS

R. Sultan: As a very amateur west coast mariner myself, it gives me great satisfaction to offer this House a brief glimpse of British Columbia's distinguished maritime history and what I believe will be its glorious maritime future.

First, the history. It's relatively easy — sitting here in Victoria, in the Legislature, viewing the yachts dancing in the harbour or flying to work low over the navy base — to appreciate the importance of ships and boats to British Columbia.
[ Page 10953 ]

The Esquimalt Royal Navy dockyard was first built in 1890 as a strategic counter to expansionist American tendencies and as a replacement for Britain's naval dockyard in Valparaiso. The Esquimalt Graving Dock was dreadnought-sized and to this day is one of the largest such docks in the world, able to accommodate for refit and repair most of the world's large passenger vessels, even with their stabilizers deployed.

Cruise ship tourism is a huge economic engine. Victoria has been called the busiest cruise ship port in the country, with 229 cruise ships scheduled to stop here briefly this year, greater than the 191 sailings from Vancouver last year. Passenger count: an astounding 670,000 estimated for Vancouver this year and 475,000 for Victoria. And Disney cruises are coming back to us from Seattle. Sorry, Seattle.

Cruise ship jobs ashore: about 7,300 in all of B.C. and a $1.3 billion economic contribution to Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert and even Port Alberni. Why do cruise ships generate so much employment and money? Easy. Just ask anybody who owns a boat.

When I first bought my little trawler, some of the repair bills seemed overwhelming. I asked my friend at the Mosquito Creek boatyard, who had recently retired from the fast ferries project, how to better estimate costs. "Well," he said, "you carefully add up all of the worker hours involved, the hourly rate and then the materials and then the fittings, and you get a dollar sum. And then you apply a correction factor."

"Well, what's the correction factor?" I asked. "Seven," he replied. So things afloat cost a lot to build, maintain and operate. Get used to it, boat owners. It's the price we pay in our wonderful and occasionally dangerous maritime environment.

That brings us to the stupendous federal government's national shipbuilding procurement contract and the $8 billion award recently to a splendid marine organization on the North Shore, Seaspan — a contract, by the way, which seems destined to be increased by possibly as much as 50 percent as a result of further announcements last week.

I recently attended the black-tie Vimy dinner awards in Ottawa, co-sponsored by Seaspan. Admirals, generals, lobbyists, large military contractors and more than a few politicians all breaking bread in our huge military museum, surrounded by Sherman and Tiger tanks, all with their gun barrels aimed at us. I was glad to see British Columbia holding its own at this gathering. It's how the game is played in Ottawa.

However, our share of Ottawa's shipbuilding spoils is, frankly, non-military — fisheries research vessels, icebreakers, coastal patrol vessels. It is Halifax which will build our next generation of high-tech fighting ships. While high-tech military hardware stuff might seem more glamorous, it is the lower-tech surface vessels which are more commercially attractive. Dare I mention the F-35? Need I say more? No.

British Columbia should be well pleased with what smart marketing, financial strength and our proven marine competence brought home from the Ottawa dinner table.

C. Trevena: It's my pleasure to respond to the member's statement, which I believe was going to be about cruise ships but then went on to broader aspects about B.C.'s involvement in coastal industries.

I have got to say I'm always surprised about, really, the lack of investment I see in B.C. in shipbuilding and other ventures that could be used. We have now got the shipbuilding contracts, which I think both sides of the House welcome. It's been a lot of hard work. I know this side of the House worked very hard in ensuring it happened, so we're very pleased that we're going to have the new shipbuilding.

[1035]

But we look at one of the largest ferry fleets, almost, in the world, and we see that ferries are being built overseas. They were built overseas. I have heard discussion coming from Washington State about whether we should be building ferries in conjunction with them. I heard the president of B.C. Ferries talking on the radio the other day, saying: "Well, we are still going to open it up to world markets."

Until we can get a strong commitment from the government saying we are going to truly and sincerely commit to all of our shipbuilding, wherever possible, in our province — to create those jobs, to create, first, a world-class product but then the quantity of jobs that can come from it — I think we are really cheating our populace.

We are talking about cruise ships. We don't actually have the ability…. Obviously, we're not going to be building cruise ships. We look at the jobs that come from cruise ships. Inevitably there are jobs that come from cruise ships. There are tourism jobs. There are lots of spinoff jobs that we see.

There was the first ship docked in Victoria last week. We have thousands of people coming through the city, shopping. They are spending. They go on whale-watching expeditions and so on. There are lots of knock-on tourism jobs. But I think that we also have to look very seriously about the very strong quality of jobs that can be created in the industrial sector of shipbuilding.

But I'm not going to belittle the tourism sector or the huge economic impact that cruise ships can bring to a community. They can have a vast amount of investment as people come in, they look at the community, and they spend in the shops. They go on adventures and so on.

Also, it's not just the big cruise ships. It's the smaller ones — these so-called pocket cruise ships that come to communities. They are maybe just a couple of hundred people or even maybe 30 or 40 people. They can come into the smaller centres. Again, these have a great knock-
[ Page 10954 ]
on effect.

Campbell River, I think people may be aware, does have a cruise ship terminal, and it was built with federal, provincial and city investment. It's a unique cruise ship terminal. It was a First Nations, aboriginal cruise ship terminal led by the Campbell River band. It has great potential, even though at the moment, because of the downturn in the tourism sector and particularly the downturn in the cruise ship sector, there haven't been ships docking there.

It has had a very interesting other advantage. People looking at the terminal: "How else can it be used?" But the very fact that we have cruise ships going through that very narrow strait from Seymour Narrows down to Cape Mudge…. It's almost a convoy, but that implies the militaristic approach the member opposite was talking about.

It's the caravan of cruise ships that you see going down, particularly in high season on a Saturday night. They have to wait for the tides to slow down. You'll see three cruise ships just gliding down the coast and maybe a couple of others coming back up, waiting for the tides. That itself is an investment. It's a tourism attraction for our communities.

It's also, very interestingly, an investment when it comes to the housing market. So much of our economies are based on housing and the resale of houses. One can see many, many times that there is a strategy of real estate agents to talk about how you can see the cruise ships from the house, that you can watch the cruise ships go by, that you're close enough to hear the cruise ships. Oftentimes on the ferry you can actually hear the music coming from the cruise ships.

So it is very much an economic boost for our communities. But it shouldn't be alone. We have to look really more holistically. The member was talking about shipbuilding and investment in that. We also have smaller operations that are investing in those vessels. In Campbell River we have Ocean Pacific, which is doing a lot of good work in that repair.

[1040]

R. Sultan: Let me heartily second the sentiments expressed by the member for North Island, and let me apologize to the good maritimers of Campbell River for having failed to mention them — because of the competence and, in fact, cruise ship business that they also enjoy. I would also say that I share the sentiment that — as Seaspan itself has said and as our Premier has committed — our future ferries, as well, are destined to be built here, because we are now going to be down that learning curve with this huge infrastructure we are in the process of creating.

I was one who spoke up, decrying a certain individual saying that we didn't have the competent workers to build these ferries because we had disbanded our labour force. I said: "That's going to be great for future military competitions — to say 'We don't have the workforce.'" In fact, I think our shipyard workers are the equal of many in the world, and I've said so publicly, which didn't make me very popular in the corner office at the time.

The Seaspan contract is estimated to have an economic impact averaging $330 million a year in the next decade, rising to almost $800 million in the decade after that. Annual employment is expected to average 3,700 full-time-equivalents in the first ten years, rising to 8,500 in the following decade. With the announcement of the second tranche of procurement in Ottawa about ten days ago, maybe those numbers could be increased by 50 percent.

In short, fellow legislators, winning the federal government's procurement opportunity is a very big deal for British Columbia — for my riding, for my sister ridings on the North Shore, for Victoria, for Esquimalt, for Nanaimo, for Campbell River, for all of British Columbia.

We haven't even talked about the investment in infrastructure, which Mr. Dennis Washington is going to make with his own hard-earned, private capital. Without a penny of provincial or federal or municipal money involved that I can see, the scale of this investment will be on par with the investment infrastructure we spent and purchased for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The annual GDP impact is estimated to be on par with that of the movie industry, which is the beneficiary of very generous government assistance.

So the entire maritime infrastructure venture may be viewed as a statement of faith by private enterprise, undiluted by government, in the future of this province. And we haven't even begun to consider, back to the main topic, the growth of ship-based tourism coming from all over the world to ogle our scenic splendours.

So on the first available occasion I'm out of here. I'm going to get down to my boat, kick back, watch the blue herons and the otters go by and remind myself: "Isn't living on the seashore of the Pacific absolutely wonderful?"

LADS LIVING LONGER

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to follow the member from West Vancouver, because his final remarks actually lead into what I want to talk about. He was talking about being active.

What I want to talk about today.... The title on the order paper is "Lads Living Longer." It's about men's health and about men living longer and addressing some of the issues that result in the fact that men don't live longer when it comes to age, compared to women.

In Canada the life expectancy for men is 76. That's 4.4 years less than women. Even more disturbing is that health expectancy, which is the age at which you can expect to live without serious health or disability conditions, is only 65 for men. That's 11 years shorter than what our life expectancy is. It puts things into perspective.
[ Page 10955 ]

There are many reasons for that. One of them is that of a reluctance of men — often, particularly, middle-aged men and men out of their teens — to go see a family physician. Most men don't know what their blood pressure is. They don't know what their cholesterol count is. Yet significant health concerns impact men in a significant, substantial way.

Men die more from heart disease, from stroke, from suicide. Women attempt suicide more than men do, but 80 percent of suicides are by men. Men are far more successful at actually committing suicide.

Cancer. Many gender-specific cancers. The most notable one is prostate cancer. Many men don't get checked.

Substance abuse and deaths in the workplace. In 2005 in Canada 1,097 people died in workplace injuries; 97 percent of them were men.

[1045]

Many of the health issues are caused by obesity. Let's just look at what's happening south of the border, because what's happening south of the border also happens here. In 1990 no state in the U.S. had an obesity rate greater than 15 percent. By 2000 only one state did not. By 2011 no state had less than a 20 percent obesity rate, and four states had an obesity rate of over 30 percent.

The United States is on its way to becoming a nation of lard-asses and lardos, with significant health consequences. It costs $147 billion a year to the U.S. health care system to treat obesity-related illness.

We're a tenth the size of the U.S., but that's $12 billion to $14 billion right here in Canada alone. It's a curve that is only going up; it's not trending down. That has significant implications for men's health.

The impact of these things — not knowing your blood pressure, being more susceptible to heart disease and stroke — isn't just in a cost of dollars to the health care system. It's also a societal cost. Fifty percent of women over the age of 65 are widowed. Half of all elderly women who live in poverty were not living in poverty before their husbands died before the age of 65. Those are significant societal costs.

The question is: what do we do about it? What can we do about it? There are a lot of things that we can do. We can recognize the problem and start addressing it, both from policy perspectives and policy initiatives by government and also by working with those who are trying to do just that.

Underway right now in British Columbia is something called the B.C. Men's Health Initiative. It's spearheaded by Dr. Larry Goldenberg, a nationally recognized urologist. His goal is to bring together all the information that's taking place and all the experts that are working in the area of men's health — "Connect the dots," as he likes to say — to start to put together initiatives that can deal with these issues.

Why is it that once young men leave adolescence and move out, they don't go and see a family physician? Why is it that they engage in risky behaviour? How can we address that? Why is it, as they start forming families, they still don't go see their doctor?

They start when they're in their late 40s, early 50s, when they start to see mortality on the horizon. But they're not doing it at the time when the factors that contribute to those diseases that manifest themselves — when you're 65, in those 11 years when you should be in good health and you're not…. Those things start early.

The question is: how do we address that? That's what the Men's Health Initiative is all about. I believe it's an initiative worth supporting and something we need to encourage, because if we don't start now, the next generation will not be as healthy as this generation, and that will be a true tragedy.

N. Letnick: I'd like to thank the Health critic, the member for Port Coquitlam, for bringing up an issue that I think we all share around this Legislature and around the province — the issue of men's health.

He carefully and correctly outlined some of the key strategies and the key consequences of men not taking care of their own health — consequences like suicide, driving recklessly and injuring themselves, and the attitude of being invincible, especially when you're young and, especially, a man.

Just a couple of examples. I remember when I was working in the telecommunications industry, I had a friend who unfortunately had a mishap with his business and thought the only way out from the shame of bankruptcy was to commit suicide. He was found by his young son hanging in his home, something that we don't want to ever see. We need to share these kinds of stories throughout the province — that this is not the right way of doing it.

[1050]

We can call 811, a nursing hotline. We can call a friend and make sure that we have the support groups. Sometimes, as men, we don't like to talk about things. You find that women actually — at least, from my anecdotal experience — are much easier at talking with their friends about issues that are core to their existence, while men usually aren't as easy. So we need to find ways of doing that.

Driving recklessly — you know, motorcycles at 300 kilometres an hour down busy highways — is obviously an outlier and an example of some of the worst kinds of things that we can do. But there are all kinds of driving recklessly that we should look at — turning when we're not supposed to, going through yellow lights instead of stopping at yellow lights — all kinds of issues that really drive men's health in a negative way and also drive up costs of health care.

The whole issue of being invincible. I remember, when I was young, I used to make a living climbing mountains and teaching people how to do that. Well, through
[ Page 10956 ]
the process, I lost a few friends through avalanches and through falls. I myself had a major fall, and luckily, it wasn't fatal, as you can see. I'm here to talk about it today. Yes, let's applaud that.

So there are all kinds of things that men, throughout their life, can do differently and be personally responsible for their own health and help the health care system continue to be sustainable throughout the ages, as we especially see the boomers move into their older years.

Some of the things that we can do as a society, as legislators, are to encourage people, especially men, from incurring those long-term chronic care issues that they are incurring, by making the right lifestyle decisions — things like reducing their salt intake, getting more exercise and making sure we do get checked out by our family practitioner on a regular basis and not wait until it's too late and are told, "You have cancer" or "You have COPD" or some other serious issue.

The government is moving, and has been moving, very well in that direction and continues to move in that direction. That's why the government has launched a $68.7 million healthy families B.C. strategy, the most comprehensive health promotion anywhere in Canada. This includes policies, guidelines, public awareness campaigns and education programs to help British Columbians make those healthy choices.

I remember being at an iCON symposium in my community. It was held at the Indo-Canadian gurdwara, where we had people come in and talk to the Indo-Canadians — especially the men, in this case — about healthy hearts and about type 2 diabetes and what to do differently to make sure that they didn't incur those long-term, chronic issues.

We also have to look at our salt intake. Chronic diseases — such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease — are the largest causes of disability and death in B.C. We consume, as British Columbians, 11 cups of salt a year. That's 11 cups of salt a year. That's twice what the normal, acceptable amount should be. So we have to look at our salt intake.

We have to look at our sugar intake and how big we're getting around the beltline and make sure that we continue to reduce our consumption of sugar-laden drinks. That includes fruit juices, as well as all the pops that we look at. But also, we have to make sure we exercise, because not only will that give us a good body weight, but it will give us the right frame of mind so that we, perhaps, don't make those wrong decisions as often as we are.

I'd like to thank the member for bringing up the issue, and I'll sit down now and listen to his concluding remarks.

M. Farnworth: I thank my colleague on the government side for his remarks. I think, in many areas, we are in agreement. But what's crucial is that we need to recognize that we have to be creative.

I think that that is one of the important things about the Men's Health Initiative that Dr. Goldenberg has put together. It seeks to break beyond the sort of traditional message approach that we have taken, whether it's an awareness campaign through leaflets or pamphlets, which we often get in our offices…. Clearly, in too many cases, they are not working. We need to be doing far better than we are.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We need to look at screening programs. We need to recognize that men's health needs to become a priority in the same way that we've made women's health a priority and children's health a priority. We need to look at screening programs around colorectal cancer and prostate.

[1055]

We need make sure that every male understands and knows what their blood pressure is, what the signs are of stroke, what the signs are of heart disease, what their cholesterol count is and what they can do, what concrete steps they can do, to ensure that those particular indicators are maintained within healthy limits.

What's key is this. It's great to start making changes when you're middle-aged. But the real time to be making those changes is when you're young. That's when you're going to get the maximum benefit. By doing that, that's when you will shrink and reduce significantly those 11 years that we lose to ill health and potential disability. I want to see every male in this chamber and this province where we get to a point that we live as long as women and that we all — whether you're men or women — are living where your life expectancy and your health expectancy are the same thing.

People think of retiring at 65 and that they're going to have a nice, long retirement. The facts say different, in many cases — 11 years of ill health. I don't think that's how most people — most men or their partners or spouses — envision retirement. Dr. Goldenberg has said, and I think this is a really good way of putting it: "We need to teach middle-aged males about preventive strategies and nutrition, risk assessment and how to listen to one's body, because middle-aged men are key role models for young boys and adolescents."

This is the time to assess their own health and teach the next generation to do the same. If we do that, we really will be making, I think, some significant progress in the overall population health of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Polak: I call Motion 39.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 39 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.
[ Page 10957 ]

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 39 — INVESTMENT IN PORTS
AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS

R. Howard:

[Be it resolved that this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation.]

It is a pleasure to rise this morning to talk about the very bright future of our province and about the role our ports and transportation corridors have to play in that future. It is a very compelling story — a story about enabling our economy and enabling the job creation powers of our economy. It is important to every British Columbian family. It is in fact the story upon which our province was built.

One can look back in history to a far different time and see evidence of transportation routes and transportation infrastructure proving to be the backbone of the economy, the backbone of our society. In the 1800s it was the Fraser River that enabled the trappers, foresters, miners of the gold rush. In the 1900s it was W.A.C. Bennett and others who built the province's highway system, connecting all parts of our province. In this century it is both of these and our connections now with the rest of the world, our airports and seaports, which we look to, to be the engines of our economy.

This government understands this well and, in partnership with other levels of government and stakeholders, has invested over $22 billion in enabling job-creating infrastructure. So there is much success to talk about.

Going forward, we are building on this $22 billion investment with the new Pacific gateway transportation strategy 2012-2020, and this is expected to create at least 17,000 new jobs by 2020. We are seeing results now from our investments through Canada Starts Here, the B.C. jobs plan. We are investing in key transportation corridors across the province, attracting investment and opening new markets for B.C. products and services, all the while creating jobs for British Columbians.

According to the latest data, we have seen real results from our focused efforts. Compared to one year ago today, there are over 36,000 more people working than a year ago in this province. In 2012 the value of exports destined for the Pacific Rim was 43 percent of our total exports — up from 36 percent in 2009.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This represents the first time that export levels to the Pacific Rim were higher than those to the United States, proof that our investment and diversification strategy is working.

[1100]

Because there are many other speakers, I will focus my remarks on airport investments and the recently eliminated two-cents-a-litre jet fuel tax.

Investors and decision-makers — job creators from all sectors in the B.C. jobs plan — travel by air between Asia and British Columbia. Air passenger and cargo services directly support agrifood exports, tourism and international education.

Our government recognizes this, so to further help spur economic growth, Budget 2012 followed through on our commitment to eliminate the aviation fuel tax for international flights, reducing costs for airlines, creating jobs, giving travellers more flight choices and supporting that Canada Starts Here, the B.C. jobs plan, goal of expanding markets for our goods and services. This is imperative to our future success.

This will save airlines thousands of dollars a day on long-haul Asia flights, allowing them to save $12 million annually to invest in expansion. I would have to acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying: "This is not among the priorities of British Columbians." One has to wonder. More jobs, more flight choices for an emerging international economy — not a priority.

After our government made this commitment to eliminate the two cents per litre in September 2010, YVR signed agreements with 22 airlines to encourage flight expansion, bringing life to the very real benefits of tax reduction, living evidence of this government's successful strategy to keep taxes low, to enable the creation of jobs for B.C. families.

Regional airport improvements are also important in helping link smaller communities to people and markets around the world. Our government has contributed or committed $65.4 million towards improving our 36 community airports in the province.

While our government believes that creating jobs and increasing B.C. competitiveness will benefit B.C. families, we have the member for North Island, who has opposed the increase in jobs that this tax elimination will bring, saying: "...what I find very frightening — the tax exemption on jet fuel so that we can get more flights in here."

Our government supports lower taxes and more choices for British Columbian families. Our strategy is working. Our future is bright.

B. Ralston: I think that everyone in the chamber recognizes the important economic role that our ports, water ports and airports, play in the delivery of goods and people throughout the province and the economic activity that creates.

In my own riding of Surrey-Whalley we have the Fraser Surrey Docks. I toured the Fraser Surrey Docks just last year. It handles about 400,000 TEUs a year, be-
[ Page 10958 ]
tween 300 and 400 deep-sea vessels up to the Panamax class and is a very effective port connected to rail on the Surrey side, obviously. It employs a number of people. The Maritime Employers Association and the union just signed a long-term contract. There's labour stability there.

Frankly, when I toured the port, the person that took me through said that the capacity they have there is such that they could do a lot more on that site. All the facilities are there. They just added a capacity to handle agribulk commodities, which is new as of December 2010. Within my own riding of Surrey-Whalley the Fraser Surrey Docks is something that I'm keenly aware of as an important economic contributor.

The member opposite has mentioned airport expansion. I understand that that's part of his new duties as a parliamentary secretary, dealing with that issue. Generally, we support airport expansion, whether it's Vancouver International or other regional airports in the province.

On the Finance and Government Services Committee…. I sit as a member of that committee, and the member is the Chair. He will know that we have received submissions from regional airports, as well, about their opportunities for passenger, tourist traffic and, in the case of Prince George, some plans to make Prince George an international cargo hub. That's something that's been in the planning for some time.

[1105]

The member will also know that these plans are not without occasional opposition. As a member from Richmond and a former member of the Richmond city council, he will know that Mayor Brodie and the city council in Richmond have spoken out against a proposed expansion, a terminal for jet fuel to be placed with a marine terminal in south Richmond. It's not within municipal jurisdiction, strictly speaking, but he will know that there is opposition to that.

At present jet fuel for the airport — obviously, an airport can't run without jet fuel — comes from Burnaby Mountain by a 50-year-old pipeline, through the Kinder Morgan system. Most of it, though, is trucked up from the Cherry Point refinery across the border. As we look to expansion, we need to make those considerations about just where the public is on these issues, and we have to bring the public with us.

I know that the member has not yet, perhaps, expressed an opinion on whether he supports the jet fuel terminal. Mayor Brodie has said: "It exposes us to environmental risk, which I believe is unnecessary, given some of the alternatives that are available." He's a well-respected mayor, just recently re-elected in the municipality that has the airport, yet he's expressing concern about an expansion of a port facility providing the jet fuel that's obviously integral to the future development of the airport.

I raise this simply to point out that the path forward is not always an easy one, and I look forward to hearing from the member as to where he stands on that particular issue. With that, I conclude my remarks.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to stand up and speak to the motion. I thank the member for Richmond Centre for bringing it forward. I actually requested the opportunity to speak to the motion this morning for two different reasons.

One, I believe that the government's recognition of the opportunities for British Columbia and Asia is a story that British Columbians deserve to know. They deserve to know more about it. It's a very positive story, and it's a story that I think we can all be proud of.

Secondly, some of the most important transportation corridors leading to the Asia-Pacific gateway actually start where I come from in the East Kootenay, and they have significant meaning for the people who live there in communities all the way from Golden down to Creston and over to Sparwood, next to the Alberta border.

The Trans-Canada Highway — that's Highway 1 — crosses the province from the Alberta border to the Pacific coast. My constituents travel it regularly. Improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway in the Kicking Horse Canyon provide a safer and more efficient journey for all travellers and a competitive corridor for the east-west movement of goods to ports.

However, it is expensive construction. It cost the taxpayer $960 million to rebuild 26 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway from Golden to the western boundary of Yoho National Park. That included the spectacular Park Bridge. If you've never seen the Park Bridge on Highway 1, you should go have a look at it. It really is an engineering marvel.

This stretch of the highway sees heavy use by commercial carriers and by tourists. During the peak summer period it carries about 10,000 vehicles per day. This government has completed the first two phases of the project, with phase 3 nearing completion and phase 4 being in development.

Although the NDP opposition has voted against all elements of the Asia-Pacific gateway transportation corridors, it's notable that former Golden mayor and former NDP MLA Jim Doyle is on the public record giving full marks to the B.C. Liberal government for making Highway 1 our number one priority for highways in British Columbia.

Along Highway 1 from time to time, if you're riding along in an automobile, you'll notice that there are some CP Rail lines traversing the slopes of the majestic mountains — along lakes, across rivers and through solid rock in some cases. And every day, seven days a week, eight long trains travel those tracks from almost the Alberta border in the Elk Valley up to Golden and then west to the coast. Those eight trains haul millions of tonnes of some of the highest quality metallurgical coal in the
[ Page 10959 ]
world to Westshore Terminals on the Pacific coast, where it's loaded on large ships and taken to Asia to be used for making steel that goes into your Toyota Prius, your laptop and your toaster.

Almost 5,000 people now make their living at the five metallurgical coal mines operating in my riding, and they earn an average wage of $110,000 annually. Thousands more earn a good family-supporting wage from CP Rail in Golden, a great railway town. Of course, there are the folks that work at the port itself, who also earn high wages.

[1110]

Coal is actually the king in terms of sheer volume and in terms of dollar value on both the railway in B.C. and at our west coast ports. The idea that I've heard espoused here by some opposition members that we should be ashamed of our metallurgical coal industry is absurd and is embarrassingly naive. The five coal mines in my riding contribute hundreds of millions into our provincial economy every year and tens of millions in taxes that go to pay the cost of health care and education.

The development of this government's vision for increased trade with Asia has real, tangible benefits for B.C. families. There are 36,800 more people working today than a year ago. In 2011 the value of exports destined for the Pacific Rim was 43 percent. That's up from 36 percent in 2009, and it represents the first time that export levels to the Pacific Rim were higher than those to the United States.

I think it's important to recall what the Minister of Finance said recently, upon coming back to Victoria after he had received some important feedback from some of the world's most respected financial people. They told the Minister of Finance why B.C. is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that still has a triple-A credit rating. Standard and Poor's and Moody's told the minister that one of the qualities of the B.C. story that they liked best, and a fundamental difference from provinces like Ontario, is that B.C. has been shifting away from reliance on the U.S. economy and is working hard to build trade with Asia.

The transportation corridors that are a key part of the Asia-Pacific gateway enable us to get our products to market and to help create the hundreds of thousands of good jobs that are associated with this vision. I remember going to China for almost three weeks in 2006. This government has been working now for seven or eight years to develop this vision, to the benefit of British Columbians.

L. Popham: It's an interesting motion that was put forward today to debate in the House, considering the focus that has been on a situation around the Deltaport facility over the last couple of weeks.

The members across the way like to mention the importance of the agrifoods strategy when they talk about the importance of port development and trade development. That's curious to me, considering that at this time there is a threat to the farmland around the Deltaport facility. Without this farmland, without all of the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia, it would be very difficult to fulfil the commitments in the agrifoods strategy. Over 40 years we've had a land use tool in place that has protected our food-growing lands. That's for our future.

When I hear that there are plans possibly to turn this land over or sell this land to a federal jurisdiction, which would basically override one of the strongest, most important land use tools we've had in this province, it's very difficult to hear the short-term thinking and shortsightedness from the other side of the House.

The investment in ports and airports is very important, and we certainly agree that investment in the right place is the direction that we should go. It's something that allows us to play on the international field and allows us to get our goods to market and vice versa. But when you look at the idea that we're selling off some of our strongest values in the province for short-term thinking, selling off our ability to produce food for ourselves and for other parts of the world, it's something that we need to consider — where these investments are being made.

Where are they being made in the province? Are there some areas that are possibly a better use than others? We hear the mayor of Ashcroft bringing up an idea that there should be an inland port. This is something that we should investigate. This is something that would allow us to meet the mandate of our province, which is to reduce emissions, bringing goods to a rail system that's already set up. This is an idea that we should investigate.

There are ideas about an inland port as far up as Kamloops. These are all ideas that would allow us to weigh out: what are our important values in this province? Is food production an important value in this province? I think it is, and I think we can see that from the celebration of the agrifoods strategy from the other side.

[1115]

It's not clear to me what the long-term thinking is. I think there are possibly a lot of shoot-from-the-hip strategies being created on the other side of the House. The difference, I think, in the way that we view things is that we consider the investments important, but we're not willing to sell ourselves short or sell the people of British Columbia short.

Ninety percent of people in British Columbia support food production, and they support the agricultural land reserve. I think that message has been clear over 40 years. I don't think there's any doubt. It's probably a chance for the government side of the House to stand up and say: "Yes, we believe in port development, but we don't believe in getting rid of our agricultural lands, because it's a long-term vision." This is a long-term vision that came in 40 years ago. So there shouldn't be any question in the government's mind.
[ Page 10960 ]

I think people would be very, very disappointed in the fact that we would be possibly getting rid of 600 acres of prime land in the Lower Mainland. There's a Delta farmer that is actually…. He's growing potatoes, and he has still a couple hundred tonnes of potatoes sitting in his barn. This is something that the government should really address if they support an agrifoods strategy, because that's something that a program like Buy B.C. would address. That's something that institutional buying, procurement contracts, would address.

We are supposed to be supporting a domestic market, and it's all very well and good to put all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak, as far as an international market and agriculture, but I don't believe that you can have a trade system set up where everything that we invest in is focused on the international market without a domestic market.

That being said, either way, we still need our agricultural lands. Whether we're focused internationally or domestically, we still need those lands in place. We still need to be growing food on those lands. As far as I'm concerned, I agree that investment in ports, putting infrastructure in place….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

P. Pimm: I'm happy to take my place in this discussion as well, and an important discussion it is. "Be it resolved that this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation."

I want to start by talking a little bit about the member for Surrey-Whalley. He said that, you know, he's got good capacity in his ports, and I just want say that that doesn't happen by fluke. That happened because this government has had a vision — that we want to make sure that the ports have capacity and that they can continue to get the products to markets.

I can't agree more with my member for Kootenay East who talks about our Asian connection and our gateway to the Pacific Rim and how it's so important for all of our products. He talks about coal and metallurgic coal, and certainly that's very important. It's very important in my region as well. Is it king? Well, in my region it's second king, but oil and gas is probably king, just a little bit ahead of it in our area, so we may have a debate around that.

Also, there are some issues being talked about around the ALR. Obviously, we all want to make sure that we have a good ALR and continue with keeping the lands in good shape. But we also have to remember that we have to keep the farmers in good shape, and that's one piece of the ALR that we have kind of forgotten about a little bit.

I want to talk a little bit about my region. In our region we generate about 62 percent of the province's resource revenue for this province, and we're really proud of that fact. That goes into giving the ability so that we can have a good education system, a good health system. There's a lot of revenue that comes out of the northeast, and we're really, really happy about that.

Our natural gas industry, like I said earlier…. We're sitting on two and possibly three of the major, major shale gas plays. They're world-class gas plays — the Montney gas play and the Horn River gas play — and we haven't even tapped into the Liard gas play, which is up in the Fort Nelson country. Those are going to have huge ramifications for us in opening up that Asian market and getting some LNG plants moving forward.

The opposition tells us that they're in favour of the LNG. I'm happy that they're in favour of the LNG, but unfortunately, the LNG plants are going to take an awful lot of power to operate. They're not in favour of Site C. They're not in favour of utilizing natural gas for an energy source. So I'm wondering how they're actually going to be in favour of the LNG products if they're not going to be in favour of finding a way to power them.

[1120]

You know, we also have agriculture and forestry in my area, and we're proud of both of those. They're huge. And mining, of course, is very strong. We've got coal mines in our area. Last year we had a major project in our area, and what was the biggest concern that they had? Well, the concern was that they didn't have capacity in Ridley and the Port of Prince Rupert.

So now we actually have addressed that issue. I'm happy to say that all of my mining companies…. They're in the midst of signing long-term agreements with the ports, and now they've actually got that capacity. They went from nine million tonnes a year. They got it up to 12 million, and now long term is for 20 million tonnes a year.

I've got two or three more mines that are looking at locating in our area right now, again, in the metallurgic coal. They could talk about, easily, another eight million to ten million tonnes that they're going to need for capacity.

It's very, very important for us to continue getting the capacity. Right now in the northeast we utilize between half and almost two-thirds of all the capacity going into the ports out on the west coast in the Rupert and that area.

The diversification. We talk a little bit about the diversification of markets. In the years past we went strictly for the United States market. We thought: "Well, that's the best thing we can do." Some 85 percent or 90 percent of our total products were going to the United States. We thought: "Yep, that's going to be there forever. Those markets will never dry up." Well, guess what. They dried up. They put our forest industry in a huge, huge problem.

What we've done now in the forest industry and getting the markets out, in the Asian area, of the province — that's just huge for the forest industry right now. They're actually coming back. They're getting back on their feet. If it wasn't for the investments that we've been doing in that area, we'd have a forest industry that would never
[ Page 10961 ]
have come back.

As you can see, the housing market in the States is still down. They're doing nothing down there. You can still buy a house in Phoenix for a third of its value, easily. In fact, it's a good investment opportunity for some of you even on the other side. You might want to consider that.

In 2011 the value of exports destined for the Pacific Rim was 43 percent. That's up 36 percent from the previous years. So we're really making progress there.

V. Huntington: I don't think there's any doubt that B.C.'s investment in its ports and transportation corridors is to the benefit of this province as a whole. But I think the issue here is that B.C. is not a one-dimensional society.

The people of this province have a right to believe that their government will protect the balance in society. Economics is not our only value. We also have values of environment and agriculture, and what they want to see is those values protected in a balanced way. That, I guess, is what I would like to frame my comments around.

I don't think there's any quarrel in this House that Delta South is perhaps at the centre of B.C.'s investment in the port and transportation corridors of the province, but we're also the fulcrum for a balance in this society. A number of times in this House I've tried to explain what that balance in Delta really means. Perhaps today I'll quote from a couple of experts, given that my personal comments don't seem to hold enough water, to date, in this House.

I'd like to quote Dr. Aleck Ostry of the University of Victoria, who said:

"Without fully understanding how B.C. will meet current and future food needs for its population, plans to remove land from the agricultural land reserve for industrial development cannot properly be considered or evaluated.

"Studies…at the University of Victoria show that B.C. is about 50 percent food self-sufficient. This fairly low provincial level of food self-sufficiency rests on an extremely narrow land base…which is why we have the ALR in the first place.

"Delta's role in maintaining B.C.'s food self-sufficiency is enormous, as 45 percent of greenhouse vegetables and about 35 percent of our field vegetables are grown in Delta. With the certainty of food consumption demand increasing steadily, in the context of uncertainty of supply from other parts of the world, it is essential to expand vegetable production capacity in Delta.

"Taking prime agricultural land out of the ALR for port development…will have adverse impacts on food security and dietary health in B.C."

That is a balance that we have not yet heard this government speak to.

[1125]

From Anne Murray, who is a former national president of the federation of wildlife:

"Nor is this development only an issue of agricultural survival. Land in Delta is a vital link for millions of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway.

"The Fraser River Estuary important bird area, a biological designation encompassing the whole region, has the greatest number of species meeting global thresholds of any site in Canada…. Massive flocks of ducks, geese and swans feed and shelter on the fields in winter…. A break in the Pacific Flyway would affect birds from 20 countries, from Russia to Argentina."

Balance is what we have to achieve in this striving for the economic development of our ports and transportation corridors. It is finding balance among these competing values that the people of this province expect. The people of this province have a right to expect that their government will strive to protect values other than those simply represented by transportation corridors.

I just urge the members opposite to understand what they're doing in a place like Delta South. Balance is the key to the survival of so many values, and without it this government will not have helped the people of this province in any measurable way.

D. Hayer: Thank you for the comments from the MLA for Delta South.

We all agree that agricultural land is very important, and we all support agricultural land. That's why we have the Agricultural Land Commission, which is independent. They make the decision, taking a look at all input.

You know, we also must find a balance to make sure we look after the interests of the whole society. Without having a good economy, we would not have everything, and we also have to make sure farming is connected.

My family has been farming for many, many years — actually, hundreds of years back in India, before they moved here. So I appreciate her comments.

It is with great pleasure that I speak to this motion, because I believe strongly in its importance. In fact, if the member for Richmond Centre had not made the motion, I would have, because supporting continued investment in our ports and transportation corridors is not only vitally important to the future of our province, but they are vitally important to my constituents and my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead.

While my riding may not contain the ports, virtually everything that is imported or exported to the province passes through Surrey-Tynehead or the city of Surrey. In addition, a great many residents of my constituency and many more from the city of Surrey earn their living directly or indirectly through our ports.

The jobs created by the ports, directly and indirectly, are very important. They are very high paying. They allow them to look after their families.

Truck operators that carry the goods to and from the ports or businesses that have otherwise depended on the port capacity and the transportation industry that supports them are very important because they help the economy to pay for our health care, education and social programs.

Key to this corridor to and from the ports is the huge investment by the province in the new Port Mann bridge, the widening of the freeway and the building of the South Fraser perimeter road. These two routes come together
[ Page 10962 ]
in Surrey-Tynehead at the 176 Street Interchange, and they are key to the transportation of our goods from across Canada to the Asia-Pacific market. As a matter of fact, the 176th, Pacific Highway, has been widened from Highway 1 to the U.S. border to take our goods to the U.S. so we can have families employed here — keep on working to look after their kids and their families.

These programs are very important. They are also key to delivering Asian products to British Columbia, to Canada and to the rest of North America.

Our ports are well placed, providing speedier delivery of goods to markets across the continent than any other ports on the Pacific coast. They can save anywhere from three to five days.

The ports and the modern, well-planned transportation corridors are there because our government has invested in the future, because our government understands the value of investment to continue to keep British Columbia's economy strong and buoyant. Our government understands that the true value of these investments are jobs, jobs for families, well-paying, family-supporting jobs.

[1130]

Many of those jobs are tied to the future of many of my constituents, and they're tied to jobs throughout the province. Without that transportation corridor and the ports, someone working in a restaurant or operating a fuel supply centre in Prince George may not be working. A miner in Fernie or Tumbler Ridge would not have a job. Many products that are common to our homes — such as televisions, stoves, microwaves, refrigerators and vacuums — would cost a lot more.

Everyone on this side of the House recognizes and believes in the importance of these investments in our ports and transportation corridor expansion because we know that without them, our future and our families' future would be bleak. Without these investments, our economy would falter, our social network would suffer, and there would be fewer jobs.

Our government understands that. That's why we have made investments to ensure that Canada Starts Here, the B.C. jobs plan, capitalizes on the strong and powerful markets growing by leaps and bounds in Asia on the other side of the ocean. We have also, when putting great investments in here, invested more than $22 billion since 2005 into our gateway transportation project. That is over $22 billion to develop trade corridors with the Asia-Pacific and other parts of the world.

We are improving the transportation network across the province, not just in the Lower Mainland. We have recently opened the Kicking Horse bridge in the Kootenays and the W.R. Bennett Bridge in the Okanagan, and are undertaking the project to widen Highway 97 to four lanes all the way to Prince George, developing the Okanagan Valley corridor. The list goes on. There are many other projects we're doing.

We aren't stopping there. We are building the future. Through the gateway transportation strategy and over the next eight years, we are expecting to spend more than $25 billion on gateway investment, and that will create more than 17,000 jobs. The list goes on. I appreciate how important the strategy is to create jobs here so we can have health care, education and social programs that are needed by British Columbians. I appreciate all the members speaking on this motion.

H. Bains: The motion before us is that "this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation." Who could disagree with that statement?

When you look at the activities both in the Metro Vancouver port and at the airport and the number of jobs that are created and how many families are dependent on those good-paying jobs, I think it only makes sense that we continue to support that particular industry and make sure that they stay competitive with such a very competitive world of seaport transportation — transportation of goods all across our market — and invite investors to come and invest in our province with a mind that their product will have easy access to the destination of their choice.

I'm looking at these lofty statements, but when you look at the action behind them from this government, it's somewhat disappointing. The member for Richmond Centre only a few weeks ago, right here in this House, stood and talked about the elimination of two-cent jet fuel at the airport and the benefit that comes from it — all the new flights that the airlines have promised. He talked about that, and that is a good statement.

He talked again, in his opportunity to speak today, of the same statement that he made here only a couple of weeks ago. But then you look and combine that with the Premier making a statement only a couple of weeks ago about a $700 million investment in transportation infrastructure.

Part of that $700 million was the announcement they had made earlier. The rest of it — there are no details, no specifics, no timelines. When you combine these statements, one wonders: where is the action? And there is no action.

I can give you another example. Months before Seaspan received one of the largest shipbuilding contracts in B.C., they were here meeting with the opposition members along with myself and saying that they are pursuing that contract and also making statements that they're disappointed in the actions of this government — that they were not getting the support they need in order to secure that contract.

[1135]

When they were able to get that contract, sure enough — who was the first one in the lineup for a photo op? The
[ Page 10963 ]
Premier and the Minister of Transportation and the rest of the gang from that side taking credit, for which they have done nothing.

I must say that I support this statement that we have, because many of the members who live in my constituency and the rest of Surrey work in our ports and at the airport. Many are former members of the forest industry who no longer have those jobs, thanks to the policy of this government devastating our forest industry. Now they are working as longshoremen and warehouse workers and earning, once again, good, family-supporting wages.

They come in and tell us that it pains them to see raw logs going when they have to handle those shipments at our seaports, leaving our province at a record level, rather than them shipping a finished product to our markets. That is not happening.

When you look at the policies of this government and the real actions, they're devastating to the economy and devastating to many industries that they talked about. I think we — the public, the workers and our constituents — could expect better from all sorts of governments, especially from this government — that their jobs are protected, their industry is protected and the products they process, manufacture and finish here end up in the market that they are intended for.

They need support from this government. In many cases they feel that they're left alone, all by themselves, to fend for themselves because no support is coming from this government.

I want to say that those are good, family-supporting jobs at our ports and airports. There's no question that we need to continue to support that industry and continue to provide them the help they need so that the product we manufacture here ends up in a marketplace that it's intended for in the most efficient manner that is possible.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the time to speak on this important issue.

D. Barnett: I stand today to support this motion. I come, as you know, from rural British Columbia, where transportation is such an important part of our way of life both for economics and for safety.

Over the last ten years I am proud of what this side of the House has done to improve the corridor called the Cariboo Gold Rush Trail in the old days and right now called the Cariboo connector.

Let's go back in history. In 1858 wave after wave of eager goldminers advanced northward into British Columbia's interior. This influx presented transportation problems that led to the construction of the Cariboo Road. Government officials, led by Gov. James Douglas, soon realized that with the huge influx of people, success in the Cariboo was possible only with roads.

The task was given to a small detachment of Royal Engineers led by Col. R.C. Moody, and it began in Yale in 1861. It eventually stretched nearly 400 miles, or 650 kilometres, north to Barkerville. By 1865 the Cariboo Road allowed mule trains, freight wagons and stagecoaches to serve central British Columbia. That was the start of a great investment in the province of British Columbia and in the Cariboo Road, as it was called.

Over the years there have been many, many roads improved in rural British Columbia, and that is our main transportation corridor. We have airports, small airports. But without good solid roads, foundations, we have issues. We need to get our goods to market. We need to get our citizens to where they have to go.

The investment that has been made over the last ten years by this government is second to none — the jobs that have been created in rural British Columbia building these roads, the safety of our citizens. When you live in rural British Columbia, when you have all-weather issues, you have to have a good foundation to drive your vehicle on, and that's what we have.

[1140]

I remember back when I was mayor of a wonderful small community and they were trying to get support to build the new Port Mann bridge. I was proud when mayors from urban governments came to small little rural British Columbia mayors and said: "Can you please help us? We have, as usual, the naysayers that say we don't need this bridge. But you know, we need the transportation system throughout the province of British Columbia, from small rural British Columbia, to get our goods and services to the rest of the world."

We support solid, good transportation infrastructure throughout the province of British Columbia. Yes, it must be done with good environmental standards. But too often the naysayers create so many problems and don't realize that these issues are not just issues in one place or another in British Columbia. What we do in our transportation system affects the whole province.

I am very proud to stand here today to say I sincerely thank this government for their vision in our transportation corridors and for the future vision that we have to continue to move our goods and services and our citizens are safe.

G. Coons: It's an honour to rise to debate the motion put forward by the member for Richmond Centre: "Be it resolved that this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation." I appreciate the motion that's been put forward. Coming from the port city of Prince Rupert, it gives me an opportunity to talk about the city that I come from and live in.

It seems, as we've heard from the previous debate, that the government finds itself in a real dilemma. They're on a path of paving over rich, fertile farmland — farmland taken out of the agricultural land reserve — creating traf-
[ Page 10964 ]
fic chaos and increasing pollution versus heading down a better path, a strategic path of continued investment in a northern port and transportation corridor that makes sense both economically and environmentally.

The current agenda that it appears this government has, industrializing Delta to initiate the doubling of Deltaport, is not focusing, I believe, on the best way to satisfy B.C.'s and Canada's trading needs in a sustainable manner that respects our environment and the communities where we live.

We all must acknowledge, especially here in the House, that the west coast gateway through the Port of Prince Rupert has the most potential. The Port of Prince Rupert enjoys significant competitive advantages over all other west coast ports. It's the shortest trade route, as we all know, between North America and Asia's fast-growing economies by up to three days. It's 36 hours closer to Shanghai than Vancouver and over 68 hours closer than Los Angeles.

As we all know, the Port of Prince Rupert has one of the deepest natural harbours in the world. It has one of the safest, most efficient ports in North America, with easy access to international shipping lanes. It has modern, state-of-the-art facilities designed with speed and efficiency in mind. All of the terminals at the Port of Prince Rupert — whether it's Prince Rupert Grain, Ridley Terminal or the container terminal itself — have the capacity to increase volumes or expand their operations.

The Port of Prince Rupert has fast, efficient and uncongested rail access. It's free of urban congestion, and that's what we've been hearing today about Deltaport. The rail line in Prince Rupert travels along the northwest transportation corridor through the most moderate rail grade in the Canadian Rockies.

With the Port of Prince Rupert, there's a significant capacity for growth. It has more than 400 hectares of prime industrial land ready for development — not out of the agricultural land reserve. Continued investment in the Port of Prince Rupert can be done with much less of an environmental impact, in a region that supports it, versus many in Delta that oppose the wholesale sellout of their community.

Investing in the Port of Prince Rupert is the wise option for improving the flow of goods to markets, for attracting investment and adding significantly to our economy. In fact, the latest study shows that the Port of Prince Rupert is having a significant impact on the provincial economy.

The report, prepared by InterVISTAS Consulting, indicates the number of B.C.-based jobs generated by the Port of Prince Rupert has grown by more than 70 percent over the past two years, and the value of export trade passing through the port has nearly doubled to $4.9 billion from $2.9 billion. So it's the obvious place to invest in, versus other ports in the province.

[1145]

Don Krusel, president and CEO of Prince Rupert Port Authority, says: "We are proud of the port's role in ensuring the environmentally responsible and safe movement of goods through Prince Rupert to and from Asia. We're equally proud that our work contributes to a sustainable economic environment both locally and throughout the province."

The benefits and advantages of Prince Rupert are widely acknowledged. The federal government strategic advisers recognized this in their 2008 report when they suggested that Prince Rupert be developed before investing more money in Lower Mainland ports and infrastructure.

In that same report they also stated: "We believe in protecting the environment and ensuring that economic activity respects the land and communities. There must be a more effective utilization of the current port use in Vancouver that will satisfy local and regional demand, with Prince Rupert being the key to providing for the rest of Canada's business and trading needs."

Again, Don Krusel says: "Lately as an organization, we have talked about how we move traffic responsibly and in an environmentally sustainable way. I think this latest study shows we're also working in an economically sustaining way, not just for the region but for all of northern British Columbia. We're not just moving coal and grain and containers. We're moving the economy."

I must thank the member for bringing forward this motion, because it reminds us where our priorities must be for our continued investment in our ports, and that is investing strategically with strategic advantages in the Port of Prince Rupert.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in favour of the motion: "Be it resolved that this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation."

I have to say that at the beginning of the member for Surrey-Newton's remarks, when he talked about the fact that "how could anyone not support this motion…?" I concur. I think that it's very, very difficult for anyone not to support this, because this really goes to the heart of our economy, to the heart of our opportunities and for the growth in our economy for the citizens in British Columbia and for us to create the jobs and enjoy the programs that we all enjoy.

I also was moved by the remarks from the member for North Coast, who spoke very well about the Port of Prince Rupert and the importance of that port with all that it delivers to the transportation infrastructure in British Columbia. It's the investment. You know, it's why our government committed $15 million towards the $90 million road rail utility corridor project for that port. We do, like the member for North Coast, recognize the importance of the Port of Prince Rupert.
[ Page 10965 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You know, talking about the Pacific Gateway Alliance and the $25 billion of additional Pacific Gateway investment through the 2012-2020 program…. Obviously, the importance of the Port of Prince Rupert in that and the additional investment of $2.8 billion by 2015 by CN and CP Rail for their main lines….

That's really the crux of this whole thing. It's that British Columbia is the Pacific gateway, that British Columbia is the gateway to the Asia-Pacific for North America, and the importance for our government and for us as British Columbians to continue to invest, to make sure that we increase the infrastructure, increase the ability for us to move forward and really be seen by all of North America not as Canada's gateway but as North America's gateway to the Asia-Pacific because of our proximity, because of the opportunities that our ports....

The member for North Coast comments on the proximity and the advantages, that the Port of Prince Rupert does indeed allow for the movement of goods from Asia to the heartland of North America — to Chicago, to areas in the Midwest of the United States and in the southern United States — by building within the infrastructure and the railroads that exist within the United States.

[1150]

It's understanding how we can contribute to that, how we can take the infrastructure that we have, expand upon it, work upon it, so that we're not necessarily building new infrastructure but basically using what we have in a better way.

You know, one of the things that I had the opportunity to see firsthand in the last few months when I travelled to Asia was also the importance of air cargo and the importance of building the infrastructure so that we can increase air cargo here to North America and take advantage of that.

One of the things I saw when I was visiting one company and spoke to some government officials in one of the Asian countries I was visiting was the fact that they extremely interested not only in building upon passenger capacity between Vancouver and Taiwan, which was the country that I was in, but also the importance of building cargo capacity between Taiwan and British Columbia, in being able to bring goods to market both ways.

Not only were they looking at bringing some of their electronic goods to British Columbia but also — and speaking to some of the points that some of the members earlier on the agricultural side have brought forward — talking about being able to bring blueberries and other perishable goods to market in Asia, and the importance of air cargo in allowing that. Understanding that we have to have infrastructure in place to allow that to happen and that we have to make the investment and continue to make the investment to make this happen is very, very important.

L. Krog: I appreciate the opportunity to rise this morning. I want to draw the members' attention back to the actual wording of the motion. It says: "Be it resolved that this House support continued investments in our ports and transportation corridors to improve the flow of goods to markets, attract investment, and enable job creation."

Well, Nanaimo is a busy port nowadays, but unfortunately it's a busy port because the ships are loading with raw logs, which doesn't help our economy terribly much. There was a time when the member for Parksville-Qualicum and I could have happily looked out in the harbour and seen ships loading with lumber and with finished products to be marketed abroad.

Those days seem to have disappeared over the last decade, quite remarkably. It's not a topic we want to talk about here this morning — we're talking about ports — because certainly we all support investments in ports and transportation corridors. I'd remind the members that it was the previous government that built the inland Island highway, which has enabled traffic to move up Vancouver Island, supporting tourism at Mount Washington — all positive steps.

But here on the Island, as well, Victoria International Airport, the ninth busiest of its kind in Canada, can't get this government to put up money to ensure its continued expansion and support. In fairness, Nanaimo got some money, and I am very pleased to say thank you very much for that. British Columbians are looking for genuine attempts to try and create jobs to ensure that British Columbians are employed.

I come back to the raw log export issue in my port. Forty percent of the coastal harvest is now going out in raw log form — 40 percent of the coastal harvest. It's a shocking statistic. It's a statistic that no government should be proud of and, indeed, should be doing everything to stop.

I want to assure the members of this House that the New Democratic Party official opposition supports investing in ports and transportation corridors to ensure that we create some real jobs, but what we want are real jobs.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada