2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2013

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I'd like to call on Mike Charlie Jr. from the Songhees First Nation to lead us in prayer.

M. Charlie: On this day I'd like to thank the Tla'amin Nation and everybody in the chambers that worked so hard for the treaty to go through today. It's a big honour for me to be here. I'd like to dedicate this prayer song to the Tla'amin Nation, to the elders, to the youth — to the young and old.

[A prayer in Sencoten was sung.]

On this day I'd like to thank everybody for attending here today, for their presence. For the honourables that are well respected, I ask the Lord to look after everybody, look over them, clear their paths as they step forward. Hychka siem.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: This is a historic occasion in the people's House today. Later today legislation will be introduced to ratify the Tla'amin Nation treaty. As you know, it is rare for someone to be invited to speak on the floor of the Legislature. However, today the government has invited Tla'amin Chief Clint Williams to reflect on this significant landmark legislation.

Chief Williams is in his third term as Chief of the Tla'amin Nation. He is a family man with two teenage children. He believes passionately in this treaty and the opportunities that it will provide for future generations.

As many of you will know, there are some Tla'amin members who do not share Chief Williams's optimism. He hopes that once they see the benefits of having a treaty, he can help to begin healing the community.

He has a vision of the future for the Tla'amin people that includes the revitalization of their culture and prosperity not only for Tla'amin members but for the region as a whole. Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to his remarks.

I would also, on this historic day, like to acknowledge some important contributors to the treaty process from Tla'amin Nation who are in the gallery with us today: chief negotiator Roy Francis; treaty negotiations manager Grace Adams; councillor and treaty negotiator Denise Smith, who, as chief at the time, signed a statement of intent to begin the treaty process; Coun. Eugene Louie, who, as a former chief, also signed the statement of intent; Coun. Vern Pielle; and other members of the Tla'amin Treaty Society — President Elaine Tom, Gary Mitchell, Leonard Bob, Cathy Paul and Terry Galligos.

[1340]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are today at a historic moment, and we are privileged to be part of it. I very much look forward to hearing from Chief Clint Williams, and I know that every member of this House will make all of the members of the Tla'amin First Nation who are with us today feel very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN NICHOLSON

Hon. M. Stilwell: Earlier this week in the throne speech we recognized many notable British Columbians who passed away over the past year. I'd like to acknowledge the passing of another remarkable individual — Mr. John Nicholson, who passed away on January 31 at the age of 92.

John had a developmental disability and at 92 was the oldest person receiving services from Community Living B.C. He was born in 1920 in Swamp Point, B.C., and his last place of residence was at Mount Nelson Place in Invermere. John spent 25 years in Woodlands School, then 13 years in Tranquille until settling in Invermere more than four decades ago when he moved to Mount Nelson Place. In 1989 he finally got his own bedroom and enjoyed spending time drawing and taking clippings from newspapers and watching TV. He loved sports, hockey and baseball, and he was also a bowler, bowling right up into his 90s.

I'm informed that John was a kind, quiet gentleman with a heart of gold, so it's not surprising that such a community would make accommodations necessary to include him in the life of Invermere. He first worked in the greenhouse at the Achievement Centre in Athalmer, later delivering mail and important papers between the Invermere Clinic and Invermere Hospital and, in more recent years, took on the security attendant role for Mount Nelson Place, making rounds every night and ensuring that all of the doors were promptly locked at nine. He seldom missed Sunday services, where he enjoyed the companionship of church and family and, I'm told, many potluck dinners.

For the past 23 years John was able to live in a wonderful environment where he gained independence and was treated not as a person with a developmental disability but as a friend, a colleague and a member of the community. My sincere sympathies to John's brother Allen, his Mount Nelson Place family and friends as well as the staff, whose loving devotion and care is surely reflected in the long life he lived.

To everyone who has made a difference in John's life, I
[ Page 12786 ]
thank you. His story will remain as a beacon of hope for all those with developmental disabilities and their families, who seek inclusion and know that their lives and those of their communities will be far better for it.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two special friends of his visiting from the hometown of Oliver. Would the House please join me in welcoming Bill and Francie Ross.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome some friends, a couple of people. Cathy Wade is a longtime neighbour of mine, a former teacher in the Cowichan Valley. Cathy was a great help to us, our family, and our kids all played together for many, many years. I have introduced Cathy's son Nick in this House many times before. He's pursuing his education in Kelowna and is currently working for the NDP on election preparations — very proud of Nick as a young person who is very engaged in the community and in politics.

His dad, Alan, is a well-known counsellor and psychologist who travels internationally helping government and police agencies deal with people in crisis. Joining Cathy Wade today are Don and Judy Falder, her parents. Can you please help me make them welcome to the House.

K. Conroy: I would like to introduce some of the executive from the B.C. Seniors Living Association who are here to meet with us today. Marlene Williams is the executive director of the organization. I've had the pleasure of getting to know her in the last year and see her genuine commitment to seniors facilities in this province. Dave Sinclair is the president of the organization. He's also the chair of the Legion Foundation. He's an outspoken advocate for seniors. Dave is from Victoria.

Carole Holmes is a board member and president of inSite Housing, Hospitality and Health Services. Carole is from Kelowna, and I have had the pleasure of visiting one of her facilities in Kelowna, a beautiful place where I got to talk with many well-cared-for and happy seniors.

[1345]

Celeste Mullin is the vice-president of the organization. She is also the owner of Golden Life Management, which has a number of facilities in the Kootenays — some from my constituency, where my in-laws also spent a number of very happy years. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Very early this morning we were joined on the steps of the Legislature by members of both sides of the House to celebrate what is, two years from now, going to be a very exciting time in northern British Columbia. For the first time in British Columbia, we will be hosting the Canada Winter Games in Prince George, and we're very excited about that.

All of us on the steps were the recipients of some fantastic, beautiful red scarves — discreetly displayed down the row here because we're not allowed to wear it, Mr. Speaker, as per your rules. Having said that, I know there is one for every member of this House as an ambassador of the Canada Winter Games.

It is also the first time that we will have a host nation for those games in the history of the Canada Games. The Lheidli T'enneh will be the host nation.

One of the people who was responsible for the team that is working very hard in Prince George is with us today. He's doing an exceptional job as the chair of the board of directors for the Prince George 2015 Canada Winter Games. He is also the CEO of Northern B.C. Tourism. I think he's a Victoria boy. I know he's doing a fantastic job, and I know all members of the House would like to thank him and wish him well and look forward to two years from now. We'll be praying it'll be snowing in Prince George on that day. Please welcome Anthony Everett.

M. Mungall: Earlier today I had the pleasure of meeting with some exceptional advocates for post-secondary education here in British Columbia. They are Michael Wicks, Jean-Bernard Ardila, Charles Boylan and Kevin Drager. They are representatives of the Education and Training Employees Association, Local 21, of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. Please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: As it has become a bit of a custom in this House to introduce new arrivals to British Columbia, I would like the House to welcome Hazel Eliza Beth Dobbener, born on November 9 to Llane, our daughter — Ruth and myself's daughter — and Jan, Ulla and Reinhardt Dobbener from Bamberg, Germany, who have just arrived in Kelowna.

On another note, I would also like to introduce today Selena Basi, the fiancée of my ministerial assistant Terry Lalari. He'd like to wish her a happy Valentine's Day.

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the official opposition, to join the Premier today in welcoming the members of the Tla'amin First Nation to this House on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. A moving ceremony downstairs acknowledged the elders and the ancestors for the work and for the leaders and the strength of their families to get to this point today.

I know that they are inspired to make this day a good day — a good day and a beginning for a better future for the children of the Tla'amin First Nation. I just want to say on behalf of all of us in this House: congratulations, welcome and all the best for the future.
[ Page 12787 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm really pleased to say I have special guests today in the House. My mom, Betty, is here, looking forward to the respectful debate we always enjoy here — I'm certainly on my best behaviour — and my cousin Jane Dempsey. Would everyone please join me in welcoming them.

R. Fleming: From my constituency this afternoon in this precinct we have guests from an outstanding educational institution in greater Victoria. So 58 grade 11 students from Reynolds Secondary School will be amongst us this afternoon. I mentioned it to an alumnus of Reynolds Secondary, the member for Juan de Fuca, and he wanted it to be known on the record that he was the class president in '77, the captain of the basketball team, as well as an honourable mention on the soccer team from that great school.

All of that aside, I would ask the House to please make Miss Lindsay Horlor and the other staff, parent volunteers and, of course, the students welcome here in the Legislature today.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker: I think that on behalf of all members, we can wish our better halves a happy Valentine's Day, seeing that we're all here in Victoria.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — TLA'AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tla'amin Final Agreement Act.

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: I am honoured today to introduce Bill 4, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act. This legislation will enable the Tla'amin final agreement, British Columbia's fourth final agreement to reach the Legislature under the framework of B.C.'s Treaty Commission process that was established in 1992. These four agreements include eight First Nations: Tsawwassen, the five Maa-nulth First Nations, Yale First Nation and Tla'amin First Nation.

In addition, B.C.'s first modern-day treaty was the Nisga'a final agreement, which was negotiated outside the B.C. treaty process. Chief Williams, who was introduced a few minutes ago, has worked diligently to bring this treaty to his people. A negotiating team of Roy Francis, Denise Smith and Grace Adams has also worked on this treaty since the beginning, almost 14 years ago when the statement of intent was filed.

The Premier and I were very privileged to attend an event with Chief Williams and members of the Tla'amin First Nation earlier today in recognition of the historic day, and I was particularly moved by the children and the young people of Tla'amin who joined us. Their spirit, their enthusiasm is infectious, and I was struck by their optimism for the future under treaty and encouraged by their commitment to succeed.

The treaty removes the Tla'amin Nation from the federal Indian Act. It provides the Tla'amin Nation with self-government powers that will allow them to design and deliver programming in a way that best supports the Tla'amin community and their families.

This treaty converts the uncertainty regarding Tla'amin First Nation's aboriginal rights and titles into defined treaty rights. It establishes ownership and management of lands and resources within Tla'amin's traditional territory, and it provides land and financial resources so that Tla'amin can create economic opportunities and jobs for their families.

Chief Williams has described the treaty as a new beginning that means welcoming positive change. He says that change does not mean having to forget who we are or where we came from. It is a memorable moment for the Tla'amin people and for all British Columbians, because we all benefit when local economies flourish, when neighbours support one another and when there is stability on the land base.

I am privileged to bring this historic legislation to the chamber, and I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motions Without Notice

PERMISSION FOR
TLA'AMIN FIRST NATION CHIEF
CLINT WILLIAMS TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE

Hon. I. Chong: By leave, I move:

[That Chief Clint Williams of the Tla'amin First Nation be permitted to address the Legislative Assembly from the Bar of the House.]

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Sergeant-at-Arms, I ask for the doors to be opened.

Chief Williams. [Applause.]
[ Page 12788 ]

Address from the Bar of the House

C. Williams: Thank you very much. Hon. Speaker, hon. Members, it is such an honour to be here on this very historic day representing the Tla'amin people addressing the Legislature.

Just some quick acknowledgments. Minister Chong, thank you for being such a good host on the day and for introducing us today — much appreciated.

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional territories of the Esquimalt and the Songhees for welcoming us and allowing us to do business in their territory today, and it's very much appreciated for our Songhees brother opening the day for us.

I also want to acknowledge our jejes that have made the trip with us today to witness today's events, and our ancestors that have gone before us.

[1355]

I'd also like to acknowledge our Sunshine Coast MLA, Nicholas Simons. Great to see Nicholas today. And a special acknowledgment. I want to acknowledge Minister Mary Polak for standing with us through some difficult times leading up to our vote. So our hat is tipped off to the former Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Since the beginning of time our people have lived on the lands that the Creator provided for us, provided for our ancestors. We have lived by a traditional system of governance that sustained us and our lands and resources for thousands of years.

Our society governed all forms of environmental, social and political relations through a sophisticated system of traditional laws, as is our traditional way. It is from this proud history that Tla'amin derive our inherent right to self-government. With jurisdiction and responsible leadership, we'll create economic and employment opportunities.

Our mission statement that has guided us through this process since 1994 has been to honour and respect our ancestors through the implementation of a true community-based process to negotiate a fair and equitable treaty settlement that will ensure the building blocks of good government and a foundation for the well-being of our future generations.

As we move forward in today's world, we have certainly been paying very close attention to the many movements, such as Idle No More, that have been occurring across this great country. We acknowledge and respect the visions of all of our brothers and sisters to protect this great land as we all pursue a better future for all of our people.

The Tla'amin leadership are following the mandate that our community has provided to us by first ratifying our constitution and most recently our final agreement. We truly recognize that there is a clear need to create positive change and meaningful opportunities that will sustain our people both economically and culturally.

Our treaty will provide us with the necessary tools to break free from the shackles of the Indian Act and allow our people to prosper. We will no longer be oppressed by this dreaded act that has allowed for many awful things to happen to many of our people.

With this in mind, there is still much healing that needs to take place as a result of the pain and suffering that was experienced by many of our people who attended the residential schools. We all must work together to restore our cultural identity and the pride of being Tla'amin. We will work together as the Tla'amin Nation to help our brothers and sisters with their healing journey and assure them that they can be proud of who they are and where they come from.

Our people have always been resilient in history and also in most recent times. We have set up cooperative relationships with the city of Powell River and the Powell River regional district that are unheard of in some areas of this province and across this country.

Like many others, Powell River is certainly feeling the pinch of the economic climate these days. We hope that this will lead to economic opportunities, as we move forward with our newfound independence, not only for the Tla'amin people but also the Powell River region as a whole.

I just quickly want to acknowledge former Mayor Alsgard, who was such a trailblazer for all of these relationships. He has made the trip here today, and I just wanted to mention him to pay respect for the great work that he has done, along with his council.

Our journey to this point has not been an easy one. There have been many challenges throughout this process, and there are many more challenges to follow as we continue to build the Tla'amin government. For myself, the promises of a new relationship still ring loud and clear in my head, as this was the one time that the province acknowledged that the status quo will no longer be adequate for the First Nations in this province.

This promise is acknowledged in our treaty, and we will continue to build upon this as we carry on with the work of building the Tla'amin government and working alongside the provincial and federal governments.

Čəčəhatanapɛč. We look forward to working with all of you in the near future. [Applause.]

[1400]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on behalf of all the members, I'd like to thank Chief Williams for his address, and I'd now like to invite the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition to formally greet the Chief.

Hon. I. Chong: I request a five-minute recess, a break, to allow those with other obligations to exit the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we'll take a five-minute recess and then return back for members' statements.
[ Page 12789 ]

The House recessed from 2:01 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. The amendments implement government commitments made through land use planning processes and government-to-government agreements with First Nations, establish new protected areas on lands that were acquired by the Ministry of Environment and enable provincially significant economic initiatives to proceed.

This bill realizes the vision set out in three land use plans. First, the establishment of the Ne'ah conservancy will implement recommendations from the Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan and the Kaska strategic land use plan.

Second, the establishment of the Hanna-Tintina conservancies will implement recommendations from the Nass South sustainable resource management plan and the Gitanyow Huwilp recognition and reconciliation agreement.

Third, the establishment of 17 new class A parks in addition to five existing class A parks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region implements the results of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, goal 2, protected areas process.

[1410]

This bill will also establish two new class A parks — Denman Island and Gerald Island — and add lands to Mount Maxwell Ecological Reserve and Boyle Point Park.

Key government economic initiatives are supported by this bill by removing small areas of land at Elk Falls Park and Inkaneep Park. The boundary amendment at Elk Falls will allow B.C. Hydro to proceed with the replacement of the existing John Hart generating facility, and the lands removed from Inkaneep Park will enable Shared Services B.C. to construct a secondary access road to the planned correctional centre near Oliver.

Minor changes to the boundaries of three other parks are proposed to correct administrative areas. This bill also cancels Truman Dagnus Locheed Park, which is being transferred to another authority for park purposes.

On an administrative note, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to all members of the House that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with very large copies of the official plans for their review. These will depict the boundaries of the new parks and conservancies and most of the amended parks and the conservancies.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ONE BILLION RISING CAMPAIGN
TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

S. Hammell: We're all aware that today is Valentine's Day, a day that people and their loved ones everywhere celebrate their mutual love and respect with chocolates, flowers and gifts. Although it's a joyous day for many, the reality is that this joy is not shared by all.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that approximately 60,000 women in British Columbia experience domestic violence each year? One in three of every women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, and statistics are higher for our First Nations women. These staggering facts only indicate reported cases, and the number grows exponentially to one billion women and girls across the world.

I want to acknowledge that millions of people today are joining together to stop gender violence. Today marks V-Day's 15th anniversary of their One Billion Rising campaign, which is held every year to raise funds and awareness to end gender violence.

In B.C. alone there will be 50 of these One Billion Rising events. In fact, there will be one right here in downtown Victoria, and then, in addition, there will be a flash dance near my home at Surrey's Holland Park this afternoon.

I encourage everyone to participate in any way you can and take a stand to actively raise awareness on this issue. Gender violence impacts the lives of everyone — men, children and women — regardless of age, culture or religion. We are the leaders here in B.C., and we must show our fellow citizens that we refuse to accept violence against women.

I hope everyone in this House will join me in rising up against gender violence.

STEM CELL DONATION DRIVE
AND AWARENESS

D. Hayer: Happy Valentine's to all of the spouses. I agree with the statement from the member for Surrey–
[ Page 12790 ]
Green Timbers.

On Wednesday, February 20, the OtherHalf–Chinese Stem Cell Initiative and Simon Fraser University lead group students, with support from the South Asian community, and in collaboration with OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network of Canadian Blood Services, will be holding a community stem cell registry drive at the Simon Fraser campus of Surrey.

Stem cell donations are life-savers. I know from personal experience, because my son Alexander Hayer, who was diagnosed with leukemia the day after his 19th birthday, ten years ago, is alive today because of stem cell donation from my daughter Sonia Hayer.

I should point out that the stem cell drive is taking place and looking for, particularly, young males from diverse backgrounds to register, as they apparently make the best choice as donors. In fact, the donations of stem cells to fight leukemia and other horrific cancers are so important that British Columbia has proclaimed February 20 to 27 Community Stem Cell Awareness Week.

I understand from my heart — and those of my family, my friends and my colleagues, such as former MLA Sindi Hawkins — the life-saving contributions that stem cell donations can make.

[1415]

I congratulate all the volunteers for organizing the community stem cell registry drive, which is in honour of the recipients and the patients Winnie Szeto and Gurjeet Brar, who are currently searching for stem cell donors. They are looking for unrelated stem cell donors for themselves.

It is only through the efforts of those in the stem cell registry drive that we encourage greater participation in the wonderful and deeply personal gesture to save the lives of others. It doesn't cost you anything. It's not painful. But at the same time it's a free gift of life you can give to either your family member or a stranger. I ask everybody to register for the stem cell drive.

THE RACKET AND TEEN BAND CONTEST

D. Donaldson: The racket, the racket, the racket. Some might think that's a description of the atmosphere about what could be following us here in question period, but what I'm talking about here is The Racket. It's a dynamic band composed of Hazelton teenagers Eli Larsen and Simon Stockner, in their senior year at Hazelton Secondary School, and Stephen deWit, who recently graduated from Smithers Secondary.

The Racket has made it to the final group of ten competing in B.C.'s Best Teen Band Contest run by the web-based youthink teen magazine. Eli is on vocals and guitar, Simon is the drummer, and Stephen plays bass. I know them all well and have heard them play often. They're playing gigs across northwest B.C. with what they describe as rock, blues and total originality. And like any good teen band, they have at least one parent who is a dedicated roadie.

The Racket shows that there is an exceptional musical talent in small, rural communities across B.C., particularly in the northwest. This budding talent needs support for individuals to reach their full potential, and that is why increased resources for school districts for music programming is fundamental and restoring funding cuts to community arts organizations in rural B.C. is so important in providing mentoring opportunities.

The Racket needs your vote. You can vote on line once a day every day until February 18. Google their Facebook site, The Racket Hazelton, to find out how, or visit youthink.ca. You can also check out a video of the live performance of one of their original songs on that website.

Coming up very soon in this chamber, you may think to yourself, "I can't stand the racket," but in this musical case, The Racket is a good thing and getting better. I encourage everyone in this chamber to vote on February 18 for The Racket.

COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARDS

H. Bloy: It's estimated that 20 percent of all Canadians will be affected by mental illness at some point in their lifetime. This stat doesn't just bear the economic cost; it bears a social cost as well. One's mental illness affects one's family, friends and colleagues. Coast Mental Health, led by Executive Director Darrell Burnham, was created to address the needs of people recovering from serious mental illness. They are there to ease the transition to recovery.

Each year Coast Mental Health hands out six Courage to Come Back Awards, which recognize individuals who have not only overcome their illness or adversity but have used their experience to inspire others to do the same. People like Kamal Dhillon, a 2012 reward recipient who at the age of 18 married the man who nearly killed her. For almost 12 years, through the births of her four children, she was sexually, mentally and physically abused with such ferocity that she came close to death numerous times. The physical abuse she suffered was so bad she had to undergo several reconstructive operations and now lives in constant pain.

But today Kamal is free from her abusive marriage and is an advocate for change, providing a voice for women in similar situations. She holds workshops throughout the world, teaching everyone from police officers to college students to recognize and prevent domestic violence. It's people like Kamal who give hope to others and prove that recovery is possible.

It is Lorne Segal's incredible passion that is a driving force behind the Courage to Come Back Awards fundraising gala every year that helps to bring these dreams to reality. Thank you, Lorne, for all that you do for British Columbia.
[ Page 12791 ]

This year's awards ceremony will take place on April 25 in Vancouver. The money raised will provide food, homes and jobs to people across the Lower Mainland who struggle with mental illness. To all the past award recipients and to everyone at Coast Mental Health, thank you for the great work you do.

[1420]

CONTRIBUTIONS OF
LOTTERY WINNER BOB ERB

R. Austin: Last October Terrace resident Bob Erb was travelling on Highway 16 when he popped into the Chevron in New Hazelton to purchase his lottery tickets, as he had done for many years. Dean Paranich, the manager, accidentally punched in more than he had asked for, but Bob said not to worry. He'd buy the extra ones. Neither of them knew that one of these extra tickets would make Bob Erb $25 million richer — and Dean $20,000 richer, as one of the first people that Bob decided to thank for selling him that lucky ticket.

One can only dream about what we would do if we were in Bob's position. Here's a little of what he chose to do. He determined almost immediately that he didn't need $25 million and that it had to be shared not just with family and friends but with the whole community of Terrace, his home for over 40 years.

Bob has given money to numerous charities and community groups in Terrace such as the Happy Gang Centre for Seniors; Ksan House for helping women seeking safety from abuse, as well as the homeless; Choices, which operates group homes for adults with developmental delays; and a Terrace soup kitchen providing daily meals for those in need.

Individuals also got help. He bought seven brand-new vehicles for people he knew that needed them. But perhaps his greatest gift, however, is the $3 million he has set aside for a foundation that would generate dollars for years to come, which will assist Terrace charities, school groups or other worthy causes.

Bob has also set aside $1 million to be used to generate what he hopes will be an adult conversation here in B.C. and across Canada around the issue of marijuana laws and the way in which we use RCMP resources and the judicial system to maintain those laws. This cause is dear to his heart, and as such, he's the main backer of the Sensible B.C. program.

Now, those who have known Bob for a long time say this is nothing new. He always gave stuff away; he just does it on a bigger scale now. Bob grew up in the Prairies. In fact, his uncle Walter was the Minister of Health in the Tommy Douglas government of 1959, who introduced the bill that brought in public health care to the province of Saskatchewan. So thinking about the welfare of others comes naturally to Bob.

Bob's generosity will leave a lasting legacy for the people of Terrace, and I'd like members of this House to join me in thanking him for all he has done.

WRESTLING

M. Dalton: Arm drags, bear hugs, headlocks, gut wrenches. Though there is the occasional verbal spar in this chamber, I anticipate decorum will prevail and members won't be engaging in these techniques anytime soon during question period.

But for 2,600 male and female athletes, coaches and officials of the British Columbia Wrestling Association, these moves are a way of life and fun. Across the province you'll find hundreds of young and older people grappling and throwing. In my constituency Maple Ridge Secondary and Westview Secondary schools are part of the B.C. School Wrestling Association. After classes you'll find student wrestlers straining and sweating under the watchful eyes of Bill McRae or Greg Brock.

Wrestling has a rich tradition in British Columbia, with a good number of our top-tier athletes competing at the international and Olympic levels — wrestlers like silver medallist Bob Molle and Hazelton's own Carol Huynh, the first Canadian freestyle wrestler to win Olympic gold.

Then there's Daniel Igali, coming to Canada from a poor village in Nigeria and winning a gold medal. Many of us will remember him dancing around the Canadian flag and kissing it in his victory. I got to know many of these elite athletes while working in the equipment room in the bowels of the SFU gym while doing my studies.

Wrestling is an ancient international sport that has been part of the Olympic Games since their modern-day inception. It is relished in many countries such as India and among our Indo-Canadian community. It has therefore come as a shock worldwide that the IOC has recommended not to include wrestling at the 2020 Olympics. Mr. Speaker, wrestling is a sport that has stood the test of time, and it will doubtless stand through this test also.

Oral Questions

WORKER RECRUITMENT FOR HD MINING
PROJECT AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Jobs. In 2011 the government met with officials from HD Mining about its plans for the Murray River project a total of four times. The Premier and the Minister of Jobs were involved in at least one of those meetings each.

Why did the Premier and the Jobs Minister not make local employment a priority during those meetings?

[1425]

Hon. P. Bell: Local employment is the priority of this government, and that's been clearly demonstrated
[ Page 12792 ]
through detailed plans not in one but in eight different sectors in this province.

The Minister of Energy and Mines recently set a goal a year and a half ago of having eight new mines and nine expanded mines open over a period of time. We're halfway there, and we haven't even touched on the time frame.

I'm hesitant to take advice from the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite because of their dismal record of job creation in the 1990s. In fact, I was looking at some comments from the member for Fraser-Nicola, my favourite member of the opposition, who provides me with numerous opportunities for quotes. When the member opposite was talking about how great employment was in the 1990s, I looked back at the city of Kamloops, because I thought that would be interesting. It's the general region the member comes from. When he left government in 2001, the unemployment rate in Kamloops was 13.1 percent. Today it's 5.6 percent.

I don't think that we need to take any lessons from the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the minister will recall, because it was only November, in this matter, he asserted and defended HD Mining for not hiring British Columbians. He said: "They placed ads in virtually every paper, all of the Internet-based services, the Mining Association website — literally every place that a miner would look for work — and had no uptake…at all." This was the minister responsible informing British Columbia about what happened.

Now, we know what he said then did not prove to be the case. So I'm asking the minister responsible in this case, who had multiple meetings, whose staff had multiple meetings, the Premier had multiple meetings…. They attacked people who raised questions when he made that assertion. They attacked them personally.

I guess the question for the minister responsible for jobs is: why didn't he raise those issues when it mattered?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, I just find it absolutely ironic that the members opposite continue to raise issues of employment. Our record is very clear on the employment front.

Again, inconvenient facts or uncomfortable facts for the members opposite. I think this is uncomfortable fact No. 7 or 8. I forget. Uncomfortable fact No. 7 or 8 for the Leader of the Opposition: when they were in government — in fact, when they left government in 2001 — unemployment rate in Canada, 7.2 percent. Interesting part of that is that the unemployment rate in Canada for last year, for fiscal 2012, was actually 7.2 percent. The difference, though, was when the NDP was in government, the unemployment rate in B.C. was half a point higher than the national average. Today it's half a point lower than the national average. That's our record.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The government of British Columbia and the ministers opposite left this House vacant for 8½ months. The minister made assertions on behalf of British Columbia, assertions that in this case there was "no uptake on it at all." The Premier made those assertions. That was their response to British Columbians. They said that clearly and categorically.

The minister apparently now is saying that he didn't know, but in fact he claimed he did know, and there was no uptake at all. How could the minister have been so wrong about the specific issue which matters to employment in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, it's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition raises the question of employment in the mining industry. In the 1990s the employment in the mining industry was irrelevant from a foreign or domestic perspective, because there was no mining industry in British Columbia.

Inconvenient fact No. 9 for the Leader of the Opposition. Recently, in the year 2012, the mining exploration in British Columbia was $680 million — a brand-new record.

[1430]

The inconvenient fact for the Leader of the Opposition is that in the entire decade, in the ten years that the NDP was in government, the entire exploration spending for that entire ten-year period — $642 million, $38 million less than one year under our government.

S. Simpson: This minister wants to talk about inconvenient facts. The facts are that in the 16 months of his job plan 37,000 jobs were lost in the private sector.

That's your record. And what does the federal government tell us? You say that unemployment is down? That's because almost 20,000 people have lost hope and quit looking for jobs because they don't trust you to produce them. Those are the facts.

The debacle over how this government has mismanaged temporary foreign workers is astounding. B.C. has demonstrated a complete failure in protecting resource jobs for British Columbians.

On January 30 the Vancouver Sun quoted the minister, and what did the minister say? Neither he nor the Premier was told during their visit to China in 2011, when the Chinese coal investments were announced, of the full extent of the company's plans to use foreign workers.

Well, in November 2011 a briefing note was produced for the Premier and this minister that clearly said half
[ Page 12793 ]
of the 400 jobs would go to temporary foreign workers. The minister and the Premier and this government knew that the first 200 jobs were for temporary foreign workers. What else did the Premier and the minister agree to that forced them to defend this failed program so vigorously?

Hon. P. Bell: Mining has rebounded in an exceptional way over the last 12 years in British Columbia. In fact, in my community of Prince George I recall an unemployment rate of 14.1 percent under the NDP for an entire year. Last month — 4.5 percent. The month before that — 4.3 percent.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition weave this fable yesterday of how the economic performance of the government during the 1990s was actually exceptional, much better than our government during that same period of time. I was astounded by the tale that the member opposite was weaving in his speech yesterday, because if you look back at the clear statistics, during the 1990s B.C. saw a GDP growth 0.22 percent less than the Canadian average. Under our government — half a point greater than the Canadian average.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The people of this province want to know why this government doesn't put British Columbians first when it comes to jobs. People across this province are angry at this government, and it starts with this minister's own people in Prince George. They're angry, and people across this province are angry.

The reality is this. HD Mining claimed that none of the 300 Canadian applicants were qualified. The Premier and the minister defended that assertion by the company. The minister claimed in the media that the company had done an exhaustive search, and then he chastised the unions for raising the concern.

We now know that many of those applicants had extensive experience in underground mining. Only when the resumé information was released, did the minister back-pedal on the position he had defended from day one.

How does the minister, who is supposed to be leading us on jobs in this province, explain doing so little due diligence on protecting jobs until he had to back out because he got caught?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, the member opposite, being a member of opposition, has the luxury of being able to use only selected pieces of information that he chooses, from time to time, to roll out. As a government minister, as a minister of the Crown, we have the obligation of hearing all the facts before we come to conclusions.

[1435]

But I'll tell you what I know. Inconvenient fact 10: during the era of the NDP British Columbia for the first time in history, the only time in the history of British Columbia, became a have-not province — the only time that has ever happened in all of Canada. That's the economic performance of the NDP.

Inconvenient fact 11 for the NDP: seven consecutive credit downgrades under the NDP, five credit upgrades under us. We've got a triple-A credit rating. This province is excelling economically, and we're proud of that record.

G. O'Mahony: The minister might have gotten to the parade late, but that clearly hasn't stopped him from jumping into the front of it.

It was representatives from labour who revealed that there were hundreds of British Columbians who were qualified to do those jobs. Meanwhile, there were allegations early last fall that the same company was charging foreign workers a recruitment fee to work in Canada.

It's been nearly four months since those allegations were brought forward, and the minister promised to investigate. Will the minister update the House on the status of that investigation, or is he waiting again for someone else to do the investigating for him?

Hon. P. Bell: Inconvenient fact 12. Speaking of parades, the only parade I recall during the 1990s was the parade of U-Haul trailers, all going to Alberta.

The member opposite needs to improve her research and her clipping service, because it's already been reported that the investigation is complete. The allegations were found to be unfounded.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. O'Mahony: I'm happy that the minister has proven that he can count, but let's talk about the facts at this moment. These are serious allegations that workers are being charged money for the right to work in mines in B.C. The minister promised an investigation months ago. Yet today we learned that his so-called investigation didn't include a single interview with anyone in China, and these alleged violations are believed to have taken place. How is this a credible investigation?

Can the minister explain how any investigation that doesn't go to the place of the alleged problems can possibly arrive at a meaningful result?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that the member opposite spent too much time over the Christmas holidays watching Skyfall and contemplating how James Bond might be able to investigate these allegations.

The statutes of British Columbia clearly limit the investigative ability of any branch to within the province of British Columbia. The member opposite should know that.

M. Farnworth: The inconvenient truth is this. The minister met with HD Mining. The Premier met with HD
[ Page 12794 ]
Mining. On every occasion they failed to stand up for the interests of British Columbia workers. The inconvenient truth is that now when the minister and the government are pressed to be accountable, they are unable to do so.

My question is clear. Will the minister stand in this House, be accountable for once and tell why both the minister and the Premier failed to stand up for the interests of British Columbia workers when they met with HD Mining?

[1440]

Hon. P. Bell: Just because the member insists upon ramping up his tone throughout the question, it doesn't mean that it's any more accurate or reflective of the facts.

It is the responsibility of myself, of the minister responsible for mines, and of the Premier to meet with proponents of large projects on a regular basis. If we don't, I'd be surprised, actually, that the member opposite doesn't think that's part of our responsibilities and duties. Clearly, that is exactly what we should be doing is meeting with these proponents.

What I find very interesting is that while the mining industry virtually fled from the province during the NDP era, it has come back and become a key part of our overall economic structure, last year amounting to $10 billion in economic activity, about 5 percent of our GDP.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
VIOLENCE AGAINST ABORIGINAL WOMEN
IN NORTHERN B.C.

S. Hammell: Today marks the 22nd year of the Women's Memorial March for the missing and murdered women. It is also the 15th anniversary of One Billion Rising. Today is the day to take action.

There have been numerous reports on violence against women and particularly northern aboriginal women: the 2004 Amnesty International report, Stolen Sisters; the Highway of Tears Symposium in 2006; the 2012 Oppal report on missing women; and yesterday another disturbing report from Human Rights Watch. The issue of violence against northern aboriginal women has been in front of this government for a decade.

My question is to the Attorney General. How many reports does this government need before they commit to taking real action on violence against northern aboriginal women?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. Today across British Columbia there are people, and women in particular, expressing their concern about the loss of women who have been marginalized in British Columbia. I can assure the member opposite that every single member on both sides of this House wants to work to find ways to ensure that that kind of horrific situation in British Columbia never occurs again.

That's why when the missing women's report was released, immediately we asked a former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, the Hon. Steven Point, to be a champion for that report, to ensure that the voices and the lives of those women are honoured by the actions that will take place today and moving forward.

SAFE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FOR WOMEN IN NORTHERN B.C.

K. Corrigan: We have had report after report and promise after promise from this government. This report is the latest in a whole series of reports that document horrific allegations of violence against women, including by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them. It demonstrates how fear and a lack of faith in the police can keep vulnerable women, particularly aboriginal women, from coming forward.

In the Missing Women Inquiry report, Wally Oppal called on the provincial government to implement recommendations from the 2006 Highway of Tears Symposium, which specifically called for a shuttle bus along the notorious Highway of Tears. In December 2012 the minister committed to this, stating the Minister of Transportation was developing a targeted consultation plan to identify safer transportation options with northern communities.

My question for the minister is: where is the transportation plan? Where is any plan to address the really serious safety issues facing women and girls along the Highway of Tears and throughout northern British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: What happened to women in British Columbia was tragic and appalling, and all of us need to work together. What I would encourage the member opposite to do is stand up with me today and urge the writers of the last report, Human Rights Watch…. A report was published. The member opposite is correct.

[1445]

Yes, there is fear when people are wanting to move forward and speaking to the police. But there are very, very serious allegations in that report. We need to urge the researchers and writers of that report, the people who went and spoke to women who live along a highway where I live, to step up, to urge a third party to investigate those allegations. It's important that that's the kind of non-partisan action all of us in this House need to take to ensure that women in British Columbia are treated with equity and respect every single day.

CALL FOR NATIONAL INQUIRY
INTO MISSING AND MURDERED
ABORIGINAL WOMEN

S. Fraser: We must take action on the multiple reports that have come out about missing and murdered aboriginal
[ Page 12795 ]
women in British Columbia. However, we also need to recognize that this is a bigger problem — that aboriginal women and girls all across the country are faced with the same problems, the same threats.

Key amongst the Human Rights Watch report is a call for a full national public commission of inquiry on missing and murdered women in Canada. iIn November of last year, on November 1 and 2, the third annual National Aboriginal Women's Summit was held in Manitoba. An open letter to the B.C. Native Women's Association states that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — our Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — stood in opposition to the principle of a national inquiry at the summit.

Since the letter was released, we've seen nothing to contradict it. So to the minister, is it true that she, as minister, and this government oppose a national inquiry on missing and murdered women in Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: What is true is that, in fact, British Columbia was asked by jurisdictions across the country to lead a working group of ministers and provinces and territories. We have been leading a national agenda to deal with the issue of missing and murdered women since 2006.

In fact, we have looked at 52 recommendations that are being implemented across the country — looking at things like investigations, prosecution and how we deal with missing women's issues across the country. So to suggest that British Columbia hasn't stood up and been a leader in dealing with these issues at the national level would simply be inaccurate at best.

In addition, we've just received, after 18 months' work, a commission of inquiry that has laid out a series of recommendations that we believe have the opportunity to shape a response across this country. That information has been shared directly with the commissioner of the RCMP and the federal minister. We believe that the work that has been done here in British Columbia can form the basis for looking at how we deal with this horrific issue right across Canada.

EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES
FOR CHILDREN

K. Conroy: Vulnerable children in the Interior now have to wait 18 months to two years for early intervention and supported child care services. This is unacceptable. Taking into consideration that this government has spent millions and millions of dollars on partisan, pre-election ads, can the Minister for Children and Families please explain why they are telling families that require these critical early intervention services that they are out of luck for up to two years?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This government is committed to supporting children with special needs across the province and providing them and their families with the supports they need. Those supports and services are a priority for this government. We invest over a billion dollars annually, and we have more than 90 different services and supports for children with special needs and their families.

The funding has nearly doubled since 2001, from $153 million to $288 million, for children and youth with special needs services. We are committed to ensuring that that system is working as best as it possibly can for those families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1450]

K. Conroy: Lorena Andersof, a mother from Grand Forks, and her daughter Trinity had to wait eight months for early intervention services, and she still isn't getting all the support that she needs in order to thrive. Trinity's mother said: "Early intervention and supported child care services have not received an increase in funding in the West Kootenay–Boundary area for almost eight years, yet the number of children with special needs continues to increase every year." That is far from a priority.

Can the minister explain why Trinity has to wait eight months for partial services and is still waiting for other critical services that she needs because of this Liberal government's inability to keep up with the demand of special needs?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I can certainly understand how frustrating it would be for a parent of a child with special needs to be waiting for services. We know that early interventions are incredibly important, especially for children with autism.

We are working to ensure that services across the province are working as well as they can. We are looking at how those services interact with one another and how we approach services around the province, and we want to ensure that we are able to provide the best services we can within our existing resources.

PACIFIC CARBON TRUST AND
PUBLIC SECTOR CARBON OFFSET COSTS

R. Fleming: Today we were again reminded that carbon-neutral government under the B.C. Liberals is a legislated monopoly scheme that scrapes tens of millions of dollars from the public sector and gives it to profitable forestry and oil and gas companies in British Columbia — subsidies to big business, courtesy of cash-starved hospitals and colleges, while the Pacific Carbon Trust sits on a pile of surplus cash, which the minister said today he may use as a slush fund to shore up the Liberals' debt.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Is he
[ Page 12796 ]
really suggesting that the Pacific Carbon Trust will become nothing more than a greenwashing scheme to hide his government's red ink?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to talk about the real action that we've taken on climate change here in British Columbia under the B.C. Liberal government, world leaders on climate action policies — every one of which that member and his colleagues voted against yet are upheld around the world as leading policies to combat climate change.

The carbon-neutral-government policy of this government is about leadership. It's about demonstrating that we walk the walk. In fact, investments in the public sector save over $12 million each and every year in energy savings. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's good for the environment, and it's good for the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Perhaps the minister missed his own government's throne speech a couple of days ago, which mentioned the environment exactly twice. Apparently, the green facade is completely gone.

This scheme, the Pacific Carbon Trust, has been widely criticized since day one. The minister knows it. In part, that's because its financial reporting has not been transparent.

Under this monopoly scheme the Pacific Carbon Trust gets $25 a tonne from hospitals and colleges for offsets worth sometimes less than $10 a tonne in the emissions market. After years of incomplete reporting, the province has promised to finally release the figures on how much money is spent. Expect it on a late Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the minister. This program has been under continual piecemeal review since it was first established. Will the minister finally listen to all the experts in the public sector, the senior administrators and the VP of sustainability and direct the Pacific Carbon Trust to make real climate progress within the public sector, invest in low-carbon, green public buildings across British Columbia for hospitals, for schools, for universities in B.C. today?

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite, I think, should get around the province a little more. If he went to Simon Fraser University, he would see that money from the PSECA fund has helped to contribute to their energy centre — $4.7 million in funding to look at campus needs for heating, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe he wants to go to the University of Northern British Columbia, with the biomass centre, where they save $500,000 each and every single year. He could go to the school district of Delta, where an innovative geothermal district heating system saves that school district $500,000 every year.

We will not take any lessons from the NDP on climate action. Their policy is all over the map. In fact, we have just seen that Google is making an app for their position on climate change.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Reports from Committees

J. McIntyre: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fourth session of the 39th Parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. McIntyre: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make some brief comments.

This annual report summarizes the activities of this committee from November 2011 to October 2012. During that time, the committee reviewed several reports by the Representative for Children and Youth. The committee also completed the first statutory review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. This included a call for public submissions and several meetings with expert witnesses, including the representative and the hon. Ted Hughes, whose 2006 report called for the creation of this committee.

The committee released the unanimous — and I repeat, unanimous — report last year containing seven recommendations for enhancing the legislation.

As Chair, I think I speak for all committee members when I say that this committee successfully carried out important work over the past year. We did this by collaborating and working together in a non-partisan way, in a way Mr. Hughes initially envisaged.

I hope that this committee continues to serve as a constructive forum for discussion of vital issues that are facing B.C. children and families, particularly the most vulnerable.

I have had the honour of serving as Chair of this committee over the past three years. As I'm not running for re-election this year, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the members that I've had the pleasure of working with during that time, including the two Deputy
[ Page 12797 ]
Chairs — the member for North Island and the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads.

After 30-plus years in business prior to politics it's been an eye-opening experience developing a better understanding of the social pressures and the issues in our province. It's had a powerful and lasting impact on me.

At this time I would also like to extend special thanks to the Representative for Children and Youth and her staff, as well as the deputy minister and the senior officials and staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. British Columbia children and families are well served by their collective dedication and hard work. The relationship between the ministry and the representative's office has improved immeasurably and has made the committee work more productive.

It has been a privilege serving as Chair and working with such dedicated professionals.

My last round of thank-yous is to the Clerk's office — to Kate Ryan-Lloyd and her staff, including Byron Plant, who have provided invaluable advice and support to our committee throughout. I will miss this work, and all of you, as I step down.

C. Trevena: I would like to echo the comments made by the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. We have worked very well, I believe, as a collaborative committee working across partisan lines to try and find resolutions to some issues and to hear the reports from the representative and the ministry's response to them.

[1500]

I would like to thank the Chair as she steps down and she moves onto other adventures in life after this. It has been a pleasure working with her. She has led the committee admirably and, I think, has really helped us work together collaboratively.

As she mentioned, in this last year the significant part of our work was the statutory review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. We're hoping that, since we completed this work back in May, it will be seen to be enacted in legislation very shortly. It is very much outstanding, and as a non-partisan committee, I believe that that is something we really hope the rest of the Legislature, the rest of the House, will move on.

I also thank the Clerk's office and Hansard for their support in our work, and I hope that the House will accept this report.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Bains: I have 1,120 petitions collected by Canadian Auto Workers, urging us to act immediately to ensure TransLink has enough funding to improve bus, SeaBus and SkyTrain service to reduce overcrowding and lack of service.

C. Trevena: I have two petitions to present. The first is from people across British Columbia who are calling on the Premier and the Minister of Children and Family Development to act immediately and effectively to deal with child poverty.

A second petition I have is from people from my constituency who are concerned about access to health care products.

Reports from Committees

D. Horne: I have the honour of presenting two reports from the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services respecting the 2013 budget consultation process. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. Horne: I ask for leave of the House to suspend the rules, permitting the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

D. Horne: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make a few brief comments.

This report covers the work of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in regard to the Budget 2013 consultations. This year's public consultations took place over a five-week period in September and October 2012. The consultation process included 19 public hearings, video conference sessions and a public call for written and on-line survey submissions.

Overall, some 811 submissions were received by the committee on a wide range of topics relating to Budget 2013. The report summarizes the public input received and makes 29 recommendations for next year's provincial budget. They include support for a goal of balancing this budget for 2013, measures to enhance B.C.'s economic competitiveness and preparing to return to the PST system on April 1, 2013.

The committee also recommended ways to facilitate natural resource development and improve infrastructure to get British Columbia goods to market. Other recommendations target strengthening health care, education, community service, social services, as well as addressing the skills shortages and training. I'm very pleased to note that the recommendations were approved unanimously by the committee and would like
[ Page 12798 ]
to thank the Deputy Chair and member for Vancouver-Kensington for her and other committee members' work.

As was just mentioned by the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I have to say that while there are times and places for us to highlight the differences between ourselves and the opposition, I think that within the committees, working together on a constructive basis — actually making the committee work and doing the work of the province of British Columbia that the people expect us to do — works well. I want to thank very much the Deputy Chair for the great work we did.

M. Elmore: Speaking to the report, I'd also like to appreciate the effort of the Chair and all the members of the Finance Committee. I think that we had exhaustive hearings. We had a very busy schedule, travelled to many communities, heard from a wide range of stakeholders and heard many presentations, and adopted a unanimous report.

Certainly, one of the main themes was the need to improve skills training across the province. I'm very pleased that we were able to adopt all recommendations unanimously. I think it's also a tribute to the collaborative nature, working with the Chair, and all the hard work put in by the committee. I just recognize and thank the support from the Clerk and the staff.

Motion approved.

[1505]

D. Horne: I'll now proceed to move a motion relating to the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, respecting the review of budgets of independent offices.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. Horne: I ask the leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

D. Horne: I move the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make some brief comments.

This report summarizes the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services' review of the budget proposals and annual reports and service plans submitted by eight independent legislative officers. Careful consideration was given to the budget request coming up to fiscal year, and I am pleased to say the committee unanimously agreed to all of its recommendations for the office's budgets for 2013-2014.

In closing, I would like to thank each of the statutory offices for the important services they provide to British Columbians. I'd also like to thank the committee members for their hard work and contributions in this important process. It was a pleasure serving as the Chair of the committee, and as I said before, I think we worked very, very well.

I'd also like to mention one other member of the committee, and that is the member for Surrey-Whalley, who is also the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. We've talked before, I think, on the importance of working together. The collaboration and working in a non-partisan fashion really allows for the work of this House to be done and the committee's work to be done. I think it's another example of that great work.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Donaldson: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for having this debate continue, and my comments from this morning continue into this afternoon on a response to the throne speech.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This morning I touched on a couple of items in the budget speech that I thought were deserving of praise — the aspect of highlighting the bullying issue and the fact that mining was mentioned in the throne speech. Now I would like to talk about something that I found interesting yesterday when the Minister of Finance reacted to criticism of the B.C. prosperity fund in the throne speech, saying he was surprised by that and taken aback by that criticism that was out there in the public.

I'd like to give the Minister of Finance a little bit of background around why people in Stikine might be a bit skeptical about this government's proposal around the B.C. prosperity fund. There has always been a "next big thing" presented to the people of Stikine by various governments, and it leads to skepticism until something can be proven in their minds.

It started back in the 1860s with the Collins overland telegraph. That was supposed to be the next big thing, and it never happened, after a transatlantic cable got laid on the Atlantic. Then there was the Omineca gold rush. It was going to be the next big thing, and it didn't turn out to be nearly as big as the Klondike or the Barkerville gold rush or the 1849 gold rush in California. Then the next
[ Page 12799 ]
big thing was going to be the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which happened in 1914, but the Chicago of the north never did get built.

So there has been a good history of people looking upon announcements by various external sources to Stikine that the next big thing is on its way. Same thing with the B.C. prosperity fund. People view this with skepticism. It might have some merits. There might be some good aspects to it, but it's something that's touted by the government as the next big thing, something that will have benefits 30 years out.

People in Stikine obviously believe that there could be a role, an important role, for natural gas and LNG production across the north, but putting all the eggs in one basket, in the economy, as this government did in the throne speech, is again concerning for people in Stikine.

[1510]

They've seen that happen in other aspects of the economy, and when it either doesn't happen or doesn't pan out, the people are left with the horrific socioeconomic conditions that I described earlier this morning.

Of great concern in the throne speech was the aspect of putting all the revenue-generation eggs in one basket in the province. Instead of that, what people in Stikine would have liked to see is a little bit more balance. Talk about forestry, for instance. Talk about agriculture, for instance. Talk around tourism, around film and TV. They either weren't mentioned or were barely mentioned in the throne speech.

I think about what we've seen in forestry with raw log exports being at all-time highs and not an emphasis on the part of this government to encourage value-added facilities, even with the market picking up. We heard earlier from our forestry critic around the market picking up in sawlogs and the market picking up in pulp, yet there was nothing in the throne speech about how to take advantage of that.

We heard from the Auditor General about the horrible conditions of the inventory on the forest land base under this government — yet nothing in the throne speech about that. This is an important part of the northern economy, about the economy of Stikine — yet barely a mention in the throne speech.

Agriculture. We on this side of the House have plans to increase local markets for local produce and local agricultural products, yet again in this throne speech agriculture had barely a mention. In Stikine this is an untapped potential for the economy, and spreading out different areas of revenue generation in Stikine is an important part because then you're not solely dependent on one industry.

This happened in an earlier part when the forestry went down and the prices weren't good and we had too much emphasis just on forestry. People are still suffering from that in Stikine. If the approach is to put all your eggs in one basket with the B.C. prosperity fund or LNG, then that's overdependence on one sector.

Tourism. Again, with tourism in Stikine, there are some very, very strong parts of the economy, especially in the sport-fishing industry, steelhead fishing, but other aspects, too — yet again, no mention of tourism in the throne speech. Of course, the tourism in Stikine is dependent on proper management of the land base, and that wasn't addressed either.

Finally, I'll just touch on film and TV. I was at the Mineral Exploration Roundup annual conference that was held in Vancouver in January, and 7,000 different people attended that. One person came up to me who has a camp business, supplying outfitting camps. He now makes a large part of his income in the film industry. Smithers is a destination for certain types of filming — no mention of that important aspect in the throne speech.

Again, the balance was disappointing. The overdependence and…. No wonder it's viewed with some skepticism. There's a major credibility gap in the public on this government's record. The throne speech mentioned balanced budgets, year after year. Well, seven of the last 12 years this government has been in deficit — a deficit budget. Again, a credibility gap.

The HST, a credibility gap. The promises around not selling B.C. Rail, a credibility gap. You can at least cut people a little bit of slack, I say to the Finance Minister, regarding their skepticism about this government's plans for a B.C. prosperity fund.

I'll try to wrap up here with talking about rural communities. Greg Halseth, a professor at the University of Northern British Columbia, likens what has happened in rural communities, especially in the north, as the rural communities being like a bank. If you continually withdraw from the bank and don't reinvest, then the banks go bankrupt. In other words, communities have a hard time sustaining themselves. Without healthy, rural communities in the north, in Stikine, it's very difficult to have the full advantage of the resources that are out there and for people to take full advantage of those resources.

[1515]

Services have been stripped in northern communities by this government. There's a long list, but let's just take a look at DriveABLE — seniors having to drive four to five hours or transport themselves even longer distances in order to get a DriveABLE test. I mean, that's an example. Home care, health, education are all services that are declining in rural areas under this government.

We have to have a plan if we want to see the proper exploitation of natural resources in the north. We have to have a plan about how communities are going to be able to adjust to that kind of development. We have examples from other areas in the northeast where this government has not been supportive of those kinds of plans and has not helped communities in that.

Also, on the First Nations front. This throne speech talked a lot about First Nations, yet the First Nations,
[ Page 12800 ]
many of them in the area I represent — the Gitanyow, the Gitksan, the Wet'suwet'en — are looking forward yet to government-to-government meaningful consultations on northern gas pipelines across their territories. That hasn't happened yet. Again, it's another reason for having justified skepticism about the government's plans on LNG.

I'll finish off and talk about the rural, northern way of life. I mentioned at the start the importance of stewardship of the land, the importance of moose. Some members of the Legislature might have wondered why I spent so long talking about moose at the start of my response to the throne speech. Well, that's just a reality of where I live and where people need that resource, good moose populations, in order to feed themselves. It's a way of life — moose and wild salmon.

We can sustain and keep that way of life valid, and we can keep it robust. We can have development, as well, but not under the plans that we've seen in the throne speech and not under the plans of this government. We need to address these in a better way. That way, people of Stikine will be able to continue with a valid rural way of life and still be able to contribute to the provincial revenue stream and the provincial economy through the development of resources in their own backyards. Thank you very much for this opportunity, hon. Speaker.

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's a real pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this year's throne speech. Four years ago I arrived in this House as one of the new kids on the block — a newbie. To say it was a bit of a culture shock would be an understatement. I left the medical system where I started my career as a physician, a system where I knew my way around and how to get things done.

Coming to Victoria and this Legislature was completely foreign. The culture, the people and the way it all works definitely took some time to get used to. I have to tell you that sitting in the House for the very first time was a real eye-opener. To be perfectly honest, I realized very quickly that I had a lot to learn, particularly if I was going to give my constituents the representation they deserved.

But, Madam Speaker, this House has been a terrific teacher, and so have been my colleagues on both side of the House. For all that, I'm particularly grateful. When I look across the House to both sides of the aisle, I see women and men who arrived here after the last election with the same objective — to build a better British Columbia for our constituents and their families.

As everyone in this House knows, it's not always easy. Sometimes we're blind to the obvious. Sometimes we forget the common sense we were born with. Sometimes the pressure to do what's easy rather than what's right is a challenge, and sometimes the small-p politics get in the way. But after four years, when every day brought new challenges and opportunities, I can say I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

The chance to be here in the people's House and do their business is an honour and a privilege. If my constituents believe I've done a good job, I'm looking forward to being back after May 14. I'm looking forward to returning to this House after the election, because I know there's still work to do. Our work is not done. Equally important, British Columbians are counting on us to continue to build this province. They are counting on us to keep the economy strong, and they're relying on us to ensure that their kids have the kind of education and training to compete with the world.

They're counting on us to keep their taxes low and keep more money in their pockets. Families right across B.C. know a strong economy is key to making sure we have the money to invest in education, health care and social services. Even more important, British Columbians know that a strong economy does not happen by accident. It happens because we make decisions today for tomorrow. That's the approach our government has taken in the throne speech.

[1520]

Government, any government, has an obligation to prepare its people and province for the future. Failing to do that means leaving opportunities on the table untouched.

If we learned anything from the international recession that captured headlines and decimated economies around the world in 2008, it is that change is inevitable and that economies at home and abroad are more connected than ever before. Equally important, it showed that no economy anywhere in the world is immune from the international ties that bind countries and provinces together. That's particularly true for British Columbia, which is a small open-trading economy.

Our job as government is to make sure that British Columbia and British Columbians are prepared for a future that is going to look and feel quite different from today.

A government that can't see beyond a single fiscal year, a government that can't lift its head to see the changes taking place in Europe, Asia and the United States, or a government that refuses to take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities that can shape B.C. for the better — those kinds of people don't deserve to govern.

This throne speech is about facing the future and building a better British Columbia. While there are many important things in the throne speech, I want to focus on the fact that we are at a crossroads when it comes to the economic future of our province and our citizens.

Everyone in this House and British Columbians across the province know we are a province rich in natural resources. Those resources are ours. They belong to each and every British Columbian, and together we will decide the future of those resources and how they will be used for British Columbians.

The decision we make today is whether we reach out and grab the opportunity that is liquid natural gas or
[ Page 12801 ]
stand aside and watch other parts of the world seize this opportunity. It's an opportunity that has captured the attention and imagination of investors who look at British Columbia's LNG potential and are prepared to stand with us and join in developing the economic energy and fuel that come with this unique opportunity.

Since last year over $6 billion in investments have been made for the development of LNG export, and this government is committed to having three LNG facilities up and running by 2020.

The easiest thing in the world is to stand on the sidelines, but B.C. is really at a crossroads, one that demands the attention and support of every one of us. Each of us was sent to this House to build a better British Columbia. We were sent here to demonstrate leadership. We were sent here to demonstrate a vision for this province, and that vision underlines this throne speech.

Here in B.C. we are blessed with an abundance of natural gas, the cleanest of the non-renewable fuels on the planet, and over 30 years, the economic impact adds up to a staggering $1 trillion. That's not the only number to remember. Up to 39,000 full-time construction jobs over a nine-year construction period and, when they are in full production, some 75,000 new annual full-time jobs.

The potential is tremendous, and if you don't believe me, just ask the companies who are prepared to spend billions of dollars — their dollars — to bring this industry to the forefront of our economy. Their investment support speaks volumes about the potential, and that potential means making decisions today, not tomorrow.

It also means planning ahead, and that's what the basis is for the new prosperity fund. It's a stream of provincial revenue from the LNG royalties that can top $100 billion over the next 30 years — $100 billion in 30 years. If you think 30 years is a long time, remember that Expo 86 was just 27 years ago.

The fact is that 30 years goes by in the blink of an eye. The prosperity fund ensures that generations of British Columbians can enjoy the benefits of LNG production today the same way Albertans have benefited from their oil industry's heritage fund for nearly 40 years.

I've heard some say that the prosperity fund is nothing more than pie in the sky or it's counting your chickens before they are hatched, but whatever they say, I want to remind the skeptics that British Columbia was built on vision. Premier W.A.C. Bennett had the vision to build highways and hydro dams that would open up this province long before they were actually needed. He was right, and we are all the better for it.

Premier Bill Bennett saw the benefits of Expo 86, northeast coal and the Coquihalla Highway long before they were opened or built. He was right, and we're all the better for it.

Premier Glen Clark knew that bidding on hosting the Olympic Games would showcase B.C. to the world, and he recognized that long before we actually won the games or brought the torch to Vancouver. He was right, and we're all the better for it.

[1525]

Premier Gordon Campbell saw the future of British Columbia and our need for more and better infrastructure today so that we could take advantage of tomorrow's opportunities. The result was the Canada Line, the Sea to Sky Highway, the Port Mann Bridge, hospitals, schools and so much more. He was right, and we are all the better for it.

Today Premier Christy Clark has seen what LNG can mean to the future of this province, including new jobs, new investments, new revenues and a prosperity fund that will reduce our debt and give British Columbians choices for their future. She is right, and we will all be the better for it.

Madam Speaker, government means having vision. It means seeing beyond the end of your political nose. Without that vision of a new and better future, you get trapped in the mundane of day-to-day and you let others seize the opportunities that slip between your fingers. Opportunities that can belong to British Columbians. Opportunities that are here today and gone tomorrow, if we ignore them.

Frankly, to the naysayers, I have this advice: if you are afraid of the future, if you don't believe that British Columbians are up to the task, if you doubt our potential and capacity to succeed, then you have learned nothing from W.A.C. Bennett, Bill Bennett, Glen Clark, Gordon Campbell or Christy Clark.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The Premier — apologies.

This is no time to stand on the world's sidelines. The LNG is real. It's there. International companies are already investing in us. It's time to believe in ourselves, because frankly, if we don't, who will?

LNG will not happen by itself. We are in competition with the world. This throne speech has spelled out in no uncertain terms that this is one of those important moments where you either step up or shut up. As the saying goes, it is time to lead, follow or get out of the way.

Madam Speaker, I'm for leading, and so is this government.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the minister but would caution all members on the use of first names in the chamber.

D. Routley: It's my pleasure to rise in the chamber and respond to the throne speech of 2013. I believe it's the ninth throne speech that I've replied to in the almost complete two terms that I've had the honour of serving in this building — maybe ten, if you include a radio address.

We all have the pleasure and the honour of being able to stand as members and speak to the legislation and the
[ Page 12802 ]
actions of government in this House and represent those people who have sent us here.

We owe thanks to those people but, in particular, to our families, of course. As many members have pointed out, they make a great sacrifice on our behalf and, therefore, on the behalf of our constituents.

I would also like to thank my constituents in Nanaimo–North Cowichan for having the faith to send me to the House and to represent their important views to the province of British Columbia.

On this day, Valentine's Day, I have the pleasure of being able to stand in the House and wish my sweetheart, Leanne Finlayson, a very happy Valentine's.

Those are great benefits that we enjoy as MLAs — being able to stand in such a tremendously splendid place, in a province whose motto is "Splendor sine occasu" — which is "Beauty without limit." It is an awesome responsibility and an awesome honour to walk up to this building every day.

There isn't a day that goes by when I don't walk up to it and look at it and marvel at the importance of it. It's not because of the building or because of the elevation of those of great stature, but it's the importance and elevation it gives to the interests of the public of British Columbia and our great province.

I serve a constituency that has a fine legacy of representation: two recent MLAs and dear friends of mine, Jan Pullinger, the first Minister of Women's Equality ever in British Columbia; and Dale Lovick, a former indigenous affairs minister and also a former Speaker of the House. I stand in the same place they did, in a sense, and represent the same areas that they did. I'm very honoured to do that. I count their friendship among the most important relationships in my life.

[1530]

I also have had the pleasure of serving alongside members on both sides of the House who will be leaving after this election, leaving by choice — there may be some who would be leaving by other means — those who are retiring.

I would like to extend a thanks and respectful wave of the hand to many of them, including my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, a member who is retiring after this election. I consider him a friend, a gentleman and someone who has served Vancouver Island and his communities with dedication and honour. He's a fine gentleman, and I appreciate his friendship.

All the members on our side who have decided not to run. It's almost like the end of a school year in grade school, when you're not sure exactly what the mix will be next year. Some of your best friends may in fact be leaving for another school or another life altogether.

Some of the members…. The member for Delta North and the member from Maple Ridge behind me are both leaving — dear friends. I'm going to miss them dearly, although I hope to see them regularly. But in this place, as colleagues, we will miss them. B.C. is a better place for all of their service.

On to the throne speech. The throne speech is meant to be a declaration to the people of the intention of a government, its legislative agenda for the years to come — not necessarily 20 or 30 years out but the immediate years. It's what people can expect that the government will do in order to solve some of the problems and the challenges that the people are facing in the province today. It is the chance for a government to show that it has listened to the people and has heard their priorities and is responding.

[D. Black in the chair.]

That is the unfortunate part of this throne speech this year. It's clear, through the lack of specific measures to deal with the issues that confront our communities, that this throne speech is lacking in the content and vision that people would expect from their government, particularly after such a long absence from this House. It's been 8½ months since the House has sat.

So many things have faced British Columbians in terms of challenges in the economy, challenges in our society and challenging questions around our environment, yet the throne speech really did not respond in any meaningful way to those challenges.

When I think of my constituency, I first think of the accomplishments of the people in my constituency; the students and teachers in our schools; and the volunteers in community organizations — the South Wellington and Area Community Association, the South End Community Association in Nanaimo — people who are dedicated volunteers who every day, not just once or twice a year but on and on, deal with the problems that confront them in their communities.

They are working together in a spirit of cooperation for the betterment of our communities. That, I think, is what they expect us to do in this building. They expect the throne speech to address exactly that kind of spirit, and I think they are disappointed by what they've heard.

I think of the business leaders in my community. There's ABC Precast, a cement company in my constituency that now is competing on a global level, exporting and manufacturing products that are really leading in their technology, in their field.

I think, again, of the teachers that are dedicated to our children. They all face challenges. They all have an expectation that government will hear their need and hear their call for the government to address those challenges.

But the throne speech has in fact ignored those priorities, locally, regionally and provincially. Schools and boards that face school closure, face deficit, face a lack of resources and the challenges that come with that heard nothing in the throne speech to address their problems. Those people in my constituency who are concerned with
[ Page 12803 ]
the water quality and the rivers and the aquifers of our constituency heard nothing in the throne speech to reassure them that the government was hearing their concerns about the environment.

Our coastal communities are so ferry-dependent. Our marine highway is so challenged with fares that have increased to the point where people and communities are effectively cut off. Nothing in the throne speech addressed that growing concern.

[1535]

Many British Columbians, including those in my constituency, who are so concerned about B.C. Hydro, which was the crown jewel of Crown corporations, and its overwhelming challenges…. It has been burdened by the debt loaded by this government onto B.C. Hydro — the increasing rates, the debt and the roughshod way the smart meters were imposed on this province without consideration, without the oversight of BCUC, even after this government had promised that BCUC would review that program.

My constituents are concerned about these issues, but the throne speech has failed to address any of those issues.

The number one role of government in the economy is preparing citizens. The education and training commitments of this government were a failure before the throne speech, and the throne speech failed to address that.

The Drummond report in Ontario, which recommended to the Ontario government what programs must be cut in order to salvage the Ontario economy during the recent economic crisis, singled out skills training as the one area that the Ontario government should not make any cuts to — in fact should add investment to in order to prepare Ontario and increase its competitiveness and its productivity.

In fact, that is the only area that this government has cut, in nominal terms. That is a failure to invest in the people and the future of the province.

The throne speech, again, failed to respond to what people are calling for. That is for the government to hear that the vision of British Columbians includes them in the equation, includes them being uplifted in any way the government can provide in order to meet the challenges of the future economy and society that bring new challenges that we must prepare for.

The number one priority for the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, in fact, is skills training. All industries are calling out for increased investments in skills training and apprenticeships.

The forest industry — not a fantasy but an industry that we already lead the world in, that we already have. We already have the mills. We already have the product. We already have the markets. Yet that is the number one challenge of the forest industry, confronted in the near and medium future: to replace their aging workforce.

Skills training. This is an absolute crucial priority for government that was not reflected in any way in the throne speech. This is a tragedy.

In fact, what the throne speech said about skills training was that B.C.'s people must be the first in line for these jobs, referring to the hope for liquid natural gas and other plans of the government.

This is cruelly ironic after the HD Mining affair, where the government supported the position of HD Mining that they must import 200 foreign workers in order to staff their mining plans. Then, after the resumés of the workers who applied domestically were released, it was clear that HD Mining and this government had ignored qualified British Columbians who were prepared to work and put others in front of British Columbians.

So it's cruelly ironic that the throne speech should call that people in B.C. must be first in line for jobs.

In fact, what the B.C. Liberals have done in failing skills training and apprenticeships, with apprenticeship completions at a dismal 38 percent, is create a situation where small communities in rural B.C. can see the jobs on the hillside, but they can't take those jobs because they aren't trained for those jobs. That is something that I think British Columbians reject as a mass, as a whole, across all political lines.

The throne speech denies that obvious failure — less than a 40 percent completion rate — but then claims to have a two-times, 100 percent increase in registrants. Well, registrants in the system hardly equate to successful outcomes when the completion rate is a dismal 38 percent.

Small business. Well, small business was worthy of only cursory remarks, recommitting to plans made in previous throne speeches but never really fulfilled. Ninety-seven percent of B.C.'s enterprises are small and medium businesses. They need real measures to encourage startup financing, capacity and resource development, support for market development and connection development, not merely words. A few words, a vague commitment — that is what the throne speech delivered.

[1540]

One hope: liquid natural gas. Yes, we support the development of a liquid natural gas industry in this province.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yes, we do. And yet, we support all range of other industries as well — like forestry, tourism, high-tech, biotech, like all the industries that were left out of the throne speech.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Routley: So what are those things that should have been in any 21st-century throne speech? They are climate change, education, tourism, high-tech, innovation, science
[ Page 12804 ]
and biotech, health care, housing. All these things were left out of the B.C. Liberal throne speech in 2013. So little was offered to this province — no goals, no ideas.

It was an exercise in campaigning. A government that has failed to govern for four years as it was preoccupied with its previous deceit around the HST and dealing with the outfall from that. A government that has failed to govern for four years, failed to offer any vision in this throne speech. Not a legislative agenda but a campaign agenda.

None of the issues of inequality were addressed in this throne speech. The key question for our society and our economy in British Columbia today is inequality — the highest levels of absolute inequality in Canada. It equals 800,000 people in British Columbia who struggle with poverty — not simply the street homeless in Vancouver but families, working families, who cannot make ends meet. They are the people who wanted to hear from this government a vision that included them now, not a dream 20 or 30 years away. They wanted solutions now.

It is clearly ironic that a government that places its one hope in an industry that will, at best, deliver results in six or seven years has run out of gas.

Not a word on open government. My critic role is critic of Open Government, freedom of information, privacy protection. Not a word on open government and democratic reform from this government. At a time when this government is in a crisis of confidence and in conflict over their treatment of an Auditor General that is widely considered to have been a great servant of the province, there was nothing to address the continuing pattern of failure to be accountable.

The people of British Columbia have lost faith and lost trust. They were looking for a sign in the throne speech that these issues would be addressed, finally, by a government that has failed in these areas. But they were disappointed.

There was nothing to address the continuing pattern of privacy breaches. We have recently heard of a privacy breach that included five million British Columbians, reported by the government. It's more than the number of citizens in the province who are alive at this time. Essentially, everyone in British Columbia had their privacy breached by this government recently, and yet there's not a single word in the throne speech about open government, democratic process and the protection of privacy.

The consistent and continuing failures of the government to be accountable through freedom of information and that process — nothing was offered. Again, no ideas.

It's a resignation speech. It's, in a sense, resigning themselves to the fact that they can't solve these problems. They have resigned themselves to the fact that forestry is beyond their help, that high-tech is not something that they can possibly grapple with. They've resigned themselves, in this resignation speech, to only a hope that can only be judged one, two, three election cycles away. That is hardly giving hope to the people of my constituency who are grappling every day with the problems that I laid out, including today, on Valentine's Day.

The demographics of my constituency are interesting. You know, we look at Vancouver Island and often think: "Well, it's an island of retirees." But in fact, it's much more than that. The constituency I represent has some interesting dichotomies.

[1545]

Ladysmith, a community in my constituency, has double the provincial average of seniors. That kind of conforms to the stereotypical view of Vancouver Island these days. But those seniors are a dynamic lot. They have an incredible human resource. If one were to do mapping of the human potential in the Ladysmith area from those folks — energetic seniors who have retired — it is an absolute spectacle to behold.

They are waiting. They are waiting for answers around seniors care. They are waiting for answers around their grandchildren's education. They are waiting for answers that can make them feel confident that they're leaving an environmental legacy that they can feel proud of.

South Wellington, a small community in my constituency that has a very distinctive role in the history of Vancouver Island — a coal-mining community that was a thriving little town in the past and still is, in a sense — now is more or less a suburb of Nanaimo. But families who live in South Wellington have been there for generation upon generation.

The interesting dichotomy about South Wellington is that it has double the regional average of children per household. It's right beside Ladysmith, which has double the average of seniors, and it has double the average of the region's children per household. So it has other challenges. It has challenges around acquiring a playground. It has challenges around transportation to schools. It has particular challenges around the planned closure of its small school. Now that's a very challenging thing for any community to face.

It's a school district, the Nanaimo school district, that is facing a shortfall in funds that is forcing them to consider closing South Wellington Elementary School, which will be a very deep blow to the community presence and character of South Wellington — a historical community. This is, in their lives, the number one issue they would have liked to have heard be dealt with in the throne speech. But unfortunately, they didn't hear one word.

South Nanaimo. The south end of Nanaimo has some of the most income-challenged postal codes in the province. In fact, I believe one of them is the second most income-challenged postal code, after the Downtown Eastside, of any urban postal code. That tells you the kind of challenges that they deal with on a daily basis. In that challenge, in that mix, exists a wonderful organization
[ Page 12805 ]
called the South End Community Association.

They do fantastic things. They are rescuing a neighbourhood. They are doing things — simple things like art garbage cans, right? They keep the community clean, and all the garbage cans in the south end community are beautiful, because they're painted. It's a community project.

They hold celebrations to celebrate themselves and their history. They celebrate the history of the coal-mining industry. They celebrate the history of their small neighbourhood, and they celebrate today — their noble response to the challenges of today. They didn't hear a word about themselves and their challenges in the throne speech from their government. That's a tragedy.

The history of my constituency is one tied up in, first of all, First Nations. We have double the provincial average of population of First Nations in the constituency. Fantastic communities that are picking themselves up, partnering with we newcomers and finding new possibilities and new opportunities. They didn't hear anything in the throne speech that could answer their problems of today.

We have the history of the Douglas treaty that our First Nations struggle with, that our communities struggle with. We have the current-day challenges of treaty-making, very little of which those folks heard in the throne speech.

We have the history of coal mining. It's a wonderful legacy, but it's also a challenging legacy, because some of our beaches are almost irrevocably poisoned by the coal deposits that were left by the industry. We didn't hear a thing from the government about the rehabilitation of orphaned industrial sites and legacy pollution issues for the environment.

[1550]

We have fantastic historical societies. The Morden mine historic park is a provincial park but lacks the funding to save one of the only two remaining reinforced concrete coal tipples in North America. The only other one is in West Virginia, and it receives considerable funding from the U.S. government as a tourist attraction. It's recognized by the region and its communities as a vital historical asset, as is the Morden mine tipple, but unfortunately, it failed to be recognized as such by this government in the throne speech. We didn't hear a thing.

Nanaimo, the south end of Nanaimo. Part of the coal-mining history is the Colliery dams, which create this wonderful little park — two little lakes where people fish and swim, walk their dogs in the park along its many trails. Since the dam safety authority has come to town, we've been told that they have to be dismantled or reinforced. Dismantling will cost $7 million. The people who would be inundated by any flood from these dams — since we're having to plan for a one-in-10,000-year event now — are crying out to the government to hear their plea to save their park.

Saving the park would probably cost less than dismantling the dams, yet the government didn't mention anything about historical preservation. It didn't mention anything about the parks. It didn't mention anything about my community and its concerns around the Colliery Dam Park.

B.C. and its people, its resources demand care and stewardship that is considerate, that is conscious, that is responsive, and none of that was offered by the throne speech.

The throne speech was essentially a resignation to today's problems. It was essentially saying, "Forget about what's happening now. Look at what might happen in the future. Aren't we wonderful? We're giving up on the forest industry. We're giving up on the people and training. We're giving up on today, but we're making some pretty big trillion-dollar promises on tomorrow" — a 20- and 30-year tomorrow.

That is a failure of vision that is unfortunate in the extreme.

Our environment. The throne speech speaks of natural gas without addressing the environmental issues of water protection around the fracking process. How can British Columbians have a conversation about liquid natural gas and the development of that industry without also having a conversation about the environment?

This side of the House is proposing a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process that will protect the interests of British Columbians and their environment. That side of the House wants to talk about future promises — $100 billion revenue to government, a $1 trillion industry — without talking about the environment.

We can't discuss forestry or mining or development of any kind without discussing the environment. It was mentioned twice. I think it was deserving of one sentence in the throne speech — one sentence. So it is a failure.

Another failure. More people rallied to save the film and television industry in Vancouver recently than actually work in it directly, yet the throne speech didn't mention it. It seems impossible.

One hope, one plan — only LNG, and even that was done poorly. No talk about the power that will be required. No talk about the environmental impact — not even mentioned in the throne speech.

When our communities on Vancouver Island see more than 40 percent of their timber harvested being exported in raw log form…. There was not a mention of the timber export review committee or the exceptions that have been allowed to occur and increase the export of raw logs, overruling that committee. None of that was mentioned — not forestry, not education, not tourism.

[1555]

B.C. deserves a bigger, broader, more comprehensive vision, and we on this side of the House will make positive proposals around a vision for the future immediate — banning partisan ads, bringing in a seniors advocate. We
[ Page 12806 ]
will agree when the steps of this government are positive.

People in British Columbia and in my constituency are worried that their children will inherit less than they did in terms of opportunities. I think that's a tragedy. The throne speech has ignored their concerns.

The throne speech did not speak to the priorities of British Columbians. British Columbia deserves better.

Hon. M. Polak: Earlier today we witnessed a very historic occasion in this chamber. The legislation to ratify the Tla'amin final agreement was tabled in this House, and we saw the rare event where Chief Clint Williams from the Tla'amin people came to the Bar and spoke to this chamber.

I was particularly gratified to see the conclusion of that work that has gone on these many years because of previous involvement that I had had in working with the Tla'amin people as a former minister. I certainly congratulate the current minister and previous ministers responsible. It's been a long time.

But it struck me that on a day when we are debating the throne speech, we really are talking about a vision. Isn't it coincidental, on that very day when we are debating a vision, that we have an emissary from another place in our province talking to us about the tremendous vision it took for the Tla'amin people to get to this final agreement?

It's a vision that began long before the treaty process, a vision that began at a time in the distant past when First Nations welcomed, for the most part, visitors to their shores, believing that at some point in the future we could all work together, live together, have prosperity together, share the wealth. That was the attitude of First Nations people when Europeans first arrived.

I wonder just how many ancestors dreamed, year over year, generation after generation, of a time when those hopes would be fulfilled. I wonder how many of them faced the regular opposition and skepticism from people in their community who said: "It will never happen. It can't be done."

I was there. I was present at some very, very difficult discussions within that community. They knew that in constructing this vision, they were doing something that would have a dramatic impact on their children, on their grandchildren, on generations to come. They knew that there was a choice in front of them.

Many people among the Tla'amin advocated for the status quo and were understandably nervous about the many changes that would come, the responsibilities that would now rest with a First Nation that had self-government. It's understandable that they would be frightened of that change, that they would be nervous about what it meant.

There were others who stood up courageously, who spoke, as Chief Williams did, about the opportunities that self-government could represent, the opportunities that a treaty and establishment of a nation outside of the Indian Act could mean. They motivated the youth. The youth captured the vision. We heard many of them speak at the event today.

All of those people had to believe, over generations and generations, in the treaty process. They had to believe for well over a decade, and I'm sure there were many times when they felt like losing heart. I know there were. I was present at some of those discussions.

[1600]

But at the end of the day, they captured that vision. The fact is that they reached out. They grasped it, in spite of fears. They took heart. They took courage. They saw what they could do. They captured it, and they were here today. I look forward to the chance we will have to support the treaty going forward.

That kind of fear of change or uncertainty as to whether we can accomplish what we set out to accomplish is something we talk about a lot in this chamber. I was reflecting on some of the other big visionary goals that we have set for ourselves as a province and where we've ended up with them.

The Tla'amin treaty is a really good example of what happens when the goals of the new relationship start to bear fruit. When the new relationship was first talked about, it certainly met with tremendous skepticism — understandably from First Nations communities, maybe less so from those in this chamber who often mocked the idea that we could achieve anything with the new relationship.

"What's a new relationship, anyway? It's just words. It's just empty promises. Nothing's going to happen." It's a story we've heard repeated. Some of us might feel that we're hearing it repeated a little bit here today. Maybe it will be repeated in the coming days.

Madam Speaker, those who believed in that vision of a new relationship, First Nations and non-First Nations alike, persevered — persevered in spite of skepticism, persevered in spite of sometimes looking at a task that seemed far too daunting. When the Tsawwassen final agreement was ratified and was brought to this House — and ultimately, when they came to their implementation date and were able to tear up the Indian Act in their territory — we saw what happened when a new relationship was engaged.

We've seen it across the province in other areas too. We've seen non-treaty agreements that were the direct result of work done under the new relationship. We've seen non-treaty agreements flourish across this province — well over 100 in forestry, multiple more in other resource sectors — where First Nations are finally having a chance to grasp the economic benefit that comes from the land in their territory.

We're the first province in Canada to have mining revenue-sharing opportunities for First Nations. When I was minister, I had ministers from other provinces asking: "How on earth do you do this? Talk to us about it."
[ Page 12807 ]
All of these things were only imagined at the time the new relationship was announced.

Those who were critics said: "It's just words. It will never happen. Why are you talking about it? It's just an announcement, and it's empty."

Well, Madam Speaker, we can see from the results around this province for First Nations that those words were not empty. Sure, they were difficult. Sure, it was a goal and a vision that was challenging to reach. Sure, there were times when even those who supported that vision felt disheartened and discouraged. And we're not 100 percent of the way there yet.

If we hadn't started on a new path with First Nations many years ago, we wouldn't be in the place we are today. We wouldn't have Chief Williams standing at the Bar and telling us about this new nation, the Tla'amin Nation. That took vision beyond the immediate. It took vision that went out even beyond the time we're in now and imagined what we could achieve, maybe even in the next ten to 15 years — how many more treaties, how many more First Nations active in their economy.

There was another big vision that I can recall that met with, from time to time, derision in this House, maybe some little mocking comments — certainly, opposition for integral parts of it. That was the announcement of our focus on the Asia-Pacific gateway. There were numerous opportunities for the opposition to support that vision, numerous opportunities when the opposition instead took positions opposed to free trade, took positions opposed to the Port Mann Bridge, took opposition to the South Fraser perimeter road. On and on it goes.

[1605]

At the time, when the government of the day announced that it was our intention to move away from reliance on trade with the U.S., to move to a place where we diversified our economy, diversified the partners with whom we're trading, it was scoffed at. "It's words. It's an announcement." Every once in a while they'd get tired of hearing Pacific gateway. Eyes would roll. But look what we've accomplished.

In 2001 British Columbia's trade with the United States was at 70 percent. Seventy percent of British Columbia's trade was with the United States in 2001. At that time, no one imagined that we could actually get this far in such a short time. Today our trade with the U.S. is roughly equivalent to that of our trade with all of Asia at about 43, 44 percent. It's not just China. Our trade now with China and Japan is roughly equivalent. We are the province in Canada that is now least reliant on the United States for trade.

Now, at the time when the Pacific gateway focus was announced, there was skepticism — plenty of it. There were many people who scoffed and said: "Ah, that's that Premier's crazy idea. It'll never happen. It's just words. What are you thinking of?"

I'll tell you what we were thinking of, and it's things that we've delivered on. Since 2001, $11 billion in highway improvements across British Columbia. The Pacific Gateway Alliance, the partnership between government and industry — again, a unique vision, a unique idea that people scoffed at — resulted in commitments of $22 billion to expand port, railroads and airport facilities all around this province.

As we've renewed that vision for the Pacific gateway strategy, that strategy for 2012 to 2020 outlines more than $25 billion in new investments to address transportation strategy constraints that we feel right now because trade is increasing. Trade is increasing, and we actually need the infrastructure that — guess what — we talked about when we envisioned the Pacific gateway.

If we hadn't taken that focus and that vision early on, we would still now be talking about how reliant we are on U.S. trade. We would still now be wringing our hands and saying: "How do we get out of this mess? The U.S. housing market is still down. They're not recovering the same way."

Sure, it still has its impacts on us, but can you imagine what those impacts would have been like had we still been at a place where 70 percent of our trade was with the U.S.? Thank goodness. Thank goodness we came to a place where we said: "There's a new vision that we need to embrace." In spite of the fact that those on the opposite side don't understand it, don't accept it, don't support it, we know that it means the future for British Columbia. We embraced it, we invested in it, and we are succeeding with it.

We're seeing our trade in new areas increase with Asia. Agrifoods, which is a popular subject amongst members on the opposite side, is an area where, if we hadn't invested so heavily in the Pacific gateway, you wouldn't be seeing the advancements in trade in agrifoods with Asia — many, many more opportunities.

But the crux of it is that it didn't happen in 2013 because it was dreamed up in 2012. It happened in 2013 because, years before, a vision was put in place that said: "That's where we want to get to, and now we are going to put our focus on getting there."

The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan has outlined many, many challenges that we're all aware of. While we might disagree with respect to the ways in which we approach some of those challenges in society — be it poverty, be it child welfare concerns, be it the need for supports in rural communities, hospital services, education — nevertheless, they are things that all of us value.

They're things that all British Columbians feel concerned about and want to see supported. They are challenges, to be sure. They're certainly challenges in an environment where you have shrinking economies.

[1610]

When you look around the world at what is happening in Europe, at what is happening in places where they are struggling — through austerity measures, through
[ Page 12808 ]
stimulus mechanisms — they're struggling because they want to support the very services they find important.

The downturn has hit the world. British Columbia hasn't escaped entirely, although I think the figures show that we've done better than most other places. Nevertheless, challenging times to support those services, to try and do more and more things.

In fact, I thought the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan had…. Well, I was trying to take down a list of some of the things he said we should be mentioning in the throne speech, which we should be doing something about, but the list was very, very long.

Probably, most of us are like that. If we had to sit down and say, "Well, what would our perfect province be and what would all the services be that we'd want to contribute to?" the list would be very long. We all want to see very good services for our communities, our people, our relatives, our families, our friends. It's natural that the list would be very long.

Here is where we diverge in terms of meeting that challenge. While the member decried the fact that there was no mention of these things in the throne speech and how we were going to address them, what I would say is that that's what the liquefied natural gas opportunity is all about.

In fact, there is one clear truth that I think we have to recognize if we are going to build a successful vision for the next ten years, 20 years, 30 years. It is that all of those things we want to do — investing in education, investing in housing, investing in health care, investing in social services — take money. They take money.

How do you get money if you're in government? Well, you could raise taxes. Governments do that. Or you can grow the economy. You can grow revenues.

But whatever way you decide to do it…. You can have the absolute best of intentions. You can have the best laundry list of things that you want to do as a government. You can believe them, and you can be sincere that you want to achieve them. If you don't have the revenues to spend to support them, it's not going to happen.

When we look at the opportunity that liquefied natural gas presents, it bears some similarities to the treaty idea and the new relationship. It bears some similarities to the vision that we put in place around the Pacific gateway. It bears similarities, in that those things involved choices that people had to make at the beginning to travel down a certain path and arrive at the goal, at the outcome.

The choice has to be made at the beginning. There's a fork in the road. Which direction do you choose?

We can certainly, as British Columbians, decide which path we want to take. Status quo is always an option. Status quo was an option for the Tla'amin. Status quo was an option for British Columbia when the opportunities in the Pacific gateway were there. Status quo is an option in terms of liquefied natural gas.

I would point out that when you choose the status quo, there are consequences that flow from that. If the Tla'amin had chosen the status quo, well, I suppose not much would change in the community.

The young infant who was at the ceremony today would grow up continuing to be a ward of the federal government under the Indian Act, would continue to be challenged by the lack of empowerment in her community, likely, the statistics tell us, suffering from all the same kinds of social ills that challenge First Nations around our country, let alone our province. They could have chosen the status quo.

When it came time to think about the Pacific gateway and trade with Asia and how we might build that capacity, we could have chosen the status quo.

We could have decided to leave 13, 14 hours a day of congestion at the Port Mann Bridge. We could have decided to leave a completely unworkable truck-car commuter route from Deltaport and through the Lower Mainland instead of having the South Fraser perimeter road. By the way, if we had chosen that, we'd also choose not to improve Burns Bog, not to improve its drainage.

[1615]

We could have chosen not to proceed with the work that's happened already in four-laning Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border. Already the investment between the federal and the provincial government in the projects that have already been completed along that corridor total $700 million. We've just announced that we are now going to complete that, and we have $650 million, for our part, over the next ten years.

We've begun the consultation, and we've begun, with the community, developing the plans on the next phase of that four-laning.

But you could choose the status quo if you wanted to. The problem is that it has consequences.

When we look at the potential for liquefied natural gas in the province of British Columbia and we consider what our possible futures might be, I think of the change that has taken place for the Haisla First Nation in Kitimat. Here's where maybe all of these things come together — certainly the new relationship on the part of the province of British Columbia and the efforts we've made there; new relationship, really, on the part of the Haisla, who over time have developed very clearly a vision for themselves around their own economic development and prosperity.

Certainly, it brings together the ideas of the Pacific gateway and the opportunities that have been created because we have invigorated that trade with Asia, those trading relationships. Now here is a First Nation in Kitimat that is at the heart of the development of the liquefied natural gas opportunity.

I say to the members opposite, the ones who have expressed doubt as to whether we'll even see one liquefied natural gas plant…. I would say to them that if that's what you believe, if you doubt that we're going to get even one,
[ Page 12809 ]
you have not met Chief Councillor Ellis Ross from the Haisla First Nation. You have not sat down with his team and understood the vision that they had and understood the very professional negotiations that they have been engaged in with their counterparts in the industry.

We've seen success not only in their ability to put together negotiations with the government, with the federal government, so that they have plans set aside, but we've also seen success more broadly as we've worked through the issues surrounding the Pacific Trail pipeline — again, another initiative that had to be conceived of years ago, before we were here talking about a liquefied natural gas plant. Yet if it hadn't been, some of those options, those choices, wouldn't be here in front of us today.

It's a pipeline that is not being protested widely, a pipeline that has the support of 16 out of the 17 First Nations on its route. They're in partnership on it — a really good example of the right way to work with communities. And the leadership of those in the Haisla First Nation was critical to achieving that goal.

Where did it come from? It came from those pieces of vision years before that if you stood in the House and said: "I'm going to have this vision about a new relationship, and ultimately, years and years past, it's going to result in our ability to have this huge economic opportunity for the province in concert and in partnership with a First Nation in Kitimat…." Well, that would have drawn skepticism.

The fact is that it's happened. It's here on our doorstep. It's about to take place.

When I hear the skepticism from the other side, I find myself thinking: "Well, I've heard it all before." The hopeful part of this is that they may — I always have hope — come to see that the very things they value and support, the very things they want to invest in…. I'm quite sure that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan will not be the last member opposite to get up and tell us about all of the important things that we ought be investing in.

[1620]

They might even — although this one I'm a little more skeptical about — tell us all of the wonderful things that they would invest in if they got into government. They might do that.

Regardless, it still brings us back to the choice we have to make. Are we going to be courageous? Are we going to reject the status quo, believe that we can achieve something different and start to make the decisions now that will get us to that ultimate goal? Is that what we're going to do? We have choices to make in front of us. They have consequences. The status quo is an option, but it itself has consequences.

When I think about the opportunities we have with liquefied natural gas and, indeed, throughout the resource sector as we grow our trade with Asia, as we grow our infrastructure that helps us to get our goods to market and helps us to connect…. It is amazing to imagine that there are future opportunities like what we're seeing now with Haisla and LNG. There are future opportunities we can't even imagine right now.

There are some things we can look at and say: "Well, here are some projections on what kind of revenue might be generated. Here are projections as to what incredible things we could do with a prosperity fund." Lots of us can have dreams as to what we might want to do with that.

But I'm quite confident that just as we could not predict all of the tremendous successes that have come as a result of the vision of the new relationship, and just as we could not predict all the positive outcomes that have resulted from the vision of the Asia-Pacific gateway, so too when we think about liquefied natural gas, we're only seeing a fraction of the incredible opportunities that this can open up.

When we look at the kinds of things that we could invest in…. When I travel around the province as Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, previously as Minister of Aboriginal Relations, you see the potential in communities. You see the potential in young people. You see this hunger to develop something more, to do something more. Throughout British Columbia we see that.

Yet when vision is brought here for debate, when vision is brought here to discuss, when vision is laid out before us, invariably, it's met with the same reaction: "Why are you talking about something that is so many years away?"

Well, let me address that briefly. For anyone who has observed the construction of some of the major pieces of infrastructure that have taken place in the last number of years, they will know this. While we might not see the government revenues for a number of years out, the work, the jobs, the employment start right away. The preparations get people working. The construction gets people working. Port Mann Bridge — 8,000 jobs.

We do have choices in front of us. I, for one, look at the throne speech and what was presented and I support it, because I don't want to see us remain in the status quo, and because I believe in the success of visions we've put forward before. I've seen the outcomes. We all have.

So, Madam Speaker, as we consider our support for the throne speech, I tell you that I support it, and I hope everyone in this House will have the courage to imagine what the future can be like for our province.

S. Hammell: It's an honour to be standing in this House again to represent the people of Surrey–Green Timbers. It's always a thrill to think that you're here on behalf of a great deal of people who at some point in time went out of their way to vote on who would represent them and bring their voice into this amazing chamber.

[1625]

I have a very unusual constituency, I think. It's largely residential, and I think most constituencies have a little bit more mix than mine does. It's probably one of the smallest constituencies in the province. Unlike some of my colleagues from the north, I could walk around it in
[ Page 12810 ]
probably half a day, but that is a far cry from some other places I have had described to me over the years.

My constituency is also amazingly multicultural. It has residents and families there from every corner of the globe, and they live together. They have all come to British Columbia and to Canada from some immigrant base, either recently or many years back.

Everyone who comes, usually…. Most people have a story on how they got to this place in time, and most of the time, if you scratch it deep enough, the families in our province, and particularly in Surrey–Green Timbers, chose to come to British Columbia as a place where their families can learn and grow. Basically, if you scratch it deep enough, it's for better economic opportunity for their family and their kids.

That's what we do here. We help to hold that economic future in our hands and ensure that there is opportunity for the people throughout the province. In particular, I worry about the people from Surrey–Green Timbers.

My constituency is largely residential. It has a few neighbourhood shopping points, but it does have two main features from the city of Surrey: two large, beautiful parks. One of them is Bear Creek Park, and that is a park that is used constantly. Another park is Green Timbers park. They're like chalk and cheese; they're very, very different. One is an urban forest — largely untouched, not totally — and the other is a very well-used, urban aboriginal park. On the edge of it is the Surrey Arts Centre. That arts centre has been there for a long time and is a very, very fine auditorium, a first-class arts centre.

If you're largely residential, probably your main feature is your schools. I have schools by the dozens. I have many, many elementary schools as well as a number of high schools. As most people would know, Surrey is a fast-growing city, but it also has one of the highest per capita of children in the province. Therefore, schools are a main feature, particularly in my constituency.

I take absolute delight in going to the schools, particularly the grade 5 and the grade 10 classrooms, where I talk about government. I just am overjoyed when I talk to the kids about the amazing place that I work in. I tell them I work in a castle, and it has stained glass windows, including a dungeon with a safe down there, as well as a jail.

We talk about what I do, and I explain to them how you get here and how important it is that they pay attention to the people that represent them and represent their families. Always, of course, especially in grade 5, I elicit a promise that when they're 18, they'll get out and vote and take part in the political process.

So my constituency is very much like this province in the sense that it's multicultural, it's got a wonderful environment, and the people are the key. The people are our future. These young kids that I go see are the future, and they will be the ones that are there when we're getting on, and they're going to support us in their endeavours.

[1630]

While I'm talking about the people — and I've mentioned schools and the fact that I go to them quite frequently — I do want to mention, too, the many amazing people that work in the school system in my constituency. There's one principal who is one of 51 principals across this country, who was selected as one of the top educators in the country. I mean, that is an amazing accomplishment. He was nominated by his staff. He was given the award as one of Canada's outstanding principals and is going to Toronto to receive that honour.

Raminder Randhawa is his name. He has said in his acceptance, in his interview: "You know, schools are places where teams of teachers and educators work very hard to help kids learn, help them make it in life, and I'm just sort of a cheerleader in the back who supports the teams of educators." That has got to be an amazing statement on what an excellent principal would be. I'm very pleased to have such an amazing person working in one of the schools in my constituency.

There's one other I'd like to mention. I think this person is also well worth talking about for just a moment. He is at Senator Reid, and he is a principal who has moved a program called 3 Things into his school. At the school their focus with the kids is on doing three things that are good in terms of the community. They could do something good for their family, something good for their school, something good for their community. All they have to do once they're done is tell the principal or some adult. After their three things are done, they get a T-shirt and are in that club or that group that does things on behalf of their community.

It seems simple. Sometimes I think we in Houses like this overthink some problems. What has happened is that because the kids are engaged and are rewarded and the focus is on something you are doing well, what reduces immediately is negative behaviour. It's just shifting the focus. It's shifting the focus to behaviour you want versus behaviour you don't want. Sometimes, as amazing as it seems, when you even acknowledge negative behaviour, you're drawing attention to it and you're giving the student the reward they want.

So 3 Things actually came out of Calgary, from Mayor Nenshi, and has been duplicated in this school. I just have to note the comment, and I spoke to the principal…. Last year they had 480 referrals to the principal, and after this program was well entrenched, this year they've had three. So that again is really all about focusing on the behaviour that people want to reward and making sure that that behaviour is valued and is what is rewarded.

There are other amazing schools and amazing principals, but I have just popped up two that I have particularly paid attention to. There's Kirkbride, an amazing school there. There's Betty Huff and a number of other schools that I think are just absolutely amazing in this very residential constituency that I am so privileged to represent.
[ Page 12811 ]

On to the thrust of this moment in the legislative calendar. We gathered on Tuesday to hear the throne speech. That is the plan that the government, I would assume, wants to take into the election that'll be called in a number of months, a throne speech that reflects two years of work by this Premier and her advisers.

[1635]

Now, not a lot of the work has been done in this House because we've not spent a lot of time here since the Premier was elected. Regardless of that, people expected that the throne speech would spell out where this government hopes to take the province in the next four years. Sadly, this throne speech did fall short of those expectations.

I will admit that we, as the official opposition, could be expected to sort of render a critical verdict on the government's throne speech. But this speech was so devoid of vision and content that we in the official opposition had to line up with many others to criticize it. Even before we got our first response out, the Twitter world, the Internet and other forms of social and instant communication were full of people, many of whom had been friendly to this government, proclaiming the speech from the throne is a failure.

There is plenty of talk in this throne speech about what will happen five, ten, 20, 30 years out. Clearly, they consulted a crystal ball of some kind, based on the idea that a single bet will pay off — a bet on liquefied natural gas. Based purely on the idea that this bet will pay off, the throne speech then lays out a fantastic program where money is going to come and pay for all kinds of bits and piece that normally would be covered under general revenue.

So we will have a fund called the prosperity fund, we will renew services, we will get rid of the sales tax, we'll retire the debt, and we'll build new infrastructure. None of that is within the next four years, even though, normally, a throne speech would describe the next four years in terms of its vision.

While I'm sure that every member of this House would agree that we need to look long term as well as short term, the throne speech shows that this government is embarking on a political equivalent of staking your children's education and your own retirement on winning the lottery.

One of my constituents said to me that this is a get-rich-quick scheme. All of us have toyed with that idea, but most of us have put it away and realized reality is much more of a hard grind and a more thoughtful and diverse set of activities than just winning the lottery one time. Based on long-term plans on resource revenues, it's at best — at absolute best — a hazardous enterprise.

The government has announced that it plans to improve services, get rid of the sales tax and create a prosperity fund — all by taxing natural gas revenues. The price for natural gas resources — and all resources, in fact — go up and down, as we have learned many times over the past years.

This government is talking about getting rid of a sales tax at the same time that Alberta, the only province without a sales tax, is under greater pressure than ever to bring one in.

Moreover, this government is well known for keeping taxes low for its friends in the corporate world. Why would it change its spots now and put an export tax onto a revenue stream that isn't even going to be here for the next four, five, six, seven years?

When even Alberta is having trouble making ends meet, this government is talking about balancing budgets today and creating windfalls in the distant future. British Columbians have endured five hard years of recession, and that has meant reduced opportunities, fewer jobs, higher fees and diminished levels of service from this government.

While this recession has its roots in worldwide problems, this government has tried to convince British Columbians that it can steer this province unscathed through these economic storms. We all know better than that. Every single person in British Columbia has felt the pinch. At least, I can speak on behalf of my constituents. They tell me time and again that their most important consideration is how to get through the next month or the next two weeks or the next year, and they are always worried about their future.

[1640]

Four years ago, on the eve of an election very similar to now, the B.C. Liberal government tabled a budget that promised — and I remember this so clearly — a deficit of $495 million.

Interjections.

S. Hammell: Like it was only yesterday, right?

Snap back a year; we're in the same position. We've got a throne speech. In a week we've got a budget being presented. And only $495 million one year in time ballooned to over $3 billion in red ink and gave birth to the HST, the hated HST that they promised they would not bring in. Immediately after the election in came the harmonized sales tax.

In a few weeks all our people and our businesses will have to redo and retool to go back to the PST because over that period of time they signalled loud and clear that they do not want the HST. Through a tortuous path, first through a referendum and then through a vote, they have rejected the notion of the HST, and they want the PST back.

Now as rumours say, or as the government has foreshadowed, this throne speech promises a balanced budget in the upcoming year. British Columbians know better than to believe such a pledge from a government that regularly promises to balance budgets but fails to deliver more often than it succeeds.
[ Page 12812 ]

As the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, I don't have to look very far to see the emptiness of the government's rhetoric. From a government that likes to talk about a long-term vision, part of its plans to balance the budget involved the most shortsighted plan possible, and that's a fire sale of more than 100 public assets.

The centrepiece of this government's fire sale hits close to home for me. It's a single parcel of land strategically located near the geographic centre of the city of Surrey. This 13-acre parcel is located close to central traffic routes and the central public transit routes as well. The Minister of Health hoped to use it either for a hospital in the future or for a campus of care or some kind of a facility that would support the growing needs of health care. I remember when the property was bought, so I'm very clear about the purpose of the purchase.

The population of Surrey is growing by 10,000 people a year. The value of that land has grown, so the government, in its desperate attempt to balance the budget, will sell this land and — you guessed it — try to balance the budget with a one-time sale of a public asset. The people of Surrey will have to make do with the expansion underway at Surrey Memorial, with no outlet in the future for the kind of growth that the city of Surrey is experiencing.

It does not make sense at any level to have a city that is so big, with the population that is moving into it, sell a strategically placed piece of public property that would serve the citizens of the future. Under no circumstances does that make any sense.

What is absolutely distressing is that the amount of money spent on this partisan ad program that the government is running would be about equivalent to what the government would receive from the sale of that land. In essence, you sell the piece of land, you sell the future of public land in the city of Surrey, and you pay for partisan advertising just prior to an election.

Hon. Speaker, I don't think that sells in anybody's house. It's just not an appropriate way to use the public trust or spend the public money, either in the advertising or the selling of the property. I don't think anyone in Surrey would say there's no chance that we would ever use that property for public good.

[1645]

Once you sell it, it's gone. And if you have to replace it, you pay. It is just unbelievable that that is what's going on here. You sell a piece of property. You use the money. You spend it on advertising. The two are about equivalent.

One of the advertisings in these paid political broadcasts is the promises of skills training and apprenticeship programs. Yet this government, when the Premier was Deputy Premier, made major cuts to apprenticeship programs, and the cutbacks to universities, colleges and students have continued since then. Recently the leaders of the post-secondary institutions warned the government that much-needed money is needed to prevent a gap between the skills needed in the economy and the training available to narrow that gap.

Tuition fees have doubled under this government, and the B.C. students suffer the highest debt loads this side of the Maritimes. The promises for more apprenticeships in those television ads and this throne speech involve commitments that have already been made but not met. The modest commitments do not make up for the damage this government has done to skills training.

On this side our leader has promised to reinstate needs-based grants for post-secondary students. We propose that the non-repayable grants which were eliminated by the B.C. government in its first term be financed through reinstating a minimum tax on financial institutes. We have a real plan for change based on real sources of revenue, unlike what we saw in the throne speech.

When I was listening to the throne speech, I was hoping that it would include action on women's issues. A year ago this government announced the domestic violence action plan, and consultations began. There was nothing in the throne speech and no indication that there will be any support forthcoming to make this action plan anything more than another empty promise. There was nothing in this throne speech to indicate that this government will back up on its commitment to deal with what has become known as the Highway of Tears.

The throne speech was also vague on one of the biggest issues facing B.C. families, and that's child care. For 12 years we have heard plenty of talk from this Liberal government about making child care affordable, and when the government took action on child care, it made child care more expensive than ever. Eleven years ago this government took $40 million away from child care and never restored it. Then in 2006 the Conservative government in Ottawa cancelled federal transfers for child care, and the government responded by passing those cuts along to families and service providers. It was the only government in Canada to do so.

In spite of the carefully crafted language in the Speech from the Throne, the province still has the highest poverty rate in Canada and the second-highest child poverty rate. The first five years of this government caused a disastrous increase in child poverty, and we are still recovering from the calamitous policies from a decade ago. There is no plan contained in this speech to combat poverty and not even the smallest commitment to reduce it.

What about the world we leave our children? This government has supported many resource extraction projects and remained silent on the Enbridge pipeline proposal until it became impossible to see that British Columbians reject this dangerous proposal.

Meanwhile, the government has stood silently as the Conservative government in Ottawa has gutted the environmental legislation and other protections. Three years ago the B.C. Liberal government signed over environmental decision-making power to Ottawa. Our
[ Page 12813 ]
decision-making power is passed on. A government formed by members from this side will rescind that disgraceful agreement and restore environmental decisions in this province to British Columbians.

The throne speech contains only platitudes on the environment. British Columbians want real protection for our coasts, our forests, our mountains and our wildlife.

[1650]

As many independent observers have already said, there is virtually nothing in this throne speech for British Columbians. Listening to the throne speech reminds me of an old song that says: "Is that all there is?"

We have been waiting two years since the new Premier took office, supposedly with new ideas. We have also been waiting for 8½ months since the Legislature last met. We expected this Premier and this government to come up with a plan. Instead we got an elaborate fantasy in the throne speech. So I ask about the throne speech: is that all there is to the Liberal government? Is that all there is? Is that it?

We are faced with a government that just wants to keep on dancing because the government is out of ideas and out of a vision. They have no ideas for the next four years and only one idea for the years beyond them. We, the people of British Columbia, have grown tired of the same old dance from the members opposite.

Soon they will have a chance to render judgment on this throne speech and this government. Under the leadership of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the members of the opposition have offered a new vision and new ideas that will stand in stark contrast to the empty fantasies laid out in this throne speech. We are confident that British Columbians will opt for new leadership, a new government and new vision.

K. Krueger: Listening to that last set of remarks, it's hard to grasp that anyone could have such a negative view about the good things that are happening in British Columbia.

We are world leaders. We have a robust economy. We have job creation at phenomenal levels. British Columbia had never had two million people drawing paycheques ever until this government was elected in 2001. We have been growing employment ever since. Now we're hundreds of thousands past that benchmark and growing all the time.

This throne speech is full of hope — not false hope, genuine hope — of even better things to come. British Columbia is doing very well. The world is very troubled. Economies around the world, old economies in Europe that used to be leaders are struggling not to dissolve into bankruptcy, and here we have a totally different picture.

Isn't it wonderful that we have a Lieutenant-Governor who is a cattle rancher, a leading figure in the cattle industry? We're so proud of her and the job that she's doing, the tough circumstances that she has overcome.

I first met her shortly after I moved to Kamloops. I took my children out to see the calving on the ranch. She and her husband were doing some really remarkable things. They were feeding Hawaiian cattle. They'd bring them over to their ranch, and they'd fatten 1,000 cattle up at a time and then send them back to the market in Hawaii. All sorts of innovative things — making deals with Ducks Unlimited, turning some of their prime pasture land back to wetlands with Ducks Unlimited. Sadly, Laurie died in a motorcycle accident not long after that.

Our Lieutenant-Governor has soldiered on, and there's a tremendous success story there. It was great to see her read her first throne speech in this wonderful position that she holds.

We do have one of the two leading economies in Canada, and Canada is leading the world. We have so much to celebrate and to be thankful for. The prosperity fund that this government is establishing in advance of this huge ramp-up in our energy industry…. Liquefied natural gas, a trillion-dollar opportunity for British Columbia, stretching over the next generation — really good times for us and for our children and grandchildren.

[1655]

I have seven grandchildren, and they are the delight of my life. My wife and I, in another eight days, will have been married for 38 years, and grandchildren are some of the most wonderful things that have ever happened to us.

We have a six-year-old grandson named Austin. The other day he said: "Grandma is a bit of a rascal, and I like that about her." He says that because she teases him all the time, and he's a tease himself. Great joy to us, and it's wonderful to know that they're growing up in a province where there are limitless opportunities.

So many things are so much better in British Columbia now than they were before 2001. I had five unhappy years in opposition to an NDP government, from '96 to 2001, and I would have constituents come into my office in tears. They were people in their 50s and 60s, trying to look after aging parents in their homes when dementia had set in and the seniors were really hard to look after and manage. They just couldn't get them into extended care facilities because there weren't enough.

There were only two old facilities in Kamloops, and not a single new bed was built in the whole decade of the 1990s. People had to try and care for their aging seniors in their own homes, and it was aging those people themselves — the burdens of trying to do that when people really ought to be in an extended care facility.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson — the Minister of Environment — and I met with the leading doctors in Kamloops recently. They wanted to update us on how things are going at Royal Inland Hospital. They said to us: "We no longer have seniors occupying acute care beds. Your government has caught up." We built new facilities all over Kamloops, up and down the Thompson valleys, and they no longer have that situation where they
[ Page 12814 ]
have to keep people in the acute care hospital because they can't place them in a more suitable facility.

Seniors are way better off in these modern extended care facilities than being stuck in an acute care bed in a busy acute care hospital. That is such a milestone to have reached, where the doctors can actually say: "We have no such situations anymore at Royal Inland" — a real credit to this government, to our leadership, our present Premier and our former Premier and the cabinet. People have worked very hard, and we're doing tremendously well.

I'm proud of that, and I'm proud of our economy and the ties that we have to Asia. The Lieutenant-Governor spoke of, I believe, a 500 percent increase in trade with China since 2001, a 60 percent increase in trade with India just in the last year. None of that happened by accident. The Minister of Jobs and his predecessors in similar roles have worked very hard to build that friendship with China, build trade with China, and now we sell more B.C. lumber into China than we do to the U.S.A., and we probably always will.

We have developed wonderful trading relationships, and more to follow. We are blessed with tremendous resource wealth in British Columbia, and it's great to see those markets being opened up for it.

Think about $1 trillion, Madam Speaker. That's almost an incomprehensible amount of money. That's going to be new money in our economy with this LNG industry.

I have been here for almost 17 years now, and I'm not running in the spring election. I want to pay credit to some of the people that I've worked with, the staff we have in these buildings, both sides of the House, inspirational young people. I wanted to mention some of them.

Kiersten Fisher, who was Kiersten Kirkpatrick, was my executive assistant for some years. Joanna Ellis, who became Joanna Richards — another wonderful person I've worked with here. Lindsay Coburn, Frank Costa, Christie Pruden, Tanya Kaul — wonderful young people that it's been a real privilege to work with here. The Clerks of the Legislature as well. We have such fine people working in these buildings.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Of course, things are a lot more collegial between us and the opposition than we let on. I know there's a tremendous amount of caring on both sides of the House when any member is ill or has problems. You see a lot of collegiality that people wouldn't know exists by the way we carry on in our debate sometimes.

[1700]

It's a beautiful place to work. This is a beautiful room, and we've got a lot done together. I think we can all be proud of that.

The throne speech talks about being at a crossroads. I think we've crossed a threshold. We're already into the ramping up of this economy. We have hundreds of thousands of people to train for the jobs that are being created. We know there will be a million jobs coming vacant in the existing workforce over the next ten years, and we're working hard at our post-secondary institutions to make sure we're providing the right type of education to people to fill all of those jobs that are coming up for us.

When I hear discouraging remarks like those that immediately preceded mine, I feel sad about it, because I think that MLAs have a responsibility to build optimism. We have lots of reasons to be optimistic.

We have a new mine in Kamloops. Everybody thought it was a just brown site. It was a mined-out pit. But a man of vision came to see me one day in my constituency office. He was convinced that although Teck Corp. knew it left some good ore…. It was right at the point of the pit, and they'd have to expand the whole pit to get down to it. They didn't think it was enough to go after. But he had a theory, and he turned out to be right. There's tremendous wealth down there.

Now it's an underground mine, and the company employs 400 people at that site. More than 100 of them are First Nations people. They're hiring people who have had nothing to do with mining, training them from the word go, and those people are making tremendous, family-supporting livings at what was thought to be a worthless brown site.

Over 100 First Nations people are working there. The company had committed that they would try to have 23 percent of their workforce First Nations, and they're doing substantially better than that.

Everywhere you look in Kamloops there are new jobs. The place hasn't really felt like a recession happened there at all. Thompson Rivers University has become an economic powerhouse for our region. Telus is building a data-processing centre, $30 million construction and a whole lot more new jobs. Good things are happening in Kamloops and the Thompson valleys and all over British Columbia, and none of it happened by accident. It's because of good leadership.

I think our Premier is doing a stellar job. She is a woman of such energy and talent, constantly working, very disciplined in making sure that cabinet ministers all manage their own portfolios. They are expected to perform, and they do perform. There's none of this jumping in and making their decisions for them. She's showing tremendous leadership, and we've got a very, very strong team in government.

We're looking forward to the election. We have dozens of new candidates, really bright, terrific people that will have their names on the ballots, and we are looking forward to seeing them elected.

I'm thrilled that Site C looks like it'll be going ahead. I've looked forward to that ever since I was a kid. I grew up on a homestead north of Fort St. John. I thought we should have done Site C a long time ago. I hope that very
[ Page 12815 ]
soon it's under construction.

It's been my privilege, for years now, to work with the Small Business Roundtable here in British Columbia. I have a co-chair, Cybele Negris, a terrific person. She was just awarded the designation of being one of Canada's 100 most powerful women. She's just a great person to work with. The representatives of small business on that roundtable — it's just very uplifting to work with them.

We have 1.05 million British Columbians working for small businesses and over 400,000 businesses. In many of those, the owners are looking to sell, to perhaps move into retirement years — a tremendous opportunity for young British Columbians there as well.

I'm thrilled with this throne speech, thrilled with the directions that our Premier and our government are taking. I congratulate all of these involved in crafting these plans.

[1705]

I look forward very much to seeing where my seven grandchildren are going to go, given the land of opportunity that they are privileged to live in.

I'll conclude my remarks. It's good to be with all of you, and congratulations to our government on this throne speech.

G. Gentner: Madam Speaker, Members, happy Valentine's Day. There's a lot of love here, and I can really feel it. I'm feeling more love every day as I get close to the demise of my time here in the Legislature. We can nurture it and make an offering to it and stay positive with our politics on the eve of an upcoming election.

Now I must rise and talk about the throne speech, knowing that it will be my last, and this may be my last time addressing the Chair in this incredible chamber of parliamentary ambience and decor. It is what is said, debated and legislated in here that is the substance of the place.

I'll talk to the throne speech shortly — what is in it and what is missing — but before I do that, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides for the entertaining value brought forward. It has been such an incredible learning process, and I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the incredible support and advice I received from the Clerk's office over the years.

There are many good orators in this House, and I'm going to centre on just two very, very good ones, from both sides, that have impressed me over the years. On this side there is no one better, sharper, with daunting eloquence than the member for Nanaimo. On the other side, I have been taken over the years by the astuteness and wit of the member for Shuswap. I have to give honourable mention, of course, to the member for North Coast, who gets my Churchillian award, who's not here right now.

In all my eight years I've never witnessed a worse throne speech. There's no theme here, just a regurgitation. Let's just call it a ragbag of stuff. This was supposed to be a moment of joy and optimism from the government. The throne speech is there to protect the blueprint. It is a blueprint, but I think it's short on a plan. For the upcoming year I think it's rudderless.

It begins: "We are living in a time of great change. The world is much different than it was even five years ago." Now, there's an understatement. Yes, we've had incredible change, and without question, change is in the wind. There are two aspects in the speech I wish to focus on: one, the part that deeply, deeply affects my constituency, and two, the part that was not discussed — the need, I believe, to seriously adopt a code of ethics, as Ontario is developing a commission of integrity.

The constant theme over the years from this government in B.C., I believe, has been exploitation in the name of profit. The marketplace rules without constraints, where human beings and the natural world are used and discarded in order to maximize profit. Unfettered corporatism has failed because it has impacted our families, communities, workers and ecosystems. Corporatism is an ideology that has a way in which we deal with one another and the world around us. It glorifies profit and wealth and destroys communities and the environment.

I'm not denying anyone from making a buck, but we have to reassess, analyze what we are doing in this province and where we are headed. It's as though we've had this notion that in the name of profit there is some kind of divine right to all resources, land, water and power. We have ravaged landscapes, and we will continue to consecrate incalculable human suffering, including upon those who are most vulnerable, many of whom are not even Canadian — temporary foreign workers, our own horrible version of slave labour within a free market.

In the ruthless hunt for profit, B.C. has become where everything and anyone, I believe, is expendable. Nothing seems sacred anymore. Pristine waterways are compromised — or in the making of oilfields, fracking for poisonous gases, damming all the rivers.

[1710]

Although some would say that B.C.'s resource opportunities are endless, I say there seems to be no bounds to greed. Are we headed for terrains of blasted moonscapes, damaged watersheds, massive extinction of species, poisoned water, soil and air?

Are we to continue to see the growing numbers of the mentally ill and those with substance issues wandering our cities and communities without any refuge of hope? Are we to bear witness to the working poor living paycheque to paycheque, while an enriched, tiny global elite has no real loyalty to this province? Or a shrinking middle class with falling wages, higher user fees and growing debt, unable to get the proper health care or educational needs of their families?

Our precious farmland is constantly under the scalpel of the developers and speculators, port authorities ready to carve it up like a butcher ready to hang meat for buyers
[ Page 12816 ]
who don't even live in this province.

There is no proof in the history of British Columbia that sacrificing everything in the name of the free market leads to social good or environmental stewardship.

The throne speech talks about massive change, and we've seen much of it in 12 years of B.C. Liberal administration. We look at the rhetoric, throne speech after throne speech, year after year for 12 years. There has been a constant theme that fits within the unchecked free market and how it affects British Columbians. It has been called deregulation.

Just when you think there's nothing left to deregulate after years of core reviews and ministries of deregulations, the Liberals have reinvented it. A quote from the throne speech: "Business needs regulation that works while not adding a huge burden. British Columbia has reduced regulatory requirements by 42 percent and is the only province to have a regulatory reform law." Yet we're constantly going for more. We're constantly going to continue to pare down the onion.

Regulations and laws are a huge burden, according to this government. Now, tell that to the species that have been expunged because of the removal of vigilant environmental assessment authority. We've seen what the paring down of conservation officers means. Removal of regulatory authority is not there for small businesses per se, but for large corporations to ram projects through without proper oversight.

We see in my community, North Delta, for example, the South Fraser perimeter road, Glenrose Cannery and the potential destruction of one of British Columbia's oldest archeological sites. The Ministry of Transportation thought it could avoid heritage scrutiny and build a freeway over an 8,000-year-old site. It was even protected. But in the end the public stood up, and the government had to build around the site, shifting the whole buildout and therefore costing considerable extra expense.

Is it an ethical predicament when a government that has environmental laws — and yet wants to eliminate big government and is afraid to spend money to police compliance — casts a blind eye on violations or through its belief system allows corporations to do what it thinks is right?

Now, there are many examples of that. Recently, only two weeks ago, Larry Pynn wrote a story.

"The independent run-of-river project sector is in regulatory disarray, following inconsistent rules designed to protect fish, and provincial officials hard-pressed to crack down due to lack of staff and resources, freedom-of-information documents show.

"The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations states in a staff report by…director of resource management in Surrey that there were 749 non-compliance incidents from a total of 16 hydro plants in southwest B.C. in 2010. They included 313 incidents related to ramping, fluctuating water levels; 292 to not notifying government officials of problems; 101 to not fulfilling mitigation requirements; and 43 to not maintaining instream flow rates."

There has been a lack of resources. This is the complaint from staff. It's been going on for years. Ultimately, there is limited compliance and enforcement to water use obligations.

This is the result of a government that has backed off enforcement. It believes in deregulation and the ability of government employees to regulate the industry. Government regulation is to make sure that businesses don't cheat anyone. Citizens need protection.

[1715]

Unscrupulous or careless businesses have a long record of putting workers in danger, and I have personally dealt with that, relative to a death at a construction site, out at an IPP site. It's been involved in polluting the environment and the cheating of customers.

The job of government is to minimize this. For the B.C. Liberals, ideology over the past decade is that regulation is too cumbersome and seems to get in the way. It gets in the way of natural resources. That is part of a human economic system where nature has no intrinsic value but is determined as to how plentiful it is and how it can be exploited and can profit. Regulations are part of a planned economy, and nature should be put to use in the public interest and not according to whatever the owner wishes.

I want to move to another reference to the throne speech that also is related to deregulation: the overriding prospect of liquefied natural gas. Now, the throne speech says: "Countries like Japan…are looking to transition to cleaner, safer forms of energy — away from thermal coal, away from nuclear to a future powered by natural gas."

This may sound interesting and good, and we have heard from several members across the way that the rationale to develop LNG is based on the need to stop the exportation of thermal coal and production of energy from dirty coal.

The speech references countries like Japan but avoids talking about China, India and other Asian countries. If this is the rationale behind the development and exportation of natural gas, then why are we witnessing the largest increase in the exportation of dirty coal from our shores to those of Asia?

Before my community in North Delta — an area that's located beside Burns Bog, noted as the lungs of the Lower Mainland — is a Port Metro application to develop a thermal port facility right along the world's greatest salmon river, the Fraser. We might as well call it for what it is. It's the black lung of the Lower Mainland. Yet we have a throne speech that's bragging that LNG is the panacea to stop global climate change.

Clearly, the spin doctors from this government have glossed over the inevitable and the obvious. This provincial government cares little about the environment, communities and climate change, which affects us all.

The new coal port at Fraser Surrey Docks will give a thermal coal capacity of over eight million tonnes per year as the startup. But the interesting thing is that the dirty coal isn't even from British Columbia.

It's from Powder Mountain, Wyoming. So why is it coming to British Columbia? Why is it coming to Delta? Why is it running through White Rock? It's because the
[ Page 12817 ]
Americans themselves don't want it running through their port cities. It's because in Canada the people here do not have the same regulatory authority to stop an organization like Port Metro. Let's not forget the coal port crash during December out at Deltaport, Westshore Terminals. Accidents happen, and they will happen.

You may say that this is not a provincial issue, that we must wash our hands, that it's totally up to the feds. But we do collaborate with the feds — Pacific Gateway, South Fraser perimeter road — and we do have representation on the port from the Port Metro. We do have a regulatory authority over transportation.

As the throne speech pointed out, the government has the ability to tax LNG. Will it take that same authority and tax American coal going through our neighbourhoods to Asia? I think it probably won't.

The port authority will tell us that it's only one train a day — so far — that it has no authority as to how this coal will run through Delta to Fraser Docks. The port authority will say it does not have to comply to provincial or federal environmental assessments, and they don't, because they have their own process without having to consult with impacted communities.

Port Metro makes no bones about it. Frankly, it's an evil empire whose main duty is to acquire land — indeed, even rich, fertile farmland in Delta and Richmond — for use of port facilities, backup and supply chain. Once the coal dust train runs through North Delta, it will terminate on the river, be barged up the river off to Texada for storage and eventually be shipped to Asia.

Interesting that the throne speech also makes mention of the decommissioning of the George Massey Tunnel, an outcome that will result in egress for shipping terminal coal and hazardous waste up and down the river.

[1720]

This is a throne speech that supposedly believes in cleaner, safer forms of energy away from thermal coal. At this time I'm not going to take issue with metallurgical coal. We've been in the business in British Columbia for some time, but we now are moving down a slippery slope.

You see, my free market friends, thermal coal is cheap, and opening an Asian import market to dramatic increases in U.S. coal through Delta will drive down coal prices in the market. Several empirical studies of energy in China have demonstrated that coal consumption is highly sensitive to cost. One recent study found that a 10 percent reduction in coal cost can result in a 12 percent increase in coal consumption. Another found that over half of the gain in China's energy intensity improvement during the 1990s was a response to prices.

In other words, thermal coal exports from B.C. will mean cheaper coal in Asia, and cheaper coal means more coal will be burned than would otherwise be the case, whereby jeopardizing the use of LNG consumption and also jeopardizing its pricing.

Since 2000 global coal consumption has grown faster than any other fuel. The throne speech talks about the need to pay attention to countries in the Asia-Pacific, but these markets have the largest coal usage in the world — 76 percent use of thermal coal burned is in the Asia-Pacific. And we're facilitating that now.

China relies on coal for nearly 70 percent of its energy needs, which have soared recently as the economy has grown at a blistering pace. Coal-fired power continues to expand because it is cheap. Last year China's Shenhua Group began building the largest — eight gigawatt — coal-fired powered station in Asia. This is huge.

China now has 363 major thermal power plants nationwide. India will need an extra 250 to 350 million tonnes per year in thermal coal supplies by 2020. China will need an additional 500 million to a billion tonnes of thermal coal for 2030.

So we sully our neighbourhoods and rivers and waterways with coal dust. The internationally acclaimed Union of Concerned Scientists has said, "Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls," but even in the United States most coal plants have not installed these technologies.

The New York Times two months ago reported: "Coal, reliable, inexpensive and dirty, remains the most important fuel for producing electricity around the world. In China demand for coal in 2010 resulted in a traffic jam 75 miles long."

Again, what do the Americans know that we don't? Seattle city council unanimously passed a resolution opposed to development of any coal export terminals, thermal coal ports, going through Washington State. They believe…. A council member, Mike O'Brien, stated: "Mining and burning more coal is inconsistent with the city's goal to fight climate change."

We can look at other instances of all cities along the seaboard of Washington State. They had meetings in Clark College — 850 people showed up for that meeting. We've seen resolutions, of course, from the city of Hood Rivers. Unanimous support up and down — they don't want it.

They don't want it. But in the province of B.C., the poor cousins up north, we're welcoming thermal coal at alarming rates. So much for LNG. So much for this concern about climate change. LNG exportation has nothing to do with saving the world's environment concerns.

Now, I want to slightly move to the last part of my speech before I conclude in about, I guess, seven minutes. My last point is something that's dear to me.

You know, we can be a little skeptical, but I really believe that the political culture is wrong. I believe we lack respect for ethics. Ethics in politics — some would say that's an oxymoron, but I don't find that this institution really takes it seriously — the need to make some changes.

[1725]

There should be an understanding of what is acceptable,
[ Page 12818 ]
like standards on pre-election, government-taxpayer-paid advertising or election reform or campaign contributions or, as the independents who quite recently, rightfully, have come forward with, some changes to the B.C. Election Act. Maybe we're all too cynical as politicians, but I think the public deserves best, and I believe there's a reason why people don't vote.

In the old Machiavellian context, a politician who is ethical is deemed to be weak and ends up defeated. We as representatives legislate every day in this building decisions that pertain to right and wrong issues, that look at the ethical implications of compromise, whistle-blowing, civil disobedience, FOI, criminal laws. We are the human agents who are responsible for changing social structures of ethical problems, and yet it seems to me that the way we conduct ourselves relative to decency and fairness is sometimes deplorable.

I've been conflicted. I think we all have to get a good shaking once in a while. I remember my first election when I ran for council. Of course, right away you get all the contributions. I got a few from developers and speculators. I remember it well. I'd take the cheque, and I'd put it up on the corkboard, and I vowed that I would only cash those cheques if I lost. I can tell you that I never cashed a cheque.

We are conflicted every day. It may be subtle — you can go before a public hearing, and you're thinking: "Will I cave in? Will I compromise the public interest?" — but it's still there. So we're conflicted every day, and that's good. That's a shaking. That's what it's all about.

We have in this Legislature a select committee on parliamentary reform and ethics. With all due respect to my colleagues who sit on that committee, having read the paltry minutes of the few moments the committee has met, I believe in all its intents, purposes, it's quite useless and irrelevant.

We as MLAs struggle with ethical dilemmas every day. We struggle with campaigns, and we also struggle with how you run an office fairly, with the best interests of the public in mind. We've seen some difficulties with LAMC. I don't want to suggest it's being pushed under the carpet, but we've got to be open and fair. I believe that ethics provides a framework of evaluating choices and making decisions based on fairness and reasonable behaviour and, of course, on precedents.

Many of you may believe that the culture can never be changed, but I think the public deserves better. I know we do have to disclose donations to the public in order to allow people to know who is influencing us during a campaign. We are barred from accepting certain types of gifts, and graft. But for many of you Machiavellians out there — and they're on both sides; I've met you — who hold that politics has no connection with ethics, that the will of the sovereign is law — some would say the will of the party is law — and that the power must be exercised on the people at the cost of their own protection, I have to say balderdash.

We've seen too much authoritarian perspective. We went through the HST — the father knew best. We've talked about the smart meters as though government sees its citizens as children who don't have the moral capacity to make up their own mind. We saw that in 2009 during the election.

I'm very buoyed by the fact that our leader is now coming forward with changes to the Election Act, namely with the advertising that has been going on. Looking at the model in Ontario, where Premier Dalton McGuinty himself tried to hush the fervour against their HST proposal, it had to go before a commission, had to go to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. He went through it, he denied the government, and there was a stop to this abuse of power.

We will see legislation in the next government requiring that government advertising be objective, unbiased, accurate and clear. It will slam the door on anything that has as a primary objective the fostering of a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or entity critical of the government. Messages that are self-congratulatory or image-building are right out as well. That's what we're going to see in the next government — fairness and equity and integrity.

Now, as I wrap up, there's so much more I could talk about integrity. I've talked about Jean-Paul Sartre's play Dirty Hands, where you have to get your hands dirty in order to govern. That's the premise. I think we need to review what's ethical. It could be an open debate. I believe in ethical pricing. I don't think we should be buying products that are dirty, that aren't fair trade. I think we should set the standard, and I think we should reopen Basi-Virk. It should have been in the throne speech. Unfortunately, we don't see it here at all.

[1730]

I also think we should be looking at party memberships — how it is that we can have dual memberships in two different parties and how it is that some people can have a multitude of memberships in parties and decide leadership races. I don't believe a cat should be in a position to elect a Premier.

I want to end by saying thank you. I want to say thank you, first of all, to my wife and partner, Shirley, who has been there from the beginning, including our early years of advocacy. We were both advocates in different organizations.

A quick story. It was quite interesting. We were quite surprised one day after work. We opened the front page of the local newspaper, and there we both are quoted advocating different things, arguing against each other. We knew we had a problem. We had a War of the Roses. So we decided to flip a coin to see who was going to be the next politician in the family. Unfortunately, I guess, I lost. She went on to better things with the film industry.

I just want to say thanks on this Valentine's Day. Thank you, Sweetie, and I'm looking forward to the incredible
[ Page 12819 ]
journey that lies ahead.

Thank you to my family. Over the last few years I've been here I've lost two immediate members while gaining three grandchildren.

Thank you to my staff over the years who had to put up with all of my idiosyncrasies. To Dan Goy, now a successful entrepreneur; Gurleen Sahota, now a lawyer and a darn good one; Sanjeet Hayer, now employed by a Member of Parliament; Anne Peterson, who went on to become a city councillor.

To my current staff. There are so many things to say about our staff in North Delta, and there's so little time. To Renee Poley, an amazing caseworker and a successful author, a patient, calming constituency office face and well-known mental health advocate. To Sheryl Seale, with such a diverse skill set — communications, media, radio producer, graphic artist, event coordinator, organizer. I don't have enough time to explain all of the things that she's been capable of doing for me.

Thank you to all my CAs and countless volunteers, including my LAs, such as Gurbrinder Kang. All will be missed and played such a key role in my public life. I'll miss them all. The best to them in their future endeavours, whatever they want to pursue.

Thank you to my local NDP constituency association and, in particular, Carl Strand, my president, who stood behind me and battled hard on my behalf, a person with high standards of integrity who went strictly by the book — and, of course, Bob Turner before him. Both are incredible leaders.

Thank you to my executive members of the Delta North NDP. It takes courage to join a party, any party, and stand behind your principles and volunteer your previous free time.

Thank you to all my supporters. They also held their nose and, of course, voted for me. Those who didn't vote for me…. I developed a wonderful relationship with my political adversaries, who were never afraid to put me in my place. Thank you to all my constituents, who trusted me with the privilege to serve.

For me and perhaps most of the many retirees, the real party is about to begin. To those who will continue to serve, whatever decision you make in policy or in administrating, always weigh it in the name of the public interest. Please, please forget and ignore political expediency, but postulate your own inner values and make the institution of this parliament work. It's long overdue.

Hon. I. Chong: Of course, for me it is again a pleasure to rise in this House to respond to the throne speech. I begin by saying that it has been awhile since I first came to this place. In fact, it's been 17 years from when I first entered these chambers in 1996. It has been a long time, though at times it feels like it was just yesterday. At times I come into this chamber feeling that it is my very first year, because I still have the excitement that I think is necessary when you want to give your life to public service, when you want to be a part of making decisions for your community and for your province.

[1735]

I am still excited when I walk into this chamber, because I am ready and I am eager. I'm ready to enter into debate. I'm eager to listen to the debates, although sometimes raucous as it is. I am ready to even listen not just to my own colleagues on this side of the House. Strangely enough, and at rare times, I have enjoyed listening to the hon. members opposite. Not as often as I wish, but certainly, there have been times.

Today, here we are. It's the year 2013, and we are very shortly going to be very busy in our ridings, spending much more time there talking to our constituents. I want to take a few moments to do as others have done so far in this response to the throne speech, and that is to offer some thanks and appreciative words to those who support me.

My thanks and my gratitude to all those who have been with me these past number of years — firstly, of course, to my family, whom I have taken so much time away from. During my 17 years I have seen births and family members increasing in numbers.

I have also, unfortunately, experienced some losses. I've lost a godfather. I've lost a father. I've lost a brother. Some of the most difficult things happen when you're here, yet I know I've had the support of my family. The strength that has come from within is because I know they truly believe that what I'm doing here is the right thing.

I have to give thanks to my life partner, Dave. He will be surprised that I mentioned his name, because very rarely has he been seen or talked about. But he has been steadfast at my side all these 17 years and has agreed to be there for the next four when we win the election in 2013.

To my constituency office as well. I have had many staff members, but the current staff members are Maureen, Matt and a recent addition, Julia. They are the ones that make sure that things are run smoothly and that, as we hear concerns from our constituents, those matters can be dealt with very quickly.

You know, I was just thinking. I was noting how many other assistants I have worked with — some part-time and some full-time. If they're listening and they hear their name, I want to say thank you to Terry, to Trish, to Melissa, to Herman, to Dale, to Monica, to Lindsay, to Sharon to Caroline, to Elizabeth, to Monica, to Dustin and to Tori. I hope I haven't missed anybody, but over 17 years you get an opportunity to meet with young people who want a chance to work in your constituency office and who then move on. And many of these were indeed young people.

I'm not going to go on at length to thank all of the LAs that I've had, the MAs and the EAs. They know who they are, and they know I could not have done my job without them at my side. Yes, Madam Speaker, you will see that
[ Page 12820 ]
I have worked with many assistants in all parts of this public service life, and their support has been invaluable.

I've had a great opportunity, as well, to serve in a number of portfolios, whether it was for women and seniors; in Advanced Education; working with local governments on economic development and trade; in research and innovation and small business; in Healthy Living, where we dealt with the H1N1 virus that year; in Sports, Arts and Culture; and especially now, in a new portfolio that I have come to really understand and appreciate more and more each and every day, which is the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

To all the professional staff in these ministries, to all the deputy ministers, the assistant deputies and the managers, I want to say: "Thank you for your dedication. Thank you for your commitment to public service. Indeed, it is commendable."

Here we are once again. Time to respond to the throne speech. Certainly, I will say from the outset that I am very supportive of its content and of its vision. Yes, I have heard others question the vision, so I will outline why I believe it is truly a bold one.

This throne speech outlines a vision for British Columbia that focuses on jobs and on opportunities, not just for the next year or the year after or even the year after that, or not even to the next election cycle which is four years from now. In fact, it is looking ahead, out to generations ahead. That's not easy to do. That's why it's easy to be criticized, and that's why, I guess, the NDP are criticizing — because they cannot grasp that.

I see a few of them looking up. I'm glad I've got their attention.

[1740]

I heard one time, a long time ago when I first came to these chambers, someone make a comment. A constituent said: "Why is it that politicians only think about the short term, only to the next election cycle, and not the long term?" Here we have a throne speech that actually is talking long term, beyond an election cycle, talking about the benefits that are potentially there that we might not see as much of until after another election cycle.

But what we have is same old, same old from the NDP opposition. They want to criticize it because they cannot see as far out as our government can. They're thinking about this year, and I guess I can see that. But there is more to governing than just thinking about the current year.

In fact, since 2001 our government's track record has always been to provide the basic and essential services that British Columbians want, that British Columbians need. We all know health care has great demands on our budget. Education. Social services for those most in need. But how do we do that?

We do that with money, with taxpayer money. We are the stewards of their dollars. We also do that by having a strong and robust economy. It is a strong economy that provides the tools for government to provide those essential services, to look at innovative new ideas, to invest in research that will better the lives of our citizens.

Research into areas such as finding a cure for cancer — those are long term. We won't see the results immediately, though I'm sure many of us wish we would. I know each and every one of us in this chamber have been affected by or lost someone to cancer.

A strong economy allows us to increase our health care budget, which, incidentally, has almost doubled since 2001. I believe in 2001 it was $8.9 billion, and it is fast approaching, I believe, $17 billion.

A strong economy allows us to invest in post-secondary education. I guess the NDP have forgotten that the largest seat expansion in the history of our province took place not so long ago — new seats in all of our colleges and universities — and then the changing of a number of our university colleges to universities to allow them to better market their potential as well.

A strong economy allows for the billions of dollars in infrastructure — not the millions but the billions of dollars in infrastructure — in roads, airport improvements, airport expansions in fact, new schools, new hospitals, local government infrastructure. I know that community centres have been built, recreation centres, trails, cycling paths. Small amounts even have gone to accessible sidewalks for an aging population.

Billions of dollars — where does this come from? It comes from a strong economy. It also comes from ensuring that we have a sustainable economy and that we have revenues that can sustain those expenditures.

A strong economy has also allowed my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head to have certain investments. In fact, we've had several schools that have been seismically upgraded: Mount Doug high school, my alma mater; Gordon Head Middle School; Willows Elementary; Monterey Elementary, just to name a few. And we're about to have a brand-new high school in Oak Bay, Oak Bay high school.

It took about four Education Ministers, I believe, but it's finally happening. It's important because it houses a large population in the Oak Bay community. It's going to be state of the art. It's going to be energy-efficient. It's going to provide the best learning environment with today's new technological computers and devices that are there. I'm excited about when we can start construction. It's happening, and it's because of a strong economy.

[1745]

There's a theme here. A strong economy is also allowing this government to advance treaty negotiations. Litigation costs money. Negotiations create economic opportunities and economic independence for our First Nations communities.

Today we had a very moving ceremony. The Tla'amin Final Agreement Act was brought into this Legislature. I was privileged to be the minister responsible, but there were ministers before me who had done the lion's share
[ Page 12821 ]
of the work.

That agreement took close to 20 years to happen, but it was able to be advanced as a result of having a strong economy to have the tools that we needed — revenue-sharing tools, incremental treaty agreements, economic community development agreements and forestry agreements that allow us to get to treaty negotiations more quickly and more effectively.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So that's what this throne speech is about, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back. This throne speech is about ensuring that we can develop a natural resource that we have here in British Columbia — natural gas, an abundance of natural gas, so much that if we were to liquefy it and transport it to a market that is in need, it would provide a trillion dollars of economic activity. That is the path forward that will strengthen our economy.

That is the path forward that would allow us to not just spend the dollars without consideration but to, as well, find a mechanism to use those in the most effective way. This is where the vision comes in. It is about developing a new fund, a prosperity fund — a fund that will ensure that a portion of those incremental dollars can be housed with the purpose of paying down our provincial debt. Now wouldn't that be a great legacy to pass on to our children and grandchildren?

I don't know how many people got the same lecture as I got when I was growing up. My mother gave me some basic rules. She said: "This will hold you through your life." One was: "Always try to pay off your debts, because if you can pay off your debts, it means that you have choices. Work hard. Save. Pay off your debt."

Also: "Make sure you have a good education or a good vocation, because if you are able to use your hands to earn a living or you're able to use your mind to develop a business or have ideas, then you can rely on yourself to be self-sufficient."

Thirdly, she did say: "Be thankful that we live in a country like Canada, and give back whenever you can." I've lived by those three rules all my life, and I'm glad to say that they have a place in political life.

When I see today in a throne speech where one of those fundamental principles of paying off your debt is inherent, I say: "Thank you, Premier. Thank you for that vision. Thank you for the children and grandchildren that will follow in the years to come." To not have the albatross around their neck of a provincial debt, to not have every child born in this province with a $30,000 debt to begin with — isn't that a wonderful legacy that we can have?

Of this prosperity fund, though I've heard some make fun of it, I would say: "Just watch. Just watch what is possible and not be too harsh in criticizing it." If we were always shooting down ideas, we would not have built the country, the province and the community we have. It takes someone with leadership and a bold vision, and that is what has happened in this throne speech.

I've heard the opposition talk about having everything listed in the throne speech. They've mentioned every sector possible, and there was only one sentence about this or two sentences about that. But does it really matter? Every throne speech that our government has introduced, where we might have included a dozen things, the NDP has not agreed with it anyways.

[1750]

So I don't know that it's going to be any different anyways with this throne speech or the past. We can mention ideas and vision for 12 different sectors. Then they would say: "Well, there are too many things. How could it possibly have focus?" So we focus on one area specifically, and we bring in a new idea of a prosperity fund, and they still cannot get their minds around it.

I know that the NDP are struggling with this. They're struggling with it because it is visionary.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, we can certainly tell they're having a problem with this.

When the shipbuilding contract from the federal government was announced — that we would have this happening in British Columbia — I'm sure people thought: "Well, really, do you think we could do all that?" But we still went after that. That, too, is a generational opportunity.

So again, I'm asking the NDP: why would they not want to take hold of a generational opportunity? I am going to be listening over the next number of days, perhaps even weeks — however long we need to be here — to see what their position is on this.

Now, they say they support LNG. They're paying lip service to saying that they support it, but their actions do speak a bit louder because it appears that they would wish to delay the building of the facility. It appears that they are not yet ready to launch into this.

Hon. Speaker, I have much more to say. However, I do note the time, and as such, I will reserve my place to continue when we return to this chamber on another day.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada