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, May 14, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 1

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

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HEALTHY SENIORS

K. Conroy: Seniors health in this province can pertain to so many issues. Today I want to talk about the issues of home care and home support, the need for it and how in the long term a well-functioning home support system will ensure better health outcomes for seniors in this province.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I first want to acknowledge and give kudos to the thousands of caregivers who take care of our seniors. Whether a care aide, an LPN or RN, a physiotherapist, speech pathologist or occupational therapist, a dietitian, custodian, administrator, family doctor or nurse practitioner, and the many more professionals who are all part of the system in B.C., I recognize you for all the work you do.

I talk to many of these people in their many different roles, and all are dedicated to providing the best care possible for our moms and dads, spouses, grandparents. One common issue for all of them that I hear them say is: "I wish I had more time. I wish I could have just spent a bit more time with Pete or Mary today." But I know that they do the best they can in spite of the many challenges they might face on a daily basis.

There are a number of issues with care for seniors in our province, many highlighted in the report released by the Ombudsperson, Kim Carter, and her team, who have been compiling this information since 2008. The second part of the report, The Best of Care: Getting It Right for Seniors in British Columbia (Part 2), had 140 findings and 176 recommendations for how we can get it right for our frail elderly in this province. We need to ensure that we respect this work and work together to implement the necessary practices to meet the recommendations.

It goes without saying that we aren't dealing with widgets here but, in fact, seniors — seniors who have built this province. Now, when they need support and care in their final years, we need to make sure that they get it in a respectful manner that ensures their dignity is maintained.

I also want to comment on the many active, healthy seniors I have met in this province — the amazing older participants in the B.C. Seniors Games in their 80s and 90s competing in track, golfing, cycling, etc. They are really good examples of what healthy, active seniors can be like.

[1005]

Then there are the seniors' advocates, those in their 60s right through to their 90s, speaking out for their peers, volunteering their time to lobby government and health authorities and to be a voice in communities. We have some pretty amazing seniors who I meet with on a regular basis. There is the Old Age Pensioners Organization; COSCO, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C.; the Senior Citizens branches and women's auxiliaries in so many communities, to name a few — all functioning with very active, well-spoken seniors volunteering their time.

How do we ensure that seniors stay healthy and active? I don't meet too many seniors who say to me: "I just can't wait to get into that long-term-care facility." In fact, more often I hear: "I really want to stay in my home, and with just a little bit more support, I could do that."

There is a growing body of research that suggests that when home care is appropriately managed and properly integrated into the health care system, it can improve the health and well-being of many seniors and their families and reduce the cost of care in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. I think we can all agree that seniors who might just need a little bit of help in their home can stay in that home longer — stay in a place of comfort and stay out of more expensive acute and residential care.

I believe the economists or financial wizards in the Ministry of Finance and those that work in similar positions in the health authorities would find that, with a well-done cost-benefit analysis, the value of remaining in one's home as long as possible would save the system so much more in the long run.

The comfort of familiar surroundings and the ability to receive personalized attention from home care workers and family caregivers both have benefits that are difficult to provide in a residential or acute care setting. However, about 40 to 50 percent of seniors with high needs who are living at home have distressed caregivers. These are family caregivers that are living at home with them.

One area we don't talk about enough is those family caregivers, the spouses or children who provide the majority of care when a senior with needs does still live at home. Without enough additional support, the health of the caregiver can become as great an issue as the person being cared for.

The Canadian Caregiver Coalition has put together a framework for a Canadian caregiver strategy that would include maintaining the health and well-being of caregivers, increasing the availability and flexibility of respite, minimizing the financial burden, increasing access to information and education, creating flexible workplaces and investing in research on caregiving.

This coalition, as well as the Special Senate Committee
[ Page 11856 ]
on Aging, has recommended a national family caregiver strategy to ensure that Canadian caregivers are able to continue caring for their loved ones while maintaining their own health, well-being and quality of life.

As seniors' needs increase, the average hours of care provided by family caregivers also increases significantly, yet there is no corresponding increase in the levels of publicly funded home care support. Studies show that many caregivers are considerably stressed when caring for people with significant impairments, particularly when home care support does not increase to match the needs.

A burned-out caregiver cannot help anyone. He or she may become another patient for the system to support, and without the extensive involvement of a primary caregiver, the home care recipient will need to move into a long-term-care facility sooner.

Whether it is more rapid placement for their loved ones into a long-term-care facility or extra hours and resources for home care, family caregivers who cannot cope need more support. We need to ensure that family caregivers' needs are also assessed and supported as clients of home care services, and their level of stress needs to be continually monitored.

Family caregivers need the system to acknowledge their much-needed contributions, to recognize if they are burning out and provide support and offer choices. Families in distress might need their loved one to be fast-tracked into a long-term-care facility with extra hours of home care and respite while they wait. Some might prefer to keep their loved ones at home but with more types of support and hours of care. Still others may just need a period of respite.

Many caregivers are seniors themselves with one or more chronic conditions. Failing to provide adequate support to family caregivers is not only a burden on them and the vulnerable seniors in their care, but it is also a potential increased burden on our health care system.

Other caregivers are still in the workforce and need to juggle work responsibilities, family caregiving and their own health and well-being. Flexible working arrangements will help those who are managing work and caregiving at the same time. Employers need to consider their role in supporting employees as family caregivers.

N. Letnick: It's nice to be back in the chamber this morning after a great weekend.

[1010]

I took the opportunity this weekend, after I saw the topic of discussion for this morning, which is healthy seniors, to read through the Ombudsperson's report. As you can tell by the suntan that I gained on the top of my head, I was outside on the back porch, in the sun, reading through the report. Actually, I quite enjoyed the report. It is well written and has a number of recommendations.

I'm also pleased to say that the report does talk about some of the recommendations that have already been acted upon, some of the work that's currently being done by the ministry and by the regional health authorities. I look forward to the government continuing with its action plan for seniors and addressing many of the recommendations that are in the report. It is well worth the read, and I would recommend it. Now that I've read it, I would recommend it to everyone that works with seniors in the province — including, of course, all of us here in the Legislature.

Having read through the report, it kind of reminded me of when I was door-knocking for one of my times on city council in the Kelowna area. I came to this basement suite, knocked on the door, and this elderly lady came out. Her name is Mary. She looked like she needed to be in a care home as opposed to where she was. She looked very, very unhealthy. The surroundings, I could tell from the place that she was living in, were not very healthy for her.

We had a great discussion on what her aspirations were. After about 20 minutes of talking with her, that inspired me to enter provincial politics, because at the city council level you don't deal with those kinds of issues on a regular basis.

I was very pleased a few years later when I was invited to run and eventually got elected, because the seniors of this province deserve as much respect and efforts that we can give them. It's because of people like Mary that I am here today representing the people of Kelowna–Lake Country. I owe her and the seniors in this province a great deal of debt — not to mention, of course, senior moms, whom we happened to celebrate yesterday on Mother's Day.

So Mom, if you're watching this, happy Mother's Day again.

That's just, by the way, another ad lib for all the seniors in the province. But getting back to the challenge at hand, we definitely need to continue to work with advocates. We need to work with caregivers. I know that there are a lot of caregivers all around the province that give their heart and soul to those that are seniors. We have to do everything we can to continue to support them. We, of course, have a system in place which does provide them support and respite and other programs.

We have to continue to identify their needs and be there so that they can continue to help seniors stay at home longer if they can. And when they do go into different levels of care, we can continue to provide them the love and attention that they so ably deserve in those places. That way we have continued the relationship between the loved one and those that love them and make sure that there's that close relationship that continues. We can do that by providing care for the caregivers and respite wherever we can, wherever they need it.

When we look at the benefits of the action plan that the government has come up with for seniors, we find that there are quite a number of highlights. The plan in-
[ Page 11857 ]
cludes a seniors advocate, a toll-free phone line, on-line access to a facility report, an elder abuse prevention plan and the expansion of non-medical home support for up to 65 communities over the next three years.

These are quite ambitious plans. I know that the government plans on starting a consultation very soon, at the end of May, with British Columbians to talk about the advocate for seniors and what exactly the advocate will be doing, who they will be listening to, how they'll be working, what kind of staffing they will have.

This is something that the government is going to take its time on over the course of the next few months, to get it right. It's important that we get it right. Something as important as an independent officer in this Legislature, as we've seen through other independent officers…. It's very important that we take a very factual, comprehensive approach to make sure that we do it the right way.

I congratulate the member of the opposition for bringing up this issue. It's always an important issue in this House. I also congratulate the government for making sure that we do the right thing when it comes to the seniors advocate. I look forward to hearing the response on behalf of the opposition from the member opposite.

K. Conroy: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Hopefully, his voice will be heard in his caucus.

[1015]

The representative for seniors will be shortly forthcoming to the seniors of B.C. There is a bill sitting on the order paper. It's tabled and could be brought for second reading to the Legislature. We could have a position rather quickly in this province, rather than waiting until all the consultation is done, which would probably not happen until sometime next year. Hopefully, that will happen sooner than later.

There is another new report out that the member can spend some time reading. It's a health care strategy on human resources that was just released today by the B.C. Care Providers Association. It has some concerning statistics around what's happening with home support — and the need for putting forth an overview of what we need for residential care aides, home care workers and licensed practical nurses in this province. I think it's a 52-page report that talks about the need for more people to work in this sector.

Even though there are over 14,000 people employed in B.C.'s private, non-profit seniors care sector, it's a growing sector, and we do need more care providers. One of the areas where we most need those providers, which this report shows and confirms, is in the home care sector. Right now over 25 percent of the people working in home care are over the age of 55. That needs to be recognized.

It's a vulnerable challenge. And in areas for employers — the retention challenges, trying to keep staff — the cost of staff turnover is estimated at over $4,000 a person, and it presents a potential safety threat and a risk. We talk to seniors who say all they want is some continuity. They just would like to have maybe one or two care providers that come to their home on a daily basis or on a weekly basis — however often they need their home support — that they have continuity with that care, that they have the same caregiver coming to provide them that care.

I know that the support workers themselves are frustrated that they don't have enough time. They would like to be able to provide for the needs that a senior really does need. When they go into the home, they can see that they would dearly love to clean out the tub before they give a senior a bath, and it's just not allowed because cleaning is not allowed.

We need to have a conversation about what's needed with home support and health care, what's needed as far as the caregivers' needs but also for seniors' needs. At what point do we start talking about seniors and their dignity and respect? That's what it's about: ensuring that we provide care to seniors with the dignity and the respect that they need and ensuring that recommendations like the Ombudsperson's report don't just become another report that sits on a shelf — that we actually take those recommendations to heart, that we implement those recommendations for the best of seniors.

MINING IN B.C.

R. Hawes: I rise today to talk about mining in British Columbia, as this is Mining Week in British Columbia. I'd like to start by saying that actually it should be mining year in British Columbia because mining is now such an important part of our economy. It is a growing part — one of this most rapidly growing parts of our economy. We should be celebrating the fact that we've been endowed with natural resources all over British Columbia. We should celebrate that every day, year-round.

Mining provides today about 28,000 direct jobs in British Columbia and thousands more indirect jobs. It has the highest-paid average income of any of the heavy industries, at about $108,000 a year, and it is the safest heavy industry, with actually no fatalities recorded on a minesite since 2009. This is a tremendous reflection of the importance of safety to the mining community.

Exploration in British Columbia, which was at about $25 million a year in 2000, last year will be just over $460 million. So it's growing, and it's growing rapidly, and all of that provides jobs. There are more jobs coming with new mines that are going on stream.

I'm thinking of Copper Mountain or New Afton — the expansion there, or reopening. Highland Valley Copper is expanding. Mount Milligan — new mine opening; Endako — big expansion. Gibraltar mine is expanding and going to have a longer life span. There are a number of coal mines — mines that are expanding in the Kootenays and new coal mines opening in the northeast.
[ Page 11858 ]

[1020]

With the electrification of Highway 37, we expect that in the northwest part of this province it's going to open up — with Red Chris mine, perhaps Galore Creek, Hard Creek Nickel. There are a number of opportunities there that I know are going to develop into mines.

What's happening in British Columbia is great news for all British Columbians, because this is how you build an economy. But there are impediments to the growth of mining, and so I want to talk about a couple of those too.

The Fraser Institute does a survey around the world of mining interests with over 3,000 inputs to rate how easy it is to get into mining in various parts of the world. B.C. usually averages about No. 30 out of 72 — somewhere in that range — and it's because in two areas we rank near the bottom.

The first one, I'll say, is in First Nations and land use with First Nations consultation. But we are working as a government very hard with First Nations on a number of fronts to reach agreements in a more cohesive and a quicker way that builds an economy for the First Nations people in various parts of province.

One of them is revenue-sharing. We have entered agreements with several First Nations in British Columbia that will see them receive a share of the revenue — for example, Mount Milligan. The McLeod Lake band should see somewhere over $30 million over the life of that mine, and they're very supportive. And it provides…. One of the things that we look for in any new mine is employment opportunities and training opportunities for First Nations. So we are making, I think, some good strides.

The other problem and the other place that we have impediments is with our environmental review process in British Columbia. We had a dual track — the government of Canada and British Columbia. I know that there are a lot of people who are opposed to seeing delegation of the environmental review process to British Columbia. However, I think people should stop and think about this for a few minutes.

You know, it is not politicians — it is not politically motivated people — who go out on the land base and do the actual assessment work. It's biologists and engineers and hydrologists. They're the ones. They are professionals, and they come in with an environmental review at the end. They look at all of the environmental impacts.

The difference between the Canadian and the British Columbia process, though, is that the government of Canada process looks only at the environmental impacts. It does not look at the economy. It doesn't look at social conditions. It looks at the environmental impacts, and it doesn't seek to get balance.

In the British Columbia system, actually, after the environmental impacts are determined, there is a look at the economic and the social impacts to see if there's any way to mitigate so that a mine can proceed. A great example of that, I think, is the Prosperity mine near Williams Lake. The British Columbia environmental review process said yes, it should go ahead. On the environmental side it reached exactly the same conclusions as the federal process, which was a decline.

The federal process said, "It has to be turned down because of the destructive impacts on Fish Lake," which is a small lake near where the mine was going to be. The British Columbia system came up with exactly the same finding, but then, when it added in both mitigation and the economic and social conditions, it came up with a yes, it should proceed. There was a second lake that was going to be built to replace Fish Lake, which would have been deeper and would have been a healthier environment for fish.

It would have provided very, very significant employment to the Tsilhqot'in Nation. If you look at the statistics around the Tsilhqot'in bands in the Chilcotin, they are economically in a very, very poor state. They have high dropout rates from high school. They have very, very deep poverty problems.

The way out of poverty and the way to get kids to stay in school is to provide hope, to provide training and to provide jobs. That's what this mine would have done on the social side. Economically, it would have provided a huge boost to the people in the Williams Lake area, who at this time really needed that boost.

I know there are those who would say that the devolution of the environmental process to British Columbia is a terrible thing. However, again from the environmental perspective, actually it was British Columbia that was doing most of the work in an environmental review process anyway, and it is done by professionals.

[1025]

I think it's important to note that in British Columbia we consult with First Nations, we accommodate as per the law, and we're trying to build a strong economic base for First Nations. And I'm going to come back to that shortly.

D. Donaldson: I would like to join with the member for Abbotsford-Mission in acknowledging that this is Mining Week and the important contributions that the mining industry makes to B.C.

I'd also like to point out that when looking at commodity prices over the last decade and a half, 15 years, the prices of many of the commodities that we look at…. Copper has gone up five times from 1998 to 2001. Gold, five times the price. Silver, seven times. Molybdenum, seven times. As experts say, the exploration and development of mining in B.C. depends on those commodity prices, and we've seen some incredible increases in those prices.

That's why I'm a bit disappointed about the lost opportunities that we've seen in the last decade under this government. Not one new metal mine has opened in B.C. in the last decade. There are a couple of reasons for that.
[ Page 11859 ]
The lack of support for the mining sector through government agencies….

We had a quote from a former Minister of Mines on the government side saying that we need more people on the front lines to get the permits out the door and address the concerns of the mining industry. There just weren't enough people on the ground to get the resource revenue generation that we need in the province.

We had — in fact, it was the member for Abbotsford-Mission — a Minister of State for Mining, and we no longer have that. So the point contact in the ministries is gone. Of course, we've got a Minister of Energy and Mines who has about five other focuses in his ministry other than mines. So we need more investment in the government agencies to support mining than we've seen in the last little while.

I'm surprised that the member brings up the Prosperity mine as a good example of the environmental assessment process or First Nations consultation. We had the Premier, who tainted the process right off the bat…. She said that it would be her number one priority to get that mine going in B.C. in her discussions with the Prime Minister. Of course, the new Prosperity mine is just getting accepted into the environmental assessment process — so again, making a prejudgment on that mine.

The B.C. environmental assessment process put a stamp of approval on the original proposal, whereas the federal assessment process did not. The federal minister at the time talked about how the federal process was able to consider many more factors and much more information than the provincial process, especially when it came to First Nations concerns. That is why the federal review process was able to reach the conclusions that it did and rejected the proposal from Taseko.

Now, streamlining and a more efficient environmental assessment process is something we can all work towards. But if you are cutting corners on that, it will lead to unnecessary delays in making decisions. That's what we've made clear, and I think the evidence is there, not only with Prosperity but the recent concerns of the Tahltan around the Red Chris project.

We had an environmental assessment review process where explicit language around First Nations participation was removed by this government in 2002. That has led to, again, a lack of trust in the process from First Nations and from non–First Nations, as well, under this government.

We have to address pace and scale. In fact, the president of the Tahltan Central Council says: "Looking at our nation as a whole…nine development projects." Annita McPhee says: "How can anyone justify having nine projects at once? How is that sustainable?" So the crux of the matter is pace and scale and the social licence that goes along with that.

Frankly, the government has not done a good job on that. Even industry is talking about how they have not made a framework around consultation explicit so that the mining sector knows how to plug into that consultation framework and the First Nations know what the framework is on consultation and so that people can move ahead on projects and get to a decision much faster.

[1030]

So again, with the opportunities we've seen in the last decade as far as prices and commodities go, the incredible increase, one would expect that we would have had much more mining development going on in this province. For the reasons I've stated around the lack of support through the front-line ministries, through an inadequate consultation framework, we've not seen that happen.

R. Hawes: The member's dissertation there was quite interesting, although…. You know, I would agree that the metal prices have increased — so have costs — but I think he's overlooked another very important part of why mining returned to British Columbia so strongly. A big part of it — and frankly, I get this, by talking to the mining industry directly, those who make the investment — is the political climate. That's what they all say.

They all are very, very happy with the political climate in British Columbia today. They're very happy seeing a free enterprise government that understands profit. They are not so enamoured with any prospect of a return to a socialist government, and they're very frightened of it.

I know we're supposed to be non-political, but I took the last speaker's words to be very, very political. I do want to talk for a minute, though, about the Tsilhqot'in Nation and Prosperity mine.

I understand all of the concerns of the Tsilhqot'in Nation. Fish Lake for them, as they say, is a sacred lake, and it was going to be destroyed.

There has been a reworking of the project. Because of rising copper prices, the mining company is able to redesign, at over $300 million more cost to build the mine. Fish Lake is to be saved, and the ecosystem around Fish Lake would be saved in the new proposal. It is now under consideration, although it's being opposed even though it has not got the same environmental impact.

I also know that Taseko Mines did pay well over a million dollars in capacity-building money directly to the Tsilhqot'in Nation, as they worked together to try to find a way to make this mine go ahead, and now it's totally opposed.

I have to say, though, that First Nations in British Columbia don't have a veto. That's very clear. There are big requirements for consultation and accommodation and working together, but in the final analysis, when a decision has to be made, it's made by the government, and it's not made by First Nations. Sometimes the courts make the decisions, and it's up to the government to make sure that they do the right things.

I do want to speak, too, about the environmental com-
[ Page 11860 ]
munity. Last week coal trains were blocked by a number of environmentalists who think that we should stop mining coal altogether. For some reason, they think the coal we're mining in British Columbia is polluting the world.

The bottom line is that the coal that we mine here is metallurgical coal, and it's essential in the making of steel. I don't know what these folks think as they drive to their protest meetings in their Priuses or whatever they're driving, because without steel they would be looking at — what? — wooden cars. I'm not sure.

They need to get into the real world and understand that what we mine in British Columbia, from an environmental standpoint, is absolutely pure, and mining will continue to be an important, integral part of our economy.

Deputy Speaker: I remind all members of the non-partisan nature of private members' statements this morning.

FIRST NATIONS AND RESOURCES

D. Donaldson: The Yinka Dene Alliance Freedom Train arrived in Toronto last week just in time for oil company Enbridge's annual general meeting. After travelling 4,500 kilometres from Vancouver to Toronto, with stops in Jasper, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, amongst other places, the message from the five First Nations in the alliance from northern B.C. was clear.

The Enbridge tar sands pipeline is not welcome — in fact, "banned" is the word they used — in their unceded traditional territories. Chief Namox from the Wet'suwet'en First Nation — which 175 kilometres of the pipeline will traverse, if enacted — has said in the past: "We have the responsibility to look after the land the same as it looks after us."

That close connection to the land and close connection to kin are hallmarks of what is the connection of First Nations to their territories and to each other. Really, they are the essential values and elements of First Nations in northern B.C.: connection to the land and connection to kin. It's a spiritual, cultural, environmental and economic connection.

[1035]

I just want to tell a couple of brief stories around that. At one point, in the '90s, I was assisting with a Gitxsan house group — a wilp, they're called — in looking at the possibility of trail development in their traditional territories, which had a wilderness component to it, unroaded. We were high on a ridge overlooking this unroaded wilderness and looking at re-establishing a grease trail connection — trails that were used for the trade of oolichan grease from the coast into the Interior up in the northwest.

He said to me: "You know, Doug, I am a religious man. I don't go to church, but I am very spiritual." He pointed out over the valley that we were looking at, and he said: "This is my church." That's the kind of deep connection, spiritually, the First Nations across northern B.C. have to the land base. It's spiritual. It's cultural. It's economic. It's environmental.

As far as the economic aspect goes, I'd like to relate another story. Working again, in the early part of this decade, with First Nations in the northwest, we interviewed many elders. We asked them: "What is wealth?" And the elders pretty well universally came back with the message: "Wealth is when you have your fish in the jars, in the pantry, the wild salmon put away for the winter and when you have moose meat put away as well."

Then we asked young people: "What is your impression of wealth?" Although with many of them, it related to a paycheque, if you drilled down a little deeper with questioning, the young people, as well, understood that their close connection to the land and their reliance on the land for moose meat and fish and the intact ecosystems that are involved in providing that were essential to who they are.

It's not a theoretical story. It's not esoteric. There are people in the communities that I represent that would go hungry if it wasn't for that canned salmon in the pantry and that moose meat put away for the winter. So this is not a theoretical debate about what it used to be like to depend on the land base. This is here and now and today, and these are why the stakes are so high in the Enbridge pipeline development.

The risks, again, far outweigh the benefits with this project. As First Nations have told me in the north — and this is a typical example of the Enbridge project: "You can't eat money, and you can't drink oil." When I relate that to the importance of having that food put away, then that really strikes home a strong note about the connection to the land.

Experts say, when we've heard expert testimony, that when you move oil, you will spill oil. There's no other fact about it when you look around the world. You move oil; you spill oil. So what can we do about that?

Well, the technical papers that have been submitted to the National Energy Board review panel process have pointed out what we already know. A pipeline rupture at the headwaters of many of the streams that this pipeline will cross across northern B.C. — 800 stream crossings — would be catastrophic to the ecosystems, to the wild salmon, to the clean water that First Nations depend on and First Nations alike.

There are the upper reaches, for instance, of the Morice River, a very braided channel — in other words, seasonally the river takes different courses throughout the channel. Many large debris of coarse wood, old trees and such…. To be able to clean up a spill in that environment would be next to impossible, the technical reports point out. The heavy bitumen that is going to be transported, potentially, in this pipeline…. We'd just not be not able
[ Page 11861 ]
to remove the negative effects of that kind of spill in this kind of topography.

Again, there's expert evidence in technical papers submitted pointing out the folly of attempting to put a pipeline through the type of typography and geomorphology in the northwest that is prone to slides and movement and other natural events.

[1040]

Oil supertanker traffic, we know under this proposal, would be apparent and prominent in the Douglas Channel and through Hecate Strait. We know these kinds of waters are the types where the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred as well.

The Haisla First Nation — who are supportive of development in other aspects, as are many First Nations across northwest B.C. — support the liquid natural gas project on their lands. They have submitted many technical papers to the National Energy Board review panel on Enbridge on spills and on toxicity to fish. They are opposed to this project. You can see that they don't support the Enbridge tar sands pipeline or the oil supertanker traffic it entails in the Douglas Channel.

We're not talking about being opposed to development. We're talking about looking at risks and benefits. In the case of the Enbridge pipeline, First Nations have pointed out that they bear an inordinate amount of the risk and that the benefits are not commensurate with that.

D. Barnett: I would like to put on the record today that First Nations are very important. The history of British Columbia goes a long way back. We all respect culture, we all respect needs, we all respect other people's spiritual needs, and we all respect the land.

We are here today to work together to make life in British Columbia what it should be for all. All of us must work together. All of us must understand that the resources in this province belong to us all, that decisions made on resource extraction have a process. It must fair, and it must be one that is listened to by all.

We must remember that there are processes and regulations in place for environmental reviews. These reviews are very stringent, and they are inclusive of all. We must take our passion out of these types of decision-making, and we must sit at a table and look at facts.

The government here today is very proud of the relationship they have had with our resources and with our First Nations. There has been First Nations consultation put in place by this government that has shown respect for their heritage, their culture and for the long-term benefits to the young people, both of First Nations and others. It is time that we all realize that our younger generation is looking forward for a hand up, not a handout. They are looking for ways to create opportunities for their future. They are looking for ways for us to help guide them in their ways.

Resources, yes, are very important to all of us. Fish. Water is one of the most important things out there today, and we know we must all take care of it.

In my region we have some controversy right now. We have an environmental review process going on for what is called the Prosperity mine. There are those that are opposed, and there are those that are in favour.

As leaders of this province, it is up to us to look at the process and say: "Wait for the process. Let's look at all facts, and let's work together." The government of British Columbia understands the need for resource extraction. We understand the need for all the things that have to be taken care of to protect the environment.

We also know that the financial condition of the province of British Columbia is what makes this province a healthy place. We need funds for education and transportation. We need funds for all social programs and for health care. We need to continue to move forward with good environmental processes, which we have in place.

When I take a look at some of the key facts…. The province follows a consultation and accommodation process that meets legal requirements for the First Nations. The procedures for consultation were thoroughly reviewed and updated in 2010.

[1045]

Government produced the updated procedures for meeting legal obligations when consulting First Nations in 2010 as an update to emerging case law and to promote transparency in the First Nations consultation process.

Meeting government's legal obligations in the consultation process does not always satisfy First Nations' interests on land use decisions in their traditional territories. To this end the province has developed a suite of tools in recent years to advance certainty in the consultation process and, where possible, exceed the minimal length requirements.

These types of agreements include consultation process–related strategic engagement agreements, project-related economic community development agreements, and also forestry consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. The latter two agreements include financial accommodation.

We have many, many wonderful results over the last decade with our First Nations partners, and we look forward to many, many more.

D. Donaldson: While the member across the way talks about respecting culture, dozens and dozens of First Nations across northern B.C., where this pipeline from Enbridge is proposed to take place, have said that the project is unacceptable. Listening to them would be showing respect for culture. Having this government stand up and make its position clear on the Enbridge pipeline proposal would be showing respect for culture.

The value of the fishery, the value spiritually to the people that could be terribly impacted by this pipeline is invaluable. We need people with strong spirits to partici-
[ Page 11862 ]
pate in an economy that is going to be there in the future in the areas that we live in northern B.C. This is essential to having intact ecosystems.

The member opposite talks about the process in place for the environmental assessment. Well, again, in 2002 terms like "cumulative impacts" were taken out of the project reports, out of the environmental assessment legislation by this government. First Nations objectives were taken out as well as explicit language for First Nations participation in project review committees.

In 2011 in front of the Finance Committee, the vice-president of Imperial Metals testified during the hearings that the framework for consultation was too vague for the mining sector. That was 2011.

Now we have this Enbridge tar sands pipeline project crossing 800 streams in northern B.C. The Yinka Dene Alliance travelled to Toronto to the Enbridge annual general meetings. They stopped in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and other places along the way — places where buffalo used to roam freely, places where the Plains Indians depended on those buffalo for all their cultural, spiritual, environmental and economic reasons. We will not allow the wild salmon in this province to go the way of the buffalo. We will not allow that.

The wild salmon stocks are a national treasure. The Yinka Dene Alliance and other First Nations in B.C. are standing up for their interests, for B.C.'s interests and for Canada's interests, because this is a national treasure not found anywhere else in this form on this planet — an intact ecosystem with wild salmon stocks.

They will not allow this to happen, to allow the loss of this national treasure, this wild salmon ecosystem. They will not allow that to happen, and we cannot allow that to happen either.

We must support the First Nations in this province. We've stood up and let our objections to the Enbridge pipeline proposal and supertanker traffic it entails be known. We have not heard from the provincial government on this matter. That shows a dismal lack of leadership.

THE DAMAGING EFFECTS
OF THE CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX
ON A MODERN ECONOMY

R. Howard: I rise this morning to talk about the damaging effects of the corporate capital tax on a modern economy.

I thought that in order to explain why this is important to me and some of the context for my statement, I would first offer my own personal context to talk about the history of the tax and the impacts that I've seen personally from this poorly thought-out tax.

[1050]

I spent just about 20 years with a financial institution in my life before politics, so I got to see this from the side of a financial institution, which suffered the tax since 1973. Then in the mid-'90s I left the financial institution and started my own business.

I'll tell a story about my own business and how I saw jobs disappear right in front of my very eyes, on issues related to the corporate capital tax. Then I'll just talk a little bit about how we measure the impacts of that tax, because I think it is a particular challenge.

When I started my business, we were doing things such as building seniors homes. They're fairly big and complicated projects, and they're quite long in duration as well. We had gone through a planning process, identified a particular location and worked with architects and engineers to come up with a concept. Of course, we have to pay for them to do that. We work with appraisers and marketing people to prove that the concept works. Then you start lengthy discussions with potential investors.

My story, perhaps, could be called "The dog that didn't bark" or "Who hears the dog that didn't bark?" The theme is, again: how do we get a handle on all the stuff that doesn't happen, in this instance because of the corporate capital tax?

We had gone through much of this process, met with our investor, had many discussions and had a scheduled meeting with a bunch of lawyers, architects and accountants — his with his, ours with ours — all to go through the process and finalize the deal, when the subject of corporate capital tax came up. This individual was offshore and was just foreign to the concept, so we briefly explained to him that it was a tax that could be on either cash or a building or real estate assets that he held.

We started to move on and talk about the development, and he brought us back to this and said: "Well, hold on a second. What do you mean? You mean I pay a tax even if the business isn't profitable?" We said: "Yeah, it's typical. The tax has been in place since 1973." We tried to move on, and he wouldn't move beyond this point. He kept coming back and wanting us to explain in greater detail exactly when he had to pay the tax, how he paid the tax. And he couldn't understand.

This was an individual that didn't mind paying tax on profits. In fact, he would expect to pay his fair share of tax on profits. But when it comes to seniors homes in particular, usually you'll go through and you'll be in your third full year of operation before you actually start to make any money. I should say that that's the third full year of operation, not including the first two or three years of construction and process in getting the building up and running and ready to receive seniors as tenants.

At the end of the day, we never did clear that hurdle. He couldn't understand how government would take a little bit of his assets from him each year, and the deal went sideways. It never did happen. How do we know, then, as a government, as a society, how many times that scenario gets played and replayed all throughout the province? Who hears the dog that doesn't bark?
[ Page 11863 ]

This ties me back to my original statement. You stop and you think about the things that didn't happen. The architects and engineers didn't get hired to complete the process. The 60 or so staff that we would have had to hire to run the place, to run the seniors home, didn't get hired. Of course, the cement masons, the framers, the drywallers, the roofers — all of the people that would have been involved in constructing the building — didn't get hired. The ongoing services — somewhere between $500,000 and $700,000 of services that would have been purchased every year by that seniors home — didn't get hired.

[1055]

How we measure that kind of lack of activity is a real challenge. I suppose we have to back out and look at some macro-information and start to look at how the overall economy performs for us to understand the impacts this can have.

During the time the CCT, the corporate capital tax, was in place the GDP increase was almost 17 percent behind the national average. That is a travesty. As a result of that, the province received six successive credit downgrades.

Here we have a tax implemented as a really dampening impact on, certainly, my business and on many businesses all throughout the province. That comes back to lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, pushes down our overall economic performance and ends up costing us additional money, even at our level because our cost of borrowing goes up because of the credit downgrades.

So from earnest beginnings, a tax that is misrepresented, misunderstood and really has damaging effects to the economy.

B. Ralston: I think the member's anecdote shows the dangers of attempting to create broad public policy and draw conclusions about it from a single personal anecdote.

The corporate capital tax was brought in by the NDP in 1973. I want to say just at the outset, because I know this may be excerpted by people in the public affairs bureau or whatever it's called now, that I'm speaking about the corporate capital tax on financial institutions only. That's the position that my party as the official opposition has taken. I'm not speaking about a general corporate capital tax. I just want that to be clear. I'll be referring to that in my comments.

In 1982 the Social Credit government, at the height of the global recession, when the prime rate went up to 21 percent, increased the corporate tax on financial institutions, chartered banks, to 2 percent. It raised $15 million, and it was directed at employment development. The tax on banks was increased in 1992 to 3 percent. The general corporate capital tax was removed in 2001. From 2008 to 2010 the corporate capital tax on financial institutions was phased out entirely.

The argument made was that because there was a corporate capital tax, jobs weren't being created by banks in British Columbia. Over the period 1998 to 2008 population increased 10 percent, but jobs in the banking sector increased 12 percent. So the rate of job increase in the banks was greater than the rate of the population increase. Mr. Griffin, on behalf of the Canadian Bankers Association, said that if the tax were eliminated, more jobs would be created. In fact, the reverse happened.

In 2009, according to the statistics, 28,745 jobs in the banking sector in British Columbia; in 2010, 28,450; in 2011, 28,180. So when the tax was in place, banking jobs in British Columbia increased. Once it was taken off, they declined. Banking jobs are increasingly concentrated in Ontario, but the biggest increase appears to be banking jobs that have been created in other countries, principally the United States, as Canadian banks have invested abroad, particularly in the United States.

The other comment that is sometimes made and the general view of corporate tax cuts is that they are reinvested. In fact, that's not been the case. What has happened is that corporate cash flow has risen, and an increasing amount of that cash has been used to pay down debt, to buy up shares and to increase dividends. The share of after-tax corporate cash flow that has been reinvested in company operations has fallen significantly.

According to Statistics Canada, total cash reserves of private non-financial corporations grew from $157 million in the second quarter of 2001 to $447 billion in the second quarter of 2011. Don Drummond has commented on this, and that contributes to the productivity gap between Canada and the United States. Businesses are not reinvesting the extra cash in productive jobs, machinery and equipment here in British Columbia.

[1100]

The only other comment I would say before my time expires is that credit unions that have their head offices here, under the previous regime were granted a lower rate of taxation. In addition, non-equity shares of credit unions — the $5 or $10 that you use to join the credit union — did not form part of the calculation of the capital. So there are good reasons for a corporate capital tax on financial institutions, particularly when it's directed to a specific program, as Social Credit did back in 1982. Those are my comments.

R. Howard: First, I'd like to thank the member opposite for his honesty in defending this tax. As remarkable as I find that, at least he's being honest.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Back to the history again. Corporation Capital Tax Act — introduced by the NDP in 1973 on financial institutions only. In 1992 the act was amended by the then NDP so that it would apply to all corporations in addition to banks. So the history is there, and it's rather stark.
[ Page 11864 ]

Again, how do we measure all of this activity that doesn't happen? Let me say, firstly, that this isn't just me. There are many stakeholders, many spokespeople in the province who have taken a position. "There has not been a lot of investment in British Columbia in new equipment, new plants, updating plants. The corporate capital tax sends the wrong signal." Of course, that was from noted capitalist Forest Alliance chief Jack Munro back in 1998. So it's important that we understand that signals to investors and signals to job creators are important.

I'm reminded that during the Olympics we held a number of business round tables. We had business leaders from all over the world coming to British Columbia, and we were meeting with them to find out what was the most important thing for them to understand about British Columbia, for them to continue doing business and increase the amount of business they were doing or do new business.

Their answer was this signal idea that a government that showed an attitude, an aptitude that sent a signal that business was welcome…. They knew their business would run into challenges over the course of decades or generations, and they wanted to know that they could come and work with government to work through those problems and work towards success. As I've said, it's not just me saying this. We have the owner of Timberland Consultants, who said at the time — this is January of 2000: "I'm not investing money in B.C. at present. I'm investing in Alberta."

I'll just come back to post-elimination of the corporate capital tax, when we had the vice-president of the B.C. Business Council Jock Finlayson say: "I think the elimination of the CCT is going to pave the way for an investment renaissance in British Columbia."

Hon. J. Yap: I call for debate on Motion 45.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 45 without disturbing the priority of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 45 — PACIFIC NORTH COAST
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AREA

G. Coons: I'm pleased to stand and present Motion 45 in my name.

[Be it resolved that this House urges the Government of Canada to immediately commit its support to the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area initiative (PNCIMA), a process to create a comprehensive plan to manage the environmental and economic needs of the North Coast from the top of Haida Gwaii to the top of Vancouver Island.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We ask a lot of our ocean. We harvest it for its abundance. We sail on it in everything from cruise ships to freighters. We dump industrial runoff into it.

[1105]

The value of the resources is in the billions of dollars, but collapsing fisheries and other signs of ecological decline are warning us we have to do something. The Oceans Act of 1997 requires the federal government to engage British Columbians in a comprehensive, integrated management planning process called PNCIMA, the Pacific north coast integrated management area. The area is from the tip of Haida Gwaii, the marine areas, and covers approximately two-thirds of B.C.'s coast. Its intent is to create an eco-based management plan for the region that will be sustainable for generations to come in British Columbia.

In 2008 a memorandum was signed with the Coastal First Nations and DFO to look into this with reps from the federal and provincial governments; representatives from the marine, shipping and transportation areas, renewable and non-renewable energy, aquaculture, environmental NGOs, local government, outdoor recreation tourism, marine conservation and recreation and commercial fisheries. This was the first step in fulfilling the obligations of the Oceans Act.

But it should be noted that the province was invited to participate, but it only retained observer status. I brought this up in the Legislature, you know, talking about PNCIMA and concerned with the lack of participation by this government. A year and a half later in Prince Rupert they did join. I was there at the meeting, and they joined the process. The minutes of that meeting show that there was discussion about external funding from Tides Canada, money from the Moore Foundation and concerns about this money. But every stakeholder agreed that there would be transparency, fairness and independence, and checks and balances.

This week Imagine Canada, an organization that supports Canadian charities and non-profits, gave Tides Canada a squeaky-clean grade, naming it one of the country's leading charitable organizations because of its best practices in key areas of governance and management.

At that PNCIMA meeting in Prince Rupert I also witnessed the B.C. government signing on to take Tides' money. A quote from the minutes says: "B.C. clarified that employees within the B.C. government would be paid directly by Tides as term employees." So here we are, the government taking Tides' money to hire employees to participate in the process.

The money was secured. The province joined in. But then in September 2011 the federal government pulls out of PNCIMA, leaving all stakeholders, including the province, in the lurch with three years of collaboration
[ Page 11865 ]
lost. They pulled the plug because they didn't want to be influenced by U.S.-funded environmental groups like Tides. But the B.C. government is still using Tides in the process of the map that I'm sure we'll hear about.

We heard from the resource minister Joe Oliver, calling these groups radical environmental organizations — and they singled out Tides — attempting to hijack the process and having special foreign interests. This last April there was an FOI which found it was Enbridge that lobbied the federal government to pull out of PNCIMA. How ridiculous is that — that the company that wants tankers on this coast, a process that this government has been silent in…? We have Enbridge lobbying for the federal government to pull out.

We have to get back on track with PNCIMA. The real foreign interest behind the lobbying for less safeguards and protecting our oceans and pushing for crude oil tankers three times the size of the Exxon Valdez is Enbridge and their secret supporters.

We need in this House — both sides of the House, including the Liberal side of the House — to support this motion to get the PNCIMA process back on track and not go to a forced, disjointed marine-planning partnership that's being thrown in to try to fill the gap.

We have an obligation in this House to protect our oceans and fisheries on behalf of all British Columbians. The PNCIMA process is a vital process under the Oceans Act to ensure this. This government is taking Tides' money, and we need to get the process back on track so that we can ensure that the public interest of British Columbians is looked after.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for North Coast for bringing forward this motion. I want to start off just by asking a simple question. The motion is that we urge the Canadian government to immediately commit. So we want to try to impact on the Canadian government.

[1110]

You know, I pointed out in this House before that there is sometimes a little bit of hypocrisy that can happen around various issues that come up. I want to quote the member for North Island, who I'm sure will be standing up and joining this debate. This is from Hansard of November 14, 2011. "I think in in our limited time we would be better spent discussing issues that really do relate to our province and what we can do here in this Legislature, not spend an hour of private members' time talking about something over which we have no control." The process is a federal process, so I'll be very interested in hearing the member for North Coast when he gets up to speak.

Another quote from the opposition. This is from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, also from Hansard, November 14, 2011: "And they want to bring up a federal issue in order to find out if we're divided or not. Well, I'm sick of that kind of politics, and I think they should be questioning their motivation in doing that kind of thing."

I find it interesting that this motion comes up. It is important that we talk about the environmental and economic conditions on the coast, the things we need to put in place. There's no question that you must be able to move forward projects and things in an environmentally sustainable manner. We need to be able to protect communities. We need to be able to protect that. But we also need to make sure that we have economic opportunities as well.

I find it interesting that the member for North Coast stood up and was talking about this process as a way to stop a project from going forward. Yet in the motion he says: "…to manage the environmental and economic needs…." Where were the economic needs as part of this motion?

I think about this because I think a lot about the various economic opportunities we have around the province and the things that have gone on. Here's what the NDP have stood for so far, particularly about economics and the side of planning. They seem to be in support of LNG, but they don't want the power, they don't want Site C, and they don't want the independent power to support it. So how exactly you're going to get LNG I'm not sure. Maybe they'll find some magical way of creating power to create the LNG.

Oh, and along with that, they've got concerns about fracking and the actual production of the gas that goes into LNG. But you know, that's their call.

Just another example of planning. Highway 37 electrification is a great opportunity. This is Mining Week. We have the opportunity to be able to create mining opportunities throughout the northwest, and the member for Stikine stood up during his election campaign and said that it was a waste of money and the money should be spent on planting trees.

I find it interesting when we're talking about economic needs, which is part of this motion. When we're looking at the Cariboo and the impact that we're going to have from the mountain pine beetle epidemic in that area, we have an opportunity to meet the economic needs of the area with Prosperity mine. But they're against that as well.

A short time ago the member for Stikine was up and talking about…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue.

J. Rustad: …respect for First Nations — must support First Nations and their opposition to things. Every single project of development across this province has been opposed by one group or another — every single one, everything. So I'm not sure what you guys are ac-
[ Page 11866 ]
tually trying to support in terms of economic development and opportunities.

I've had many debates with the member for Stikine and others in this House about economic development, economic opportunities, how we can do that sustainably as part of the environment. But name one project, just one single project in the province of British Columbia, that is not already permitted that you support — just one. You won't find a single project, because on record in Hansard — you can go back looking — there's never been a single one that they have supported.

There's a reason for that. It's because the NDP stands for No Development Party. They don't want to see anything happening. They don't support good jobs. They don't support communities. They don't support families, and they certainly do not support rural B.C.

There's no question, when you're looking at the north coast, that environmental issues are important. We have to be able to do things sustainably. More than 1,500 tankers moving more than eight million tonnes of oil go through our waters every year. We need to make sure we do things that are sustainable.

We want to make sure that the security and things are in place, but we also need to make sure that we have economic development and opportunities for families to be able support their children and for communities.

C. Trevena: I have to say that the member for Nechako Lakes…. I have a couple comments about his comments.

[1115]

One, it's quite clear that he represents an Interior constituency and didn't even bother reading the motion. We're talking about the Pacific north coast integrated management area. The member was talking about mining. We are not talking about mining here. We're talking about an integrated approach to ocean management.

Just to respond to a couple of his comments. He quoted comments from myself earlier on in this session, last fall, talking about issues that relate to our province. Two-thirds of B.C.'s coast is impacted by this motion and by PNCIMA, the Pacific north coast integrated management area. If the federal government continues to ignore the needs of the north coast and the coast of British Columbia, we should be standing up and defending this, and we should be urging it to get involved. Really, it's vital for our economic and our environmental sustainability in B.C. to have an integrated plan.

When this was brought together, there was a lot of hope that there was really going to be an opportunity to engage all parties, have industry, government, environmentalists and First Nations all around the table to make this work, to ensure that this area, as my colleague from North Coast says, from the top end of Haida Gwaii…. Actually, it's not just the top of Vancouver Island. It comes down the Vancouver Island coast to almost Campbell River and goes into the mainland inlets. It is a huge area of watershed that really needs to have an integrated plan.

But then after years of work on this, after the B.C. government finally coming to the table and, as my colleague said, accepting external funding so it could participate, the federal government last year turned around and said: "We're not going to do it." The reason they're not going to do it is because they are dealing with what they believe to be foreign, outside, American money coming in to work on environmental issues in B.C.

We have, as I think we're all aware, a federal government that is somewhat paranoid about many environmental things. It has, really, no track record on the environment and is trying to push through the Enbridge pipeline no matter what and push tankers on our coast.

So it withdrew from PNCIMA with no rational reason. It was a process that was working. It was a process that was supposed to come to conclusion this year. It said that there was excessive influence by U.S.-funded environmental groups in this. The B.C. government hadn't had any problem with this. It was taking money from one of these organizations and agreed to this.

Instead of continuing in what was supposed to be a good integrated project, a good plan, once again we have conspiracy theories driving politics. I would hope that we in B.C. are better than that and that we can work together with all partners to ensure that we can have this integrated plan, because it is important to our coast. It's important for our environment, to our economy, to the sustainability of our communities.

Yes, it does involve a pipeline, and it does involve tanker traffic. We should be addressing this in a sensible, integrated manner. Unfortunately, we are not. We're letting ourselves be driven by paranoia and by fear-based government and by conspiracy theories.

The latest organization to pull out is the Nanwakolas Council, eight First Nations from my constituency whose traditional territory covers much of the area that is in the PNCIMA. Their letter, which was sent on May 2, says:

"Since early September the Nanwakolas Council has refrained from participating…in the PNCIMA. The decision was made in association with other participating First Nations organizations and resulted from what we believe was a unilateral decision by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to revise process and outputs of the PNCIMA initiative, in contravention of the collaborative approach set out in the memorandum of understanding."

It was a collaborative approach that was supposed to be working on solutions for everyone on the coast and could be dealing with issues that we are confronting. We're confronting today issues such as the Enbridge pipeline and the potential of having tanker traffic.

The Nanwakolas Council has said that due to the potential impacts of the plan on "our First Nations' aboriginal rights, title and interests, as well as its connections with our marine planning partnership…we invite the DFO to engage in discussions…on a bilateral approach." That's not good enough. We need the federal government to be involved.
[ Page 11867 ]

[1120]

R. Lee: I'm pleased to speak on the motion put forward by the member for North Coast regarding the Pacific north coast integrated management area. It's called the PNCIMA initiative.

When I was a member of the legislative Select Standing Committee on Education and also a member of the legislative Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I had the opportunity to visit some of the areas covered by PNCIMA. I have also spent some time with my family and friends in places like Campbell River, Tofino, Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

When I travel to those coastal areas, I am always impressed with the beautiful and natural environment, and I feel how fortunate we are to live in this province. When I was in Sandspit and Skidegate on Haida Gwaii, I talked to the local residents, who are very interested in promoting cultural tourism and economic development. Recently I also heard about the First Nations. They are having a lot of interest in developing wind power, tidal power and aquaculture in some areas covered by PNCIMA.

A lot of information about PNCIMA can be found in a publication, the Atlas of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, produced by a PNCIMA initiative, which is supported by the federal government, the province of British Columbia, the North Coast–Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society, the Coastal First Nations Great Bear initiative, and the Nanwakolas Council.

The atlas provides a very helpful overview of PNCIMA, including its communities, physical oceanography, hydrology, ecology, commercial fisheries, recreation and tourism, aquaculture, energy, forestry, mining, some point source pollution, as well as marine transportation. So the planning for the future of PNCIMA is well in the process.

Our government is very committed to working together with the First Nations, along with the north and central coast, to develop plans for our coastal and marine areas. Under the marine planning partnership for the Pacific north coast, the so-called MaPP, the process our government has signed recognizes protocols with the Haida, Coastal First Nations and Nanwakolas, as well as groundbreaking land use decisions that led to the protection of the Great Bear rain forest.

Marine planning is very important, given our province's long coastline, and PNCIMA is actually the only large ocean management area on Canada's Pacific coast. There are three major ports, 102 marinas and 38 small-craft harbours in the PNCIMA area.

The Port of Prince Rupert has played a very important role in our Asia-Pacific initiative. It's a link to the other Canadian locations, as well as the Midwest U.S. — for example, Chicago — by rail and road. Its harbour can accommodate vessels of up to 250,000 deadweight tonnes. The port also contains a container port and a cruise ship dock in addition to this deep sea berth.

I am very pleased to see the completion of this first stage and also the development of the initiative for the planning in the second and the first stages. In this area there are many economic developments. I can also see that there are a lot of groundfish in the PNCIMA area, in the order of 44,000 metric tons annual average production.

Proper planning will identify important factors in long-term economic development and will bring certainty to business activities. I support a broadly based, fair and unbiased planning process involving as many stakeholders and British Columbians as possible in the planning process in this area.

We have had some successes already in the Great Bear land use planning initiative, which led to the creation of the Great Bear rain forest with collaboration between the First Nations, the provincial government, forestry companies and environmental groups. The First Nations have benefitted from the coast opportunity funds to help build sustainable businesses, and certainty was established for forestry companies to operate in these areas.

[1125]

I understand the opposition brought the motion forward with the intention of commenting on the federal government's decision not to accept third-party funding in the planning process. But I believe it's not our job to tell the government what to do.

R. Austin: I would like to spend a few minutes talking about PNCIMA and its importance. Frankly, I'm very disappointed that this government has pulled out of it. In fact, I'm going to start by quoting from when PNCIMA first started, and this government said in their press release: "The government of British Columbia has a mandate for advancing B.C's interests in oceans management and marine fisheries and for developing agreements and plans for the use and management of marine and foreshore areas."

So this government spoke highly of why it's important for us to be involved, and for the federal government to be involved, in PNCIMA. I would like to also quote from what is our jurisdiction in this regard:

"The province has legislated jurisdiction over things that occur in contact with the sea floor in the inland waters — for example, the straits, channels, fjords and inlets — and between the jaws of the land on the outer coast — for example, sounds, bays and estuaries.

"The province will only provide direction on areas under its jurisdiction, including coastal and marine base tenures — for example, ports, docks, wharves, underwater cables — and clean energy tenures; provincial seafood development; protected areas such as the B.C. marine protected area network; community, social and economic programs regarding ocean and marine interests; and finally, oil spill preparedness and response programs."

That is why PNCIMA is so important.

You know, it's interesting that the government here was actually taking money from an environmental or-
[ Page 11868 ]
ganization, from Tides Canada, and using it directly to pay employees who had been working within the B.C. government. They were civil servants, and they were able to take money that came from Tides and say: "Okay, we're going to use that money to offset the cost to the B.C. taxpayer and use those funds to actually pay employees representing the B.C. public interest and the B.C. government here to actually work on PNCIMA."

It's very interesting when you see the kinds of statements coming out of Ottawa, where on the one hand the federal government decries the use of money that comes from organizations like Tides when, in fact, here in British Columbia our provincial government was taking money and using it and putting it to good purpose to do the kind of important work to protect our marine environment.

You know what? There have been lots of aspersions cast in the last few weeks around organizations such as Tides Canada. But you know, just in recent times there has been a report from Imagine Canada, an organization that supports Canadian charities and non-profits. They looked into Tides Canada and gave it a squeaky-clean grade, naming it "one of the country's leading charitable organizations because of its best practices in key areas of governance and management."

So how is it, then, that the federal government decided that this was not a good process? Why did that come about? Well, let's go back to foreign interests.

We know, through an FOI, that Enbridge basically went and lobbied the government. The last thing they wanted was any kind of grouping and any kind of activity that brought all the partners together to look after the best interests of the coast of British Columbia. So they lobbied the government and said, "Listen, you've got to get out of this," because as soon as they start to go into the details, they'll discover that the Enbridge project and tankers on the coast have huge problems and grave consequences for the people of British Columbia.

With that, we see the government in Ottawa pulling out and creating a process that doesn't allow us to have a full discussion. Isn't it interesting that a government that decries the use of foreign money, supposedly coming from environmental groups and interests in the United States, would allow money that backs Enbridge? Who knows where this money comes from? What we do know is that they gathered $100 million just to be involved in the marketing of this pipeline — $100 million — most of it, we know, coming from Asia, from China.

[1130]

So on the one hand, apparently it's not okay for the provincial government to take money from Tides Canada and use it to employ B.C. civil servants to actually be involved in a process that looks after the public interest. But it's quite okay for the federal government to allow Enbridge to take foreign money and try and force a project upon British Columbia, which even the Premier of this province acknowledged on the CBC this week is one where we take all the risks and get about as much benefit as Nova Scotia does. That's what she said this week on CBC with Evan Solomon.

P. Pimm: I'm happy to rise and take my place in this discussion talking about PNCIMA and how that's a very worthwhile project and process, and I think that's something that all the members on this side of the House feel that way about as well. Certainly, we have a pristine coastline that we want to make sure that we're supporting in a proper fashion.

I want to start off by, first off, correcting the record. Our government is committed to working together with the government of Canada and with the First Nations of British Columbia and all participants, not like the member for Skeena suggested — that our government has pulled out of this process. That's absolutely erroneous. I just wanted to correct the record on that before I get started here.

The overall plan, certainly, is a good one. Let's remember, though, that this is a federal process. It's a federal plan. We want to do what we can to be involved in that, and I think we should be doing that as well. The planning has to incorporate everybody. It has to incorporate the industry, but it can't just be about Enbridge.

It's got to be about all of the industry that's going to be out there. It's about the coal, the lumber, the agriculture — everybody that uses that coastline. They all have to be in the process as we're putting a process like this together. It can't just be the Tides of the world and environmentalists out there. We have to have the economy built into that scale.

That's one of the things that we have to remember. Through the PNCIMA initiative, these parties are collaboratively working together to develop the implementation of an integrated management plan that's going to balance the ecological, economic and sociocultural interests of the area. The goals, it's stated very clearly, are to establish healthy and resilient ecosystems, build sustainable economies, reduce user conflicts and support thriving coastal communities with strong culture and economic ties to coastal and marine areas.

You know, I come from an area where we've got one of the largest management areas in the province, and it works very, very well. We've got the Muskwa-Kechika.

In our area we've got all the pipelines. Everybody in here is afraid of pipelines for some reason. Well, we've had pipelines in our region forever and ever and ever — even longer than I've been in existence, Member for North Coast — and quite frankly, we're all surviving, and we survive quite nicely.

Technology has advanced to the point that when they're doing pipelining, they actually directionally drill underneath the creeks. They have great technology that has been invented over the years, and they nearly don't
[ Page 11869 ]
even disturb any of the creeks as they're crossing them — that sort of thing. The amount of upsets and accidents on a pipeline are minuscule. I have to say it — minuscule.

The oil and gas industry do a fantastic job. It might be a little different than some of the things we saw in the tragic episode in the Gulf Coast off Mexico. We're not talking about drilling out here. We're talking about transporting a product.

As the member for North Coast said, we've got people that use this. We've got cruise ships. We're sailing. We've got ferries out there, recreational users. Everybody in this process has to be involved. We have to make sure we end up with a process that works for everybody as well.

It can't just be a process that stops folks from making a good solid, honest living. That's what a lot of these jobs are going to do. It's going to help the economy of Kitimat and Rupert. I think whatever we can do to enhance that is something that we ought to be thinking about in a very serious way.

Muskwa-Kechika — I'll go back to that one. They do have all of the user groups involved in that process. We had First Nations. We've got the forestry, we've got the oil and gas industry, we've got the wind folks and run-of-the-river folks. They're all involved in that process, and you know what? They work collaboratively, and they came up with an absolutely phenomenal agreement that works for everybody.

[1135]

I just want to talk a little bit about the opposition and some of the things that they say they're in favour of. The member for Nechako Lakes touched on it a little bit. They're certainly not in favour of Enbridge. They're not in favour of Prosperity. They're not in favour of Site C. They say they're in favour of LNG projects, but we're not sure how they're going to power these LNG projects. They're not in favour of powering with natural gas, which would be the natural way to do it.

It's just a little unfortunate. Independent power projects — not in favour of that. I'm curious as to what they are in favour of.

M. Karagianis: I stand today to urge all members of this House to support this motion before us today. Interestingly enough, listening to the previous speaker, I thought initially his remarks were very supportive of this motion and, therefore, would be surprised that he wouldn't want to support this.

I just want to recap. I think my colleagues, especially the member for Skeena, have done a really good job of outlining the facts of this case, but let's just quickly go through it.

The federal government signs an MOU with First Nations which becomes the Pacific north coast integrated management area agreement. Many international environmental organizations take a keen interest in this, but very specifically one called Tides, which puts forward $8.3 million which at this point is still being utilized.

That money was welcome at the beginning of this process. Somewhere during the ensuing years after 2008, when the memorandum was signed, we know that Enbridge began a very, very aggressive lobby at the federal level and eventually were very successful. The federal government capitulated to the Enbridge lobby and pulled themselves out of this initiative.

It's unclear to me at this point really where the province stands on this. I mean, it would seem from some remarks I've heard that the province is pulling out. In other cases evidence would show that they in fact could be still involved in some way.

I think that the federal government's views on sort of demonizing international environmental organizations is really at the heart of some of this. That's very much in keeping with the kind of pressure we can see, from freedom-of-information documents, that Enbridge has put on.

The Premier herself seems to have also bought into that, in some degree, with comments that she has made recently, saying Canadians don't benefit from foreigners "meddling" in our business.

The reality is that we share a coastline, a Pacific Northwest coastline, with not just British Columbians but with the U.S. as well.

I know from my days of sitting on the Veins of Life Watershed Society that it was always a very desirable thing to have that collaboration between both countries. Certainly, in this case, the U.S. has a very concerted interest in this. They have Alaska bookending us at the top, with obviously the Washington, Oregon and California coast bookending us in the south. So they have a very keen interest in what goes on in the deliberations here with the Enbridge pipeline and the expansion of tankers along the west coast.

When we see that the federal government has demonized organizations which, we've heard documented evidence here, have been bona fide, you have to say to yourself that this really is all about big money trying to influence the outcome of a process.

I think it's more imperative than ever that this process go forward because of the threat of tankers on our coast. The New Democrats have been very clear on where we stand on the Enbridge and on the tanker expansion, but I'd like to know where the province stands on this.

In reality they are taking money from Tides to engage in this marine planning partnership. It's very clear, when they first put out questions-and-answers on this, that the PNCIMA and this MaPP process are two parts of the same outcome. The PNCIMA outputs will be more strategic, focusing on goals and objectives, whereas the MaPP process, for which we are taking Tide's dollars right now, will be more operational.

So the province is engaged in one aspect of this. I think we deserve some clarity here in British Columbia
[ Page 11870 ]
on whether or not they are going to urge the federal government to get back on course here in this planning process, which was promised to First Nations and all British Columbians in reality, and that they themselves will continue to take a leading role in this.

[1140]

You can't sort of opt in and out, be half there and half not there. If you're going to take money from Tides in order to further the process of the MaPP, the marine planning partnership, then you have to make a stand to be involved in the PNCIMA as well. So I'd like some clarity from government, because it's the usual patchwork approach with the current government. There seems to always be a little chaos in their involvement in these things. I think it's a legitimate question to put to the government, to say: support this motion. Let's get back on track with this process.

It's more important than ever, now that we see continued pressure for this Enbridge project to come through and to continue to threaten and endanger our coastline. If there was ever a time when this kind of integrated management is necessary, it is now.

C. Hansen: It's a pleasure to rise and address the issue that's been put before the House this morning.

It talks about the support for the Pacific north coast integrated management area initiative — or PNCIMA, as we've been referring to it — "a process to create a comprehensive plan to manage the environmental and economic needs of the North Coast from the top of Haida Gwaii to the top of Vancouver Island."

I can say I've actually been to both of those locations. You get to the top of Vancouver Island by hiking about eight hours through Cape Scott Provincial Park on the renowned Cape Scott Trail. I have stood on the rock which is as far north as you can get on Vancouver Island. I've also been to Rose Spit, which is at the very end of Naikoon Park on the very most northerly point of Haida Gwaii that you can get to, and I've been to many of the places in between on the north coast and on Haida Gwaii.

It is spectacular geography. It is a spectacular part of the world that I think is unsurpassed anywhere else on the planet.

Obviously, I don't think you will find any disagreement in this House that we need to ensure that the environmental integrity of this region of the world is protected going forward. I think that we as government members in this Legislature actually have a track record that we can point to over the last 11 years of ensuring that these kinds of agreements do come together. Unlike the 1990s, when you had a government of the day that actually made announcements about trying to get to a process to achieve land use planning up on the north coast and on Haida Gwaii, we actually as a government have accomplished them, and we've delivered.

It was on February 7, 2006, that the central coast and north coast land use agreements were signed. That was the culmination of a process of engagement. It was a process whereby the provincial government did not go in with preconceived ideas as to what the outcome of that process should be, but rather engaged with First Nations, engaged with community leaders and engaged with industry to look at how the environmental and economic opportunities can be put in place in a sustainable way. That was the north coast and central coast.

Then in December of 2007 there was the strategic land use agreement that was put in place between the province and the Haida Nation, and I can remember the celebration of that agreement as it came together.

Two years later there was a reconciliation protocol that was signed by Premier Gordon Campbell and was signed on behalf of the council of the Haida Nation by Guujaaw.

I was there for that signing on December 11, 2009. That protocol agreement was really a recognition of the strengths of the strategic land use agreement that had been put in place and other measures that led to that absolutely historic agreement. It was referred to by the Haida and named by the Haida as the Kunst'aa Guu-Kunst'aayah, which means "the beginning," because it was the beginning of a new relationship between the province and the Haida people. It truly has been a remarkable agreement.

All of these agreements have been remarkable, but I can tell you they didn't come together by predetermining the outcome, which is exactly what the NDP have done when it comes to issues involving the north coast. Before they've got the facts, before they've had the consultation, before they've had evidence presented by First Nations, by industry, by community leaders and by environmental experts, they have already made their mind up.

[1145]

I would say that in terms of trying to push towards agreements that are going to serve the economic and the environmental needs of the north coast, you don't do that by making your mind up before you get the facts.

I think the opposition have created some misperceptions here. You know, first of all, they're urging the federal government to commit to support this agreement. In fact, the federal government has never walked away from this process at all. The process has changed. The process evolved.

The federal government is still pursuing an agreement. They put a deadline in place of December of this year, 2012, to actually achieve that agreement. The province is still very much involved with that process, and we are working cooperatively with the federal government to ensure that those deadlines can be achieved.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.
[ Page 11871 ]

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: I would ask that the House make welcome the 42 Discovery Elementary School students; their teacher, Ms. Sue de la Salle; and the parents who've joined them. Please join with me in making them all feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

B. Routley: I understand that Emily Ben is here with the group. Emily is the brave young girl who has already had four operations as a result of complications with meningitis. We spoke of her in this House some three weeks ago. I know that she, as well as I, want to thank the Minister of Health for assuring us that there would be assistance so that she can have yet another operation. So please join with me in welcoming Emily.

Debate Continued

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion this morning that the member for North Coast has put before the House.

I think that members — let's be generous here — on both sides of the House have spoken as to why oceans management planning is a good idea, but I want to say a few comments on the record as to where the process is at since the federal government withdrew from the PNCIMA management area planning process.

The reason why this plan is important is that this is the largest area of coastland in Canada that is afforded the least amount of protections. It also has the greatest diversity of marine mammal wildlife. There is an incredible diversity of ocean uses, but let's be clear. Those are becoming more and more intense, not just in British Columbia but all around the world. That's why oceans management activity has taken on new dimensions, spatial programming, and governments around the world are pursuing stronger management regimes to put them in place. That is as a result of the extinction of certain types of species and the collapse of fish stocks in many parts of the world.

This is a problem that the 21st century is going to have to figure out, or we simply will not have use of our oceans in the way that we have enjoyed in the past. That is why it's incredibly important for British Columbia. But there are also some strong warning signs here in British Columbia as well as other ocean systems around the world about the impact of ocean climate systems. These are not well understood now. Ocean temperatures are rising, and with that brings new threats and new challenges to manage our oceans properly.

In short order, what this means is that governments need to be much more directly involved in taking a hands-on lead coordination role for better management of our oceans and the bounty that it has provided people. That is why in this part of British Columbia we had all of the First Nations that are interested parties at the table. That says something. We had the province and the federal government working in a tripartite fashion. We had industries there that are involved in shipping and other types of commercial activity in the ocean at the table there as well.

[1150]

But what happened is that politics got in the way. That's why the federal government withdrew its participation. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena says that the federal government is still there and that little has changed, but the reality is that since the federal government pulled out of this process, the steering committee for PNCIMA has not been active since DFO left. In fact, it hasn't met since September 2011, after the decision was made around the funding agreement.

That's what we've lost — the coordination that was brought together by First Nations, by the province, by the federal government. That was undermined by the federal action and is having an effect.

We know why they did that. When I said it was about politics, it was about the federal government, on the one hand, preparing for a battle to go out in favour — not waiting for any environmental review or otherwise — of the Enbridge pipeline process. That is what the Prime Minister's Office has declared its number one strategy. That is all it talks about as a government right now.

In preparing to take a political hard stance in favour of Enbridge, they had to attack the opponents in a pre-emptive way. That meant that they had to demonize environmental organizations and charities in Canada for the work they do, by denouncing them as foreign-funded and all sorts of wild accusations.

That meant the federal government couldn't on the one hand attack them, couldn't attack these organizations and charities in Canada and, on the other hand, take $8.3 million from these very same charities to do an ocean management plan on B.C.'s coast. That would look a little bit ridiculous — wouldn't it?

The government side hasn't quite understood how the political needs of the federal government have undermined good policy and forward-looking management activities on our oceans and spoken to those points today, but that is really what this debate is about.

I think the MP for the area, Nathan Cullen, said that if the money is the stumbling block for the federal government, then find the $8 million to replace it and move PNCIMA forward, because we shouldn't lose momentum on managing our oceans better.

If that is the excuse as to why the federal government has withdrawn, then the British Columbia government should step up, work with the feds and get it back on track.

We all need to work together if we're going to manage
[ Page 11872 ]
the Pacific Ocean better on our coastline.

B. Bennett: When I first saw this motion, I really was challenged to understand where the proposer was coming from, because I can't imagine that he would think that anyone in this House would be against good, comprehensive, rigorous planning for the northwest, for that water that lies off of the coast of British Columbia. We all care about that area, and regardless of your political affiliation, I'm sure that we all care to the same degree. So I have struggled with that.

I've wondered why the NDP wanted to circumvent the environmental assessment process with regard to the proposed pipeline. I wondered why they seem to want to circumvent the process off the coast in terms of what happens with tanker traffic and so forth.

This past weekend, I think, I might have found the answer. Their federal leader, Thomas Mulcair, joined with the Premier of Ontario, basically saying that in order to protect the manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec, what we ought to do is somehow pull the rug out from under resource extraction in western Canada.

Essentially, what the provincial NDP seem to be suggesting is that we should take the potash and the uranium mining in Saskatchewan, the oil and gas in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia and somehow reduce that activity because they're being too successful. We're creating too many jobs here in the west, apparently, for the federal NDP, so we should try to stop that.

I suppose the way to stop that would be to circumvent the environmental assessment process, for example. The member for Stikine, before this motion came up, essentially said that if First Nations in the province are opposed to a project, then government should also be opposed to the project. [Applause.]

Members on the other side applaud that. Apparently, it is NDP policy that, if there are opponents to projects, then government should simply say: "Well, we oppose them too." Regardless of whether those opponents are First Nations or non–First Nations, whether they're environmental groups or communities or UBCM, I suppose, or whoever it is, government should just listen to those opponents and say no.

[1155]

That is exactly in line with NDP policy from the 1990s. That is exactly the way they tried to govern this province and drove this province into the ground, so that you had people leaving this province on a regular basis. Tens of thousands of British Columbians left this province because of that very policy.

Of course, this side of the House does support the planning that needs to take place in the northwest. As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena stated very, very eloquently, we support that type of planning. We support doing things properly, but we don't want to make decisions before all the facts are in, and we don't follow the fearless leader from the federal NDP, Thomas Mulcair.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

B. Bennett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Yap moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada