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)

Monday, February 18, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 41, Number 5

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE

R. Austin: I'd like to take a few minutes this morning to talk about the importance of science and the learning of science, the teaching of science in our school system. We've often had lots of debates in this House around the importance of technology and science in terms of people going and looking for jobs.

[D. Black in the chair.]

We know and agree on both sides of this House that the future both here and now is around the majority of jobs requiring a lot of technical background, and it's very important that we encourage students to study science and to move on to post-secondary education. But I want to back up for just a moment and speak a little bit about what it is as a child, trying to get children interested in science.

When I was working in the school system, I often heard the refrain from numerous kids talking about science as though somehow it was extremely difficult, very hard to understand, very hard to learn. One could argue that any subject — doesn't matter what it is — without the amount of rigour applied to it is a difficult thing to learn.

But you look at other countries around the world that have created almost a culture of scientific inquiry. Think of India. Think of Singapore. In fact, think of many Asian countries which have developed a culture where the kids not only recognize the importance of science but seem to be really thrilled and excited about going into the classroom and learning new scientific methods and inquiries. Then, of course, from that encouragement at a young age, they develop the kind of interest needed to progress through the school system and on to post-secondary.

Now, why is it that certain countries are able to do this and we are not? Well, part of the challenge, I think, is some of the messages that we send our students. Maybe we're sending them messages in the school system that indeed science is difficult, and of course, if you're a child, you naturally want to try and find things that are a little bit easier in life than things that are a little bit difficult. So maybe we need to change that messaging and recognize that in fact science is fun and that we need to encourage people, kids, to go and think about that.

[1005]

I think, also, that we need to figure out ways in which we can get children to naturally explore things that are of inquiry to them. As we know, children just by nature want to find out new things. I mean, those of us who are parents in this House all know that period in a child's development, around two to four, when they ask endless questions. A job of a parent is, of course, to service those questions and to give them answers and to get them to think about inquiring about things.

The same thing goes for when kids go into the school system and are starting to discover science. One of the programs that we have decided to support — and until recently the government also thought it was a great program to support — was the PALS program. That stands for the ability of Science World to take science into communities. I was actually working in a school system when the PALS program came up to my town of Terrace, and what an extraordinary experience it was.

Very often in the school system teachers bring in different guests, sometimes to perform. It might be performing arts; it might be poetry; it might be music. I remember magicians coming into the school system. But when the PALS program came up to Terrace, you'd have thought the kids were actually watching magic, because they put on such a great display.

It takes several days. In fact, in the case when I observed it, the PALS program came up to Terrace. They used a pro-D day to set up in a school. They used a Saturday, and in fact, they were there for four to five days doing different programs with kids of different ages. They had a Big Science for Little Hands program for preschool children. Can you imagine that? Parents bringing their preschool children into the school to find out fun things which are all scientific-based.

The PALS program also organizes field trips to Science World. Think how important this is for rural British Columbians, for people and for kids who don't live close to the Lower Mainland or to Victoria to have access to be able to go there and find out the same kinds of things, the same kind of excitement, that people have when children are taken to Science World. They enabled that to happen.

They had a night of family science in my community, which, again, invited kids of an older age to come with their families and find out about some of the incredible things that teachers are teaching as science in our schools.

What we need to do is to make science feel like fun. And it is fun, provided people are brought into that at a young age, before kids start to make that judgment about: "Oh, this is a little bit too difficult" or "That's easier." No. If it's made to be fun and if it inspires kids to inquire and to want to find out more, then that's what encourages kids to decide that this is the avenue that they want to go into.

If we don't do this — if we are not able to complete this
[ Page 12824 ]
task of making science and supporting science teachers and supporting science programs in our schools — then we will continue to lag. Not only will we continue to lag socially and economically, but we are failing our kids if we don't encourage them to go into science. As I said, so many jobs have a technical or scientific background in the future, so we need to work as hard as possible to ensure that this happens.

Getting back to the B.C. PALS program, an average of 190,000 children, parents and teachers in approximately 150 communities a year — all the way from Haida Gwaii, Invermere, Duncan and Fort St. John — were able to attend science fairs as a result of this program.

That, unfortunately, was cut last year. We certainly hope that the government will join us in the future and recognize that if we want to have a workforce and a school force that are engaged in one of the most important aspects of learning, they come back and relook at this program and recognize that for a fairly small investment we can take science right throughout the whole of British Columbia and make an exciting project for students and families to get involved with.

R. Lee: I would like to thank the member for Skeena, who brings up the importance of science. Science is always a fascinating subject for me. My undergrad is in science, and my postgraduate studies were also in science. I think it's a very important topic to our students.

[1010]

After graduation I worked in UBC TRIUMF, so this is a very scientific environment. In fact, TRIUMF actually got some funding from the provincial government as well. Of course, the majority of the funding was from the federal government. They are researching some very important subjects, like isotope production. They're actually bringing, in the future, two beam lines in addition — one in the east, one in the west — to produce enough isotopes to supply medical use in Canada, replacing a Chalk River nuclear reactor.

With that, I would like to respond on the B.C. PALS program. I think this is a very important program as well. I believe that in 2005 the provincial government actually was providing funding for that program in the order of $5 million — one-time funding, a one-time grant. I think it's important to realize that. The government actually provides different funding to different organizations, essentially non-profit organizations — a lot of one-time funding.

That was, I believe, a five-year program for that. Then in 2009 and '10 they also had some funding for another program as well. It's called the Year of Science initiative. That was another $1 million in 2011, and before that it was half a million dollars for Science World as well.

Science World is actually getting over $5.457 million just from the Ministry of Education. Of course, the $1 million extra was actually from the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

I believe the government actually is really keen on helping students to learn as well. But remember that this is one-time funding.

The budget was considered a few years ago. To the credit of those ministries, they tried to replace some of the funding. But when the financial constraints are actually upon us, it's tough to have a limited amount of funds in order to make decisions to fund those projects.

In the future, if the government is in a position to consider these types of programs for funding again, I believe that they would be given due consideration. We also recognize that to continue talking with Science World is important as well. That funding, in the past and in the future, would be used as creatively and efficiently as possible.

I would also like to mention that Science World is also getting some help in environmental technology as well, in terms of encouraging students to submit their projects. It's called the Green Games program, B.C. Green Games. A lot of schools around B.C., actually, are getting some funding. It's a competition. They have to submit projects. They're there to win the prize for their next environmentally friendly project.

I believe the Big Science for Little Hands program was also funded by the provincial government through the ministries. I think those programs are important. For the Big Science for Little Hands program, there was $300,000 funding to help the preschool students develop resources to help them to understand more about science.

I would like also to mention that the StrongStart program is really important as well. We have over 300 spaces for students.

R. Austin: I'd like to thank, for his comments, the member for Burnaby North — certainly, all the positive comments he said about the B.C. PALS program.

[1015]

In fact, it's not just the member for Burnaby North who thought that the B.C. PALS program was an excellent one. Here's the Premier. On June 29 of 2012 she said: "In order to maintain our competitive edge, it's important that we support Science World and their programs that foster the pursuit of science in our children and throughout the community so we have the bright young people to fill those jobs when they become available." So it's not so long ago that the Premier also recognized the importance of the B.C. PALS program, yet the government decided to not continue to support it.

The member says that this was one-time funding. What I would argue is this: if we want to change the culture of how British Columbia's children and parents and families regard science and the learning of science, you can't do that with a one-year grant or a two-year grant. It has to be ongoing so that you can build on the success.

Why is it that a child who is in grade 5, 6 or 7 should
[ Page 12825 ]
have the opportunity to have Science World come and bring this B.C. PALS program to their school, but the following two or three years, children who want to discover science don't have that opportunity? It makes no sense if you want to build a culture of scientific inquiry and learning.

It's interesting that the member for Burnaby North described some of his work at TRIUMF. I think it's fair to say that that is almost the pinnacle of physics work in the province of British Columbia. If we want to aspire to having more people go to that pinnacle of scientific inquiry, where you have to study for years to get to that point, you have to start at the ground level. You have to start by exciting kids when they're three, four and five years old so that they can do exactly what the member for Burnaby North did: follow their passion. You have to ignite that passion first to enable people to follow it.

Making cuts like this simply makes no sense, especially in a world which, we all agree, is one where the majority of jobs have so much technical and scientific background to them in order to be able to apply for those jobs. They're also the kinds of jobs that pay very much higher wages than to, say, people who end up working in the retail sector.

We want to encourage our children to be able to fulfil their dreams and also be able to feed their families and take care of their families. We want to encourage children to go and pursue avenues of study that lead to the best kinds of jobs.

We don't want to see British Columbia being a laggard and having to bring in temporary foreign workers from other, Asian countries that strategically decided years ago to focus on science and recognized that the world was changing dramatically. They made decisions in those countries that created a vision from the government and sustainable programs that have helped that to happen.

SECURING LONG-TERM STABILITY
IN THE CLASSROOM

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to give my support to the proposed framework for long-term stability in education. I add my voice of support because I am a mother of three. One of my children is 14 years old and is in grade 9 at Windsor Secondary in North Vancouver. I'm also a former North Vancouver school district chair of the board of education, and now I'm the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, in addition to being the Parliamentary Secretary for Student Support and Parent Engagement. So I really have a personal as well as a professional interest in this topic.

Overall, the framework that was introduced by the Premier is trying to work or get a better relationship going with the BCTF and government. Everybody knows that we have a problem, and the solution is a little bit more elusive. This framework is trying to find a solution.

Last year, in addition to getting many, many e-mails from worried parents, as an MLA, about their child not getting report cards or not having extracurricular activities, I also knew this from a personal perspective as a parent on the soccer field as well as a parent that was receiving input and information on their child. I think that the problem is well known, and this is not a problem that has just occurred in the last decade. This is a problem that has occurred over several decades, several different governments. This is not something that is exclusive to this current government.

What this framework will do is to open up a dialogue, an opportunity for all of the stakeholders in education, because all stakeholders were consulted, including the B.C. School Trustees Association, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the Public School Employers Association, the School Superintendents Association, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, as well as the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

[1020]

All of these stakeholders were consulted and were given the opportunity to present their solutions to this framework. So what it does is it aims to provide a climate of long-term stability. One of the key words that we seem to hear a lot of, that helps with working together, is the word "collaboration" — the relationships between the partners, a flexibility in approach, but also ability to bring stability to education for the future.

It's a new approach. It's a transformational approach and encompasses all stakeholders. We have to come to the conclusion that we have to look at what we're all here for. What are our common goals? Our common goals are to assist students' achievement and to help all students in the classroom. We can all agree to that.

Here's a framework. Can you imagine what it would be like to have second-graders right now, today, complete their K-to-12 education without strikes or without labour disruption? Can you imagine an environment where relationships between teachers, parents, government, school districts as well as the unions involved were all working together?

What is the framework? There are four key elements. Priority education investment fund, which will give teachers a voice in identifying education priorities — this is new money, dedicated funding. We all know what the benefits are of dedicated funding. We just learned what the learning improvement fund has accomplished so far, just with the announcement that occurred last year.

The learning improvement fund that was brought in a year ago is the first report card, for instance, on this $195 million learning improvement fund. It also is and was designed to work with consultations between school districts, principals and classroom teachers, and tailored the funding to the classroom.

I went to my school district, and I asked the North Vancouver school district what they actually did with their
[ Page 12826 ]
portion of the $195 million. It comes down to: Blueridge School, extra education assistant time; Eastview, learning assistance education time; an additional division in Lynnmour; an additional division in Seymour Heights; more counselling for Sherwood Park; more counselling for Upper Lynn; and more education assistance time both in Argyle and Seycove Secondary.

This is a reflection of what's actually working in the school district level and what really, really will assist students in the classroom level.

The other point for the framework is the education policy council, which will include representatives from government, the BCTF, trustees to advise government on education policy and give all of those stakeholders the opportunity to determine where the money is going, how it will be spent, who it will go to and what it will be spent on.

The other aspect of this framework is the salary fairness for indexing of teacher salaries to increase to those that are already occurring within the public sector. This provides certainty and fairness for all involved, particularly the teachers themselves as well as government and parents as far as stability.

Then the last part of it is a transparent bargaining process with teachers, including improved bargaining, clear timelines, optional mediation and mandatory conciliation if the need arises. Parents requested this. Parents want transparency. They want the ability to see what is going on, where the money is going, how the process in itself is going along and to have input.

I'd like to just give you an example of what has occurred so far with regards to the benefits of collaboration between government and the teachers. Last year $10.7 million was announced for the development of the superintendent for reading, Maureen Dockendorf, who is a very well-respected educator. She has got together a group of teachers that will be able to provide early literacy learning and research to students in the classroom. I've got some specific examples that have been used for….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you. I'll continue on when I come back.

[1025]

R. Austin: Thanks to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for her remarks in regards to having long-term stability in our school system. As the MLA for Skeena, the Education critic for the last few years and someone who has worked in the school system both as an educational assistant as well as a community schools coordinator — and, of course, someone who has taken my own children through the school system — I think we can agree on the goal of wanting to have long-term stability in our school system.

I find it, however, a little bit rich for this member to be bringing this topic up at this time. Here are some of the facts. Some of the dysfunction that is being recognized by both sides in regards to the negotiating of contracts has already been dealt with in large part by negotiations that have happened over the last six months between BCPSEA, the employers' bargaining association — which has trustees, of course, on that, as well as government — and the BCTF.

In fact, many of the items that the member outlines as being in the Premier's framework had already been decided upon and then voted on by the BCPSEA and the BCTF. Let me give some examples. They agreed to fixed timelines, as one of the important things. They agreed to having an outside facilitator or mediator — whatever you want to call that person.

They agreed that there was somebody who would be independently recognizing the facts, because one of the challenges in the bargaining relationship has been a dispute as to what it costs to do something, to make some change in the school system. The BCTF would say one thing; the BCPSEA would say another. Now they've agreed that there's going to be an independent…. It's a bit like an independent officer of budgetary control, who can say: "Look, here are the facts. You both have to agree to this. This is what it's going to cost."

So this was already in the works before the Premier decided to come and, I think, really sort of muddy the waters as to the good work that had happened between BCPSEA and BCTF.

I also would like to comment on this. You know, it's true that there have been challenges for many, many years. It's also true that those challenges have gone through successive governments, whether they be B.C. Liberal, NDP or Socred. But here's the difference. No government started off their mandate by passing unconstitutional laws that ten years later were ruled unconstitutional and, basically, set the pattern for how this government was going to treat teachers and the teaching profession and how they value the work that they do.

If that's how you start when you're in government, just because you have a majority of 77 to two and think that now you can do whatever you want…. If that's how you start, it sets a pattern that's very difficult. So it's all very well to come and say: "We want stability. We want a ten-year contract." But you know what? There's a real history here as to why the last ten years have been so unstable, and I'm sorry to say that I think a lot of it lays at the hand of the Premier when she was Minister of Education.

Finally, I'd like to just comment in regards to bringing in new funds. The fact that we have the learning improvement fund as a result of these court cases and the fact that the Premier is now suggesting another fund, the priority investment fund — these are there to make up for chronic underfunding of the system of the last ten years. That's what it is.
[ Page 12827 ]

It's a recognition that: "You know what? We did not give sustainable long-term funding to our school system, and the trustees have had to make decisions which everyone in this House agrees have been very, very challenging — largely making cuts."

Many of those cuts have fallen on the backs of kids with special needs, on kids who came to this country and don't speak English as a first language, on families who are poor. That's where those cuts have led. Now finally, the government is saying: "Well, we're going to have a learning improvement fund. Oh, and we're going to have another fund." These funds are there to support what should have always been there in the first place, which is long-term, proper, sustainable funding so that our school kids could have had the kind of learning and teaching environment that they had before this government took over.

In terms of salaries, I think that salaries…. To suggest that every one of the stakeholders, of all of the different stakeholders, should come and negotiate a salary — here's my thought. Are we going to go and ask patients to come in and negotiate nurses' salaries? Are we going to ask patients to come and negotiate doctors' salaries? There's a place for parents and all the stakeholders to have a say in educational policy. I would agree on that.

On the real challenges of sitting down and negotiating salaries and benefits — I think it requires specialized skill from those who actually work in the system. I think that it would be very, very challenging. It would be challenging in the medical system if we said: "Hey, patients, come on in. We'd like you to sit at the table, and let's go and negotiate with the doctors."

[1030]

It's very, very challenging. It's very complex work, and I think that it's not something that I would support, although I do agree that all the stakeholders need to have a say in educational policy as a whole.

J. Thornthwaite: I do thank the member for Skeena for commenting, but just to make a correction, we do have the facts — that in the 1990s the NDP were unsuccessful in negotiating even one agreement with the BCTF. So provincewide bargaining has been an issue with all governments, but at least we've come to an agreement here.

I want to bring up some of the issues that the member brought forward. Thank you for commenting on what the BCPSEA and the BCTF had come to, with regards to the most recent in committee. There are a lot of the recommendations that they came up with that are similar. I think that's the good news. We're kind of on the same page there. We're on the right track. This framework is on the right track.

Let's just talk about the future. Parents come to me and they go: "Do something. Why can't you people do anything?" So, as opposed to not doing anything and just throwing our arms up and saying, "Oh well, let's just give up," this is what this framework is designed to do — to try to start with the talking points. Let's forget about the past. Let's go forward and say: "What can we do to improve the relationship with all of the partners in education?"

We have some kids that have just joined us. Welcome. I'm not too sure exactly where you're from, but I do hope that you are listening to the conversation that the legislators here are having with regards to education and how much we do care about your education, moving on into the future.

Lastly, I just wanted to finish off my point that I said before the break. I've seen the results of collaboration and working together with Maureen Dockendorf's group and our representation in North Vancouver. The money that was spent, the new money that was allotted to school districts, has trickled down to the classroom, and it is very much helping individual students in the classroom with their work with their teachers. I've seen it. I've seen collaboration.

The LIFT fund, as I mentioned before, is another good example. If we sit down and work together — all work together in our common goal for kids — I think this is going to be a really good thing, and I would encourage everybody to support it.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands seeks leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

M. Coell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have 28 guests here today from Bayside Middle School, grade 6. For many of them, it's their first time here. It's nice they're here to hear a discussion on education. Would the House please make them welcome.

Private Members' Statements

PURCHASING POWER

L. Popham: This morning I'd like to talk about purchasing power. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Of course, we all know that's a quote from Margaret Mead. It never gets old, because over and over again it's proven to be true. We've often been told that we have a lot of power as consumers. Collectively choosing products to purchase that represent what we believe in can send a significant message and shape the marketplace.

Many economic development experts and political figures focus on attracting big business to set up shop through tax breaks and subsidies, even though the verdict of economists is that most of these jobs vanish quickly when another region or a jurisdiction across the world offers more attractive incentives. A better way to boost
[ Page 12828 ]
the economy, one that is entirely in our control, lies in our own wallets and shopping patterns.

That's been the philosophy behind CUPE BC's Ten Percent Shift campaign, which encourages consumers to shift 10 percent of their spending to locally owned businesses and services. Studies all over North America have demonstrated how much additional economic activity is generated by making this simple shift in spending habits.

The shift campaign has been partnering with the chambers of commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, among others, to show business owners and consumers alike how important purchasing decisions are to local economies.

Cities on the west coast of the United States, like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, have created exemplary environments in recent years where independent businesses have flourished and have expanded. Not so in British Columbia. Despite its green reputation, local purchasing in B.C. lags behind nearly every other province in Canada.

[1035]

This fact places a huge drag on the provincial economy, because there's overwhelming evidence that the key to local prosperity is maximizing the presence of local business. Here are four reasons why.

First, compared to equivalent chain businesses, local businesses spend more of their dollars locally, which pumps up what economists call the multiplier effect. More than two dozen studies have shown that every dollar spent at a locally owned business generates two to four times the economic development impact as a dollar spent on an equivalent non-local business. No studies have shown superior impacts from chain stores. Every dollar spent locally, therefore, means two to four times the local jobs, two to four times the local income and wealth effects, two to four times the local taxes and two to four times the local charitable contributions.

An example of this is looking at three ways of spending $100 on books. If one were to shop on line and use a company like Amazon, it's been proven that almost no dollars from the $100 purchase come into the community it was purchased from. There may be a few dollars if you factor in the job of the courier who would deliver the book to you.

If you spent $100 at a big-box store like Chapters, for example, about $13 of that $100 stays in the economy. But if you were to shop at a local independent bookstore like Munro's here in Victoria, a $100 purchase would see about $45 stay in our community. That's a significant amount, and those dollars would recirculate locally for much longer.

An example like this brings to mind the Olympics. Airports in Canada had Olympic souvenir shops set up for the Vancouver Olympics. Sadly, not one item sold in these stores was made in British Columbia or Canada. This is a missed opportunity for our local B.C. economy, a lost opportunity to find revenue that would have circulated within our communities long after the Olympics had left town.

Second, a local business economy means that people running the businesses have a big stake in the community and are unlikely suddenly to move their jobs to other countries. Whether or not every local business succeeds, every local entrepreneur is an important community resource which lays the foundation for local businesses being created and growing in our local economy.

Third, local control nurtures local culture. What draws tourists are unique local restaurants, hotels, shops and events. That's why the Austin, Texas local business community uses the slogan, "Keep Austin weird." Moreover, those especially attracted to thriving local culture add the best and the brightest in the country — the people economist Richard Florida calls the creative class.

Fourth, the presence of many diversified locally controlled businesses not only strengthens the economic multiplier but also indicators of civic life. We know from a variety of sociology and political science studies that local business communities where people are rooted and committed to civic life tend to enjoy better public health, social equality and democratic participation.

Collectively, these four factors mean that local business economies out-perform global business economies. In 2010 in the Harvard Business Review a graph appeared with the headline "More Small Firms Means More Jobs." The authors wrote: "Our research shows that regional economic growth is highly correlated with the presence of many small entrepreneurial employers, not a few big ones."

More recently, a study published in the Economic Development Quarterly, a journal long supportive of business attraction practices, similarly finds: "Economic growth models that control for other relevant factors reveal a positive relationship between density of locally owned firms and per-capita income growth but only for small firms, whereas the density of large firms not owned locally has a negative effect."

This growing body of evidence has led a number of economic development professionals to dump their failed corporate attraction strategies and to focus instead on economic gardening, or creating living economies through local businesses. But the biggest part of this strategy must be done at the grassroots. That's why more than 100 communities in North America have launched Buy Local or "local first" campaigns. Here in British Columbia so much would change if we all participated in shifting just 10 percent.

[1040]

J. Les: It's my pleasure this morning to respond to the member for Saanich South. It's a very interesting topic that she's brought forward this morning. But as I was listening to her remarks….
[ Page 12829 ]

Let me preface, first of all, by saying that, of course, everyone wants to support their local businesses. But if the attitude that she is espousing were to be adopted by people all over the world, a lot of the markets for B.C. products would be shut out of different world markets that we enjoy today. You cannot escape the fact that we live in a global trading environment. While on the one hand we want to encourage local markets — absolutely — we certainly want to keep those export markets open as well.

I was thinking about our blueberry industry, for example, in the Fraser Valley, which is a world-class industry. We are the largest producers of blueberries in the world. Clearly, we depend extensively on export markets to take that product and pay good prices for it. That should be encouraged. So many other products as well, if you think of the Okanagan, for example, and all of the great products that come from the Okanagan. Of course, people in the Okanagan should be encouraged to consume Okanagan wine and fruit, but if that was the only market available to them, the industry there would suffer remarkably.

As in many things, there's always a balance that is involved. I think government sometimes is very ill-placed to mandate one thing or another. Rather than mandating, we should simply encourage. You will find that people's entrepreneurial spirit will find the correct balance in these things.

I have seen, though, particularly in food production over the last while…. I think very organically — pun not intended — people have exhibited a strong desire to source locally. In my own area, for example, particularly in the summertime, there are vegetable stands all over the place. I've gotten rid of some of my own excess produce using the various stands in the area.

I think one thing that we lack in our society, which has become so increasingly urbanized, is an appreciation for how vegetables and fruits and food generally is grown and produced. I think the Chilliwack school district is probably one of the last in the province that still has a school garden program. I think it would be great if every school ground would have a place somewhere where they would be growing an extensive vegetable garden to educate the kids as to how food is produced and how to produce it nutritiously.

I think that sort of cultivating a culture, if you will, starts at that level to ensure that people have that basic knowledge about what constitutes good, locally grown product, locally produced product. But at the same time, however, as I said in my earlier remarks, when people start out small and they become bigger and develop larger markets, let's encourage that, too.

I have no lack of businesses in my riding that have started out very modestly, very small, and are now world-class producers. So again, I support the member in saying, "Let's support our local businesses, and let's utilize them to the fullest extent," but let's also keep in mind that we live in a global trading environment where we not only produce world-class players who are exporting, but where we also consume goods that are exported into our markets very competitively. That actually helps the taxpayer in terms of balancing their budgets at the end of the month.

Competition is a good thing. A mandate of enforced local consumption and production only tends to lessen production and, at the end of the day, will cost people more. My experience is that the various business people in British Columbia are not and need not be afraid of competition. They hold up and they stand up very well when they're in a very competitive marketplace. We can be as good as anyone, and we don't need government mandates to force people to rely only on their local producers.

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to respond to the member on the other side of the House. I believe that we have a definite philosophical difference about what encourages more successful agriculture ventures in the province.

[1045]

It's interesting, because the member mentioned that he believes that encouraging people to buy local and to buy things from B.C. is really a better way to go, when in fact we did have that program in place back when the New Democrats were in power with our Buy B.C. program. That was something that was a provincewide marketing program that asked people to buy B.C. products. That, unfortunately, has disappeared, and I'm not sure why that hasn't come back because I do believe that encouraging people to buy our products is part of the puzzle in success for agriculture.

But, also, putting policies in place that promote local food procurement by government-funded hospitals will benefit patients and the regional economy. Having a procurement policy that sends our provincial dollars into the local economies, especially for agriculture, makes a huge difference, and that's been proven in studies.

The Fraser Valley has some of the best agricultural land in B.C. It's also home to one of the province's largest health authorities, serving a patient population of 1.6 million and growing. However, there's still no formal relationship between the two. Documents reveal that there are no formal policies in place that involve the provincial government using its purchasing power to promote locally grown food in area hospitals, although they're neighbours with the agricultural land reserve.

A local food procurement policy is beneficial on several grounds. Fresh fruit, produce and meat not only render a lower carbon footprint; they're also more appetizing to patients. Local food procurement by government-funded agencies boosts the region's economy. It helps build a domestic market essential to sustaining and growing our agriculture sector and generates a significant multiplier
[ Page 12830 ]
effect in these communities. Recent studies on food procurement completed by Harvard University state that money spent at a local farm circulates within that community between six and 15 times, supporting local farms, businesses, people and communities.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FISCAL RESTRAINT

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I stand in the House today and talk about a subject that's very important to me, and that is fiscal restraint. You ask any business person, and he'll tell you or she'll tell you that, basically, not living within your means, spending more money than you have and not balancing your budget within a business — within a household, within other things — you're not going to be in business very long. You know, government is no different.

It's important that government provide the services and capital to invest in what citizens require and do so with borrowing money. But in doing so, we have to do it in a way that's fiscally prudent, shows restraint and actually understands a longer-term plan.

You ask why that's important and why we need to live within our means. Well, because each dollar that we borrow today — to pay for programs, to pay for infrastructure, to pay for capital, to pay for the other things that government provides to the citizens — has to be paid back at some point in the future. It's not as if we have a credit card with an unlimited spending limit and, basically, never do we have to deal with that.

I think a perfect example of that are our neighbours to the south that are dealing with this problem. It's estimated that the U.S. spends $11 for every $7 that it currently brings in, and it's borrowing roughly $6 billion every day to spend more money on servicing the debt. It spends more money on servicing the debt than the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, actually. And I think one of the most interesting things in the United States is they actually spend more on servicing their debt currently than they do on the Department of Homeland Security, and we all know the Department of Homeland Security spends a significant amount of money.

In 2001 the United States of America spent $227 billion on interest alone. Its national debt has now grown to over $16 trillion, and Congress will soon be faced again — we heard that in the news this morning — with the difficult decision on whether or not to raise its debt ceiling.

I have to say, you know, it's interesting, because one of the things that many don't understand and deal with in British Columbia…. We talk about our triple-A credit rating, the importance of our triple-A credit rating and the fact that it requires us to pay less interest because of our credit rating. But I'll note that on August 5, 2011 — that's four days after the Congress voted to once again raise their debt ceiling — for the first time ever the United States of America's credit rating was downgraded to double-A-plus.

This is a huge event, actually, because when it comes to it, for British Columbia to be higher and be more credit-worthy than the United States of America I think says an awful lot.

[1050]

As we are in a global marketplace — we basically face a competitive world out there, and people are looking for places to invest their money — the fact that British Columbia has a triple-A credit rating because we've shown restraint and fiscal prudence I think says a lot to where we're at and where we're going.

It's interesting when we talk about these things. We talk about how we spend money, how government spends money in delivering the programs that British Columbians require.

You look at a personal household. One of the stories that I like to tell…. We had a group of students in the gallery not that long ago. They've just left, but we have many groups of students in the gallery.

I look at a retired couple. We always talk about entitlement, what we deserve, what we've worked hard to get to. But the fact of the matter is that if we don't have the money to pay for it, it's future generations that are going to pay for it. If you have a retired couple, they've worked hard all their lives.

Many couples, as they go into their retired years, think that it might be nice to have a nice RV and travel throughout British Columbia, throughout Canada. I've said this before. But the fact of the matter is that if that couple can't afford to buy an RV, if they went to their kids and said, "Hey, we're retired. We've worked hard all of our lives, but we can't afford to get this RV right now. Can you cosign the loan on this RV so that we can travel throughout the province…?" I'm telling you there aren't very many children around the world that are going to say: "Yes, Mom and Dad. We think that you deserve to go RVing, so we'll sign the loan so that you can have that RV."

N. Simons: Sell the garage.

D. Horne: It's a very, very difficult thing, living within your means. There are many things. There are many choices that we make. There are many things that we do.

One of the members across, as I was talking about the RV, said: "Sell the garage. Sell the garage." You know, sell the house. It's an interesting way to look at things because the difficulty is that when you don't live within your means, you basically just keep going and building debt and building debt, and you never really come to a point where you think that maybe you need to stop.

The same thing is that when you're in a difficult situation financially at home, you may not sell your garage or sell your house. You may oftentimes sell some things that
[ Page 12831 ]
you're not using and, basically, use those funds to be able to spend for the things that you need today.

Obviously, when revenues are down and we're in difficult situations, we have to make difficult choices. That's the issue at hand, and that's one of the most important things.

When the Finance Committee travelled throughout British Columbia, I think that one of the things that, overwhelmingly, British Columbians said and one of the things…. In the House here today we have members of the Finance Committee, and unanimously — on both sides of the House, both the opposition and the government members — one of the recommendations that the Finance Committee came forward with was to balance the budget.

British Columbians understand that by not living within our means today, basically, we're simply passing debt on to future generations. We need to make sure that the revenues and the funds are there today, to make sure that we have the programs and can make the choices in the future that future generations of British Columbians deserve to have, rather than making all of their funds go towards servicing the debt and interest payments.

B. Ralston: I'm indebted to my colleague opposite for setting out some very basic principles of living within your means and an accompanying homily as well. He says it's a very difficult thing to live within your means.

I suppose the fiscal record of the government is proof of that: a deficit in 2009-10, a deficit in 2010-11, a deficit in 2011-12 and a deficit in 2012-13 — so four consecutive deficits. Yet we hear the continual refrain about living within one's means and the importance of fiscal restraint. At some point, one would expect the rhetoric might match reality, and I suppose we'll come to that moment tomorrow, or perhaps we won't. Certainly, there will be an effort to create that impression, and we'll see how successful it is.

[1055]

Part of living within one's means is exercising some control on the spending side. Again, notwithstanding some of the professions of spending control, let's take a couple of very vivid and recent examples of just how the government is using its spending power to spend on what I think most people — indeed, almost everyone in British Columbia — would regard as wasteful spending.

Thanks to a document that was recently leaked from the Liberal caucus, we know that the Liberal government is spending over $16 million on advertising for which, clearly, there is only one purpose — and a partisan purpose. The government says in the documents that we have that this campaign has "helped decrease the credibility gap." In other words, the government has a credibility gap. That's a political credibility gap — not a budgetary one, but a political credibility gap — so they're using public funds to close that gap. What could be a worse example of fiscal restraint and the principles that the member so rightly puts forward than this one?

Let's take, and this is something…. If one looks at…. In proportion to what the B.C. Liberals have done in their own campaign, in the 2009 campaign, they raised and spent $9 million. Fair enough. This program cost $16 million. So in proportion to the money that the Liberal Party itself could raise in an election campaign, it's far, far greater, and it's all public money. So that is not an example of spending restraint and really flies in the face of some of the principles that the member talks about.

Let's talk about another example. Probably in the time that I have, I've got room for one more. There was a settlement, a guilty plea in the Basi-Virk case. The policy relating to public servants who are charged with criminal offences, up until this case, was that if they were found guilty — either pleaded guilty or were found guilty — the government no longer had an obligation to pay their legal bills. Yet in this particular case, rather mysteriously and not really explained in any public way, $6 million of legal fees for these two gentlemen was paid not by them but by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

So again, is that an example of the kind of spending restraint that the member is talking about? Again the general principles, when they're applied in a specific context, don't seem to apply.

Let's have a look at another example. BCeSIS, a computer information system for tracking students — $97 million, and it simply doesn't work. A staggering amount of money for any household in the province, no matter how rich you are, yet public money spent on a system that simply doesn't work. Is this an example of good spending? Is this an example of spending restraint? Does this illustrate the principles that the member talks about? I think not.

Let's take another example — the integrated case management system. This is another computer system, software meant to deliver social services. A number of people who work with this system have a number of objections with it. It cost $182 million. It's so badly designed and not functioning properly that workers in the system were concerned that vulnerable children might be missed and the proper notices might not be sent out to the relevant authorities in a time of trouble. So again, is this an example of the kind of restraint that the government would talk about?

D. Horne: Well, I thank the member opposite for his comments. It's rich and intriguing that the NDP would like us to "do as I say rather than do as I do." I will note that when they last were in power, I believe they spent $29 million on an advertising campaign. It's interesting that now they're on the other side, they don't want that or don't believe that's important. I think on this side we
[ Page 12832 ]
believe that it's important that British Columbians make an informed decision and understand where it is that our government is currently at, the position that we currently are in the world.

[1100]

You know, the sad thing is I walk…. I've been doing some door-knocking and talking to people around my community, and the sad reality is that when people listen to the media, they actually believe that British Columbia is in bad shape right now. Unfortunately, that's not founded in fact.

I go back to my point that British Columbia has…. We can use many other measures, if you'd like to use the measures, but the fact of the matter is that an independent credit rating by an independent agency that gives British Columbia a triple-A is a pretty good and resounding show of where we're currently at.

I'd also like to note that in the 1990s we received six consecutive downgrades to our credit rating and had the worst fiscal record in Canada. You know, it's important that we keep these things in sight when we look forward.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

By the end of the 1990s the structural deficit in 2001 was $3.8 billion, and in 1997 the then Premier, Glen Clark, made a statement to the Vancouver Sun saying that on a $21 billion budget, a $185 million deficit is a rounding error. So one must take into account that it is important that we balance the budget. It is important that we show fiscal restraint.

One of the things that's most difficult to British Columbians is that when they look at all of the numbers, when they look at all of the facts — you know, basically using facts and figures to show things….

I was at a speech the other day with the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about the fact that the economic performance of the government during the 1990s was similar to the economic performance of the government in the last ten years. The difficulty is that while the government of the 1990s underperformed every other economy in the world, during this decade we've actually outperformed most places in the world except for, perhaps, the Chinese.

It's very difficult. While things on the surface might seem to be important and make sense, being fiscally prudent is very important.

Hon. M. Polak: I call Motion 2 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 2 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROCESS AND ENBRIDGE NORTHERN
GATEWAY REVIEW

R. Fleming:

[Be it resolved that this House urge the Government of British Columbia to immediately withdraw from the 2010 Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement, signed between the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and the National Energy Board, in order to take back provincial jurisdiction over the Enbridge Northern Gateway environmental review to ensure that the environmental, social and cultural interests of British Columbians are heard and protected.]

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this motion this morning, and to all members who will participate in the debate.

We're at a very distinct stage in the review at the National Energy Board about the Enbridge northern gateway. We're two years into this process, two-thirds of the way through it, and the stakes couldn't be higher. British Columbians' imaginations have been captured by this project proposal like no other for at least a generation in this province because of the environmental and economic risks posed by the Enbridge northern gateway.

While this process has been underway, British Columbians' attention has been riveted by a number of incidents, including the catastrophic-sized oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which was a world-class pipeline facility that burst, releasing millions of gallons of diluted bitumen that, two years later, has now cost taxpayers over $1 billion and counting — the largest oil spill in the history of the United States Midwest region and one where the company, which is the proponent in British Columbia, is now fighting the Environmental Protection Agency about who is responsible for further cleanup.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The National Transportation Safety Board called Enbridge the Keystone Kops for their conduct and their corporate culture, which made this spill much worse than it should have been. This is the company that seeks to do business in British Columbia and makes the same claims to have world-class standards that they said they had to Americans and citizens in Michigan.

[1105]

We live in the shadow of Alaska, our northern neighbours. We understand well the decades-long impact of the Exxon Valdez disaster, where, again, the oil company said to the citizens of Alaska, "We will make you whole for your damages," and they fought them every step of the way to reject claims, all the way to the Supreme Court. They are still in court to solve the financial implications of that — thousands of jobs lost, small businesses closed, economic dislocation, social breakdown of families and communities in Alaskan fishing towns, a herring fishery
[ Page 12833 ]
closed for 15 out of 20 years following that disaster.

British Columbians understand this, and they don't want that to happen in our province.

Now, let's look at the backdrop to the Enbridge northern gateway hearing, because as I mentioned, we are mid-process. At the outset we had, in the most politically unprecedented way, the full force of the Prime Minister's Office of Canada demonizing First Nations people, criticizing Canadians and impugning their motives, even deeming them to be foreign-funded radicals should they decide to participate in the National Energy Board process and have a view that is different from the Harper Conservatives. That's the backdrop.

And our own Premier. Her contribution to the debate was to admonish our province. She said some months ago that the coastlines of British Columbia don't belong to British Columbians, knowing full well that the cleanup costs do. The social and environmental costs will reside with British Columbians should there ever be a catastrophic oil spill in British Columbia.

But it is wonderful and inspiring, I think, at this point in time to see that there has not been a political chill from those that would seek to intimidate Canadians and British Columbians from coming to their own determination about Enbridge northern gateway and its claims.

In fact, in spite of the efforts of the Harper government and the incoherence of this B.C. Liberal government provincially, British Columbians have come forward in record numbers. They have spoken out. Thousands have written, phoned, e-mailed their elected officials, and it has been an engagement around British Columbia. This is what people are talking about in our province today.

But having said all that, the danger remains that even though the position of British Columbians has become more and more clear in community after community in every region of this province, nine months from now, because of the actions set in course by this provincial government under the terms and conditions of what is called the equivalency agreement, signed in 2010, there is actually very little that can be done to put into policy the concerns British Columbians have about the approval of this project.

This government actually surrendered B.C.'s rights to conduct its own environmental review and outsourced decision-making to Ottawa. That is a policy that is a disaster to British Columbia…

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time has come to a close.

R. Fleming: …and could be changed by getting out of the equivalency agreement.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Victoria–Swan Lake for bringing forward this motion, because it is on a very interesting topic. There's no question that people on both sides of this House are concerned about the environment. They're concerned about any potential issue that may arise from any project that goes forward in the province of British Columbia.

What I find interesting about the member's motion is that the NDP are already on record saying that they would reject the project. What I can't understand is why they would want to spend millions and millions of dollars in the province of British Columbia and take people through what would be a kangaroo court to come to a predetermined outcome. I don't get that.

That's not exactly what this motion is about. What they are talking about here is that they want to withdraw from an agreement. They want us to cancel the agreement we have with the federal government and have dual processes.

Well, Madam Speaker, we don't just have a single pipeline that's being proposed in the province. We have a host of projects across the province. Whether it's mining, whether it's forestry, whether it's coal, whether it's natural gas, whether it's pipeline projects, all of these things need to go through environmental assessment processes.

If we are going to have a dual process for every single one of those projects that go forward, it's duplication of all the effort. We have very good scientists on the federal side, on the provincial side. What we're talking about is creating, potentially, years of delay, which is what we have seen in the past. We're talking about creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty. We're talking about wasting taxpayers' money so that we have something that we can call our own process as opposed to a dual process.

[1110]

What we need to get to with the federal government is an agreement so that all environmental assessment processes that we do going forward are done jointly. We have a single process. We save taxpayers' money, and we streamline what we need to do without compromising the environmental qualities that we are looking for. And we bring certainty to industry.

There are mines in this province that have received a yes from one side and a no from the other side that are left in limbo, even though it's the exact same information that they have. We need to take care of that uncertainty.

When I think about it…. The member brought up the northern gateway project. What about the Kinder Morgan project? They have absolutely no say whatsoever on that, no position whatsoever, but they seem to have come out with a position on another project.

We cannot go forward project by project in the province with the political body making a decision in advance of having the data as to whether this project's okay or that project's not okay. What we need to do is we need to make sure that we have a single process. We need to make sure that we rely on science-based information. We need to make sure that what goes through brings the kind of certainty and confidence that companies need
[ Page 12834 ]
to be able to invest billions of dollars in the province of British Columbia.

As you probably have gathered from my comments, I am not in support of this motion. It does nothing to bring certainty to all of the other companies that are trying to go forward with projects. It does nothing to help save taxpayers' money. Matter of fact, it is a waste of money.

Quite frankly, I find it shocking that this type of a motion would come forward, which is based solely on politics, which clearly sets out a piece of what the NDP's platform will be going forward in this election, which is: "Don't worry about science. Don't worry about process. Just come and talk to us, because we are either going to give you a yea or nay before anything even goes on."

That is the kind of uncertainty that drove our mining industry out of British Columbia. That's the kind of uncertainty that brought all kinds of challenges for every other resource project. Clearly, that is not the kind of uncertainty that we need going forward.

Northern British Columbia has an enormous opportunity in front of it. We need to make sure that we provide as much certainty and as much opportunity for those companies to be able to go forward with projects. This kind of motion speaks directly that they do not have an idea of how to move forward economic development and beneficial projects in the province of British Columbia.

G. O'Mahony: Thank you, member for Nechako Lakes.

It is my honour to rise today to speak to this issue. The Kinder Morgan pipeline actually affects the very riding that I represent today.

A lot has changed since the equivalency agreement was first signed in 2010. This is what I want to discuss today — a big change, actually. I'm referring to the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act brought in by the federal government, Bill C-38, which one of my constituents refers to as Harper's rubber stamp on pipelines in British Columbia.

This is a serious change in the way that government has functioned. The member mentioned process. There was very much a flawed process in the way that this bill came about. It was a 420-page bill, and it was fast-tracked. It overhauled, oh, something like 70 existing pieces of legislation, many that refer to Canadian environmental assessment acts and regulations. In fact, a whole new act was brought in.

In light of these changes, I stand with my colleague from Swan Lake in that we pull out of this equivalency agreement. When I think about this act that the government brought forward, when I think of the way the provincial government is handling the northern gateway proposal and how the federal government has handled the northern gateway proposal, I think of a quote from Oscar Wilde in that they know the cost of everything and yet the value of nothing.

That is why we need to have a rigorous, made-in-B.C. process, so we can assure our residents that every step imaginable is taken to protect our environment.

[1115]

When we think about the northern gateway proposal, we're looking at 520,000 barrels of oil and 193,000 barrels of liquid condensate that will be shipped daily between Edmonton and Kitimat. It will lift the moratorium on oil tankers and the tanker exclusion zones so that 2.2 million barrels of oil annually will be shipped in these waters.

This is very, very serious. In my riding members from PIPE UP and other local activists came to my office, as they did to many of my other colleagues across British Columbia, to express their concerns about the way pipeline proposals are being handled.

When we consider the equivalency agreement, we do think of the northern gateway proposal. But when and if Kinder Morgan puts forward their proposal, that very same equivalency agreement will come into effect.

I wanted to just read a few statements from an economist, Robyn Allan, in reference to, as I mentioned, Bill C-38's effect on this process and what we can expect.

Since the passing of the federal omnibus bill — this is just a background — in the spring of 2012, the National Energy Board can only make recommendations to cabinet, allowing Harper to override the NEB's recommendations regarding major projects that Ottawa considers to be in national interest. This is very serious — so much so that the economist Robyn Allan wrote in the spring of 2012 to the Premier urging her to cancel the agreement after the omnibus bill was announced.

Robyn Allan argued that the agreement was signed with the understanding that the National Energy Board would have the power to make final and conclusive decisions rather than federal cabinet. One of her recommendations was that the government of B.C. remove northern gateway from the agreement with the National Energy Board to undertake a complete, unbiased assessment of the full environmental risks posed by northern gateway.

In other words, this economist is exactly saying that we must have an independent review, a made-in-B.C. process, because there has been a change since Bill C-38, a definite change to the process that needs to be considered. I don't think it's being taken with the weight that's necessary. We really should be thinking about what this economist says. We need to be thinking about what has happened since Bill C-38 has come into effect.

I'm here today, actually, standing on behalf of the members of my community of which there is another gateway proposal forthcoming that will certainly be impacted by the equivalency agreement.

D. Barnett: I thank the hon. member from across the floor for bringing forth this motion this morning. This motion is one that concerns me for many reasons. One of the reasons is: is British Columbia cooperative, open for business and willing to work with other levels of gov-
[ Page 12835 ]
ernment? With this resolution, I say not.

First of all, local governments for many years, which I was involved in, have asked this government and the federal government to work together to have one environmental review process. For those of you that have never been involved in an environmental review process, provincially or federally, you should walk the walk and see how stringent these processes are, whether they are federal or provincial.

The time has come where cooperation is needed for many reasons — not just for economic reasons but for environmental reasons. The National Energy Board, which I have had experience with, is very, very stringent. Their rules and their regulations are second to none. This project we're talking about today is one that, as we know, has much controversy. It is one that will not be approved by anyone unless it can be shown that the environment is not going to be in danger.

[1120]

We talk about the environment. We've had pipelines in the ground for over 100 years in British Columbia. I have a town where I was mayor that was built on a pipeline, so I do happen to know a little bit about the environment and a little bit about the process and a little bit about pipelines.

There are other things that, by going back to two processes, will once again stop economic development in this province. I'd like to talk to everyone here about one in my riding called Prosperity mine. Prosperity mine has gone through provincial review, which was approved. It went through a federal review, which was not approved, and they were given an opportunity for a second review if they changed their plan. Now this review is on the table, and the public process, hopefully, will start two or three months from now.

It's interesting that my colleague in my riding, who is a past MLA, supported it in 2008 and in 2012 doesn't support it. Instead of letting it go through the process, he writes a letter to the minister asking the process to stop.

An Hon. Member: He did?

D. Barnett: Yes.

It is time that we got to science. It's time political interference was not there. Say yes, you support it or no, you don't support it, but don't write letters to head politicians who are in the process of doing an environmental review process.

We talk about caring about the environment and about communities. If you take a look around part of rural British Columbia…. For those of you who haven't taken a trip, we have a devastation called pine beetle. It has devastated communities. It has devastated our forest. It has done damage to our waterways. We are trying to correct something that was a catastrophic disaster. We also need to feed people. When you lose jobs in one resource industry, you need those jobs in another industry.

We have opportunity. By doing things environmentally, in the best way possible in the world, we can move forward. Let the process take place. Let's put our heads together, and let's have one process that is done for the province of British Columbia for the best interests of Canada. Let's quit fracturing communities and government.

It is time to move forward. I urge the members across the floor to think again about having two processes for the same projects and to stick together and to work together with all levels of government.

R. Austin: Let's be clear. This was an exemption. It was always the case that the B.C. environmental process should look at this project. What this government did was they gave an exemption and basically said: "We're going to stand back and let just the federal government do it."

Do you know, Madam Speaker, that more British Columbians know what the Premier of Alberta thinks about this project than our own Premier? Don't you think that's a bit of a problem, seriously, when the Premier of Alberta signs up as an intervener in this process but our own Premier and our own government, which is supposed to stand up for British Columbians, is nowhere in the scene? They did not even sign up as an intervener. It is absolutely shameful.

Interestingly enough, the member for Nechako Lakes talks about the mining and how quickly they can make approvals there, even though it takes an awful long time. It is the provincial government that gives mining approvals — or perhaps joint, but the province is involved in every single mining approval. Don't we think that in a project the size of Enbridge the provincial government should be there standing up for British Columbians?

Where I live in the north, obviously, people became aware of the Enbridge project long before it became a big public issue, before it became a provincial issue and then eventually a Canadian issue. People up there know the land and the place which they live in. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin says that she lives in a town where there is a pipeline going underneath. If you go and visit the coast of British Columbia, Madam Speaker, you will identify that 98 percent of the north and central coast is inaccessible to human beings — inaccessible.

[1125]

This isn't like the beaches of the southern United States. When there was that tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, you had pictures on the TV screens of people going and scooping up oil on a beautiful beach and putting it away into buckets and into bags. This is a part of our world that is inaccessible to people to even go and do the cleanup.

By the way, when we're talking about the cleanup, who's on the hook for that? Not Enbridge. Oh no. They just deliver the oil to the tanker, then that's their respon-
[ Page 12836 ]
sibility. They're out of it. That's it. If there is a tragedy, it will be up to the taxpayers, the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Do you think maybe Alison Redford is going to be sending money from Alberta to come and help clean up the mess here in British Columbia? I don't think so. Even the Premier has recognized that in this particular instance the benefit almost entirely accrues to the province of Alberta and very little to the benefit of the province of British Columbia. So it's no wonder that people are very, very upset.

Then on top of it all, this government actually gives away our jurisdiction to the feds. People were talking here on the other side about letting science rule. Our Prime Minister is one who isn't that keen on science. He's not that keen on scientists. In fact, he likes to let them go. And if a scientist actually discovers something that he's not in agreement with, then they can't even speak out. That's how our Prime Minister deals with science — perhaps not surprising when he comes as an economist, hardly a science in itself.

Anyway, I want to speak also about First Nations rights. It is clear. In a province like British Columbia, where First Nations have not ceded or agreed to treaty in most of the province, how is it that First Nations rights aren't being upheld?

Last week the Coastal First Nations had to back out of the NEB process. Why? Because they don't have the kind of resources to enable them to even engage. Enbridge went and raised $100 million for the marketing of this pipeline. That's how much money they have to make sure it goes ahead. Mind you, the First Nations were given $290,000 to try and engage in this process. So it's very difficult. The playing field is not level. We need to make sure with a B.C.-made process that it is a level playing field that will allow First Nations to actually participate.

Finally, I'd like to say this. I met with Enbridge many, many years ago at the outset when they were doing community meetings around my area. They told me things like this. They said: "You know, we have the best and latest technology. We can monitor our pipelines from the inside to actually see whether they are wearing, whether there's going to be the possibility of a crack or a break. And if there is a break, we know instantaneously in our headquarters. In our control room in Edmonton, we know immediately that there's a break."

Do you know, Madam Speaker, if you read the media, that after the Kalamazoo disaster in Michigan oil flowed into the Kalamazoo for between 11 and 17 hours before the folks up in Edmonton figured out that their pipeline had broken? Can you imagine that happening in British Columbia? I don't want to see it.

H. Bloy: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bloy: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce a longtime friend of mine and a friend of British Columbia, Mr. Peter Legge, who's a recipient of the Order of Canada. You might have seen him on the weekend hosting Variety, The Children's Charity, where they raised over $7.1 million for those children close to me. Peter has done many things for the province of British Columbia. He's the largest publisher in western Canada, a magazine publisher, and I'd like the House to please make him welcome here today.

Debate Continued

R. Howard: Before I even get to my prepared remarks on this topic I just want to express a little shock. The member for Skeena just stood and uttered the words that the government hadn't registered as an intervener, which I find very misleading. The government has, in fact, registered as an intervener. The Minister of Environment was just up at Prince Rupert for a day and a half asking tough questions, trying to protect the interests of British Columbians. This government and that minister are actively protecting the interests of British Columbians.

[1130]

I want to come back and actually thank the member for Victoria–Swan Lake for bringing forward this important issue. I hope this is the first of many issues that all of the members of the opposition bring forward, that highlight our differences, a government to opposition. I think it's always important to highlight in debate, but particularly in an election year, it's important for all of us British Columbians to be given the opportunity to hear us debate our difference, to hear us debate various issues. Again, I encourage all members opposite to continue this practice in the coming days.

I can only assume that the members of the opposition are proud of what they believe in, proud of what they stand for. I'm sure most British Columbians are looking forward to just hearing exactly what the opposition does believe in and what they do stand for.

We have on this issue several points of difference to consider. On this issue, we have — government has — clearly laid out our position. The opposition has not. The government offers clarity. The opposition offers continued obfuscation. They have made contrary statements before the process has even completed, before the evidence is in, before the proponent has had the opportunity to answer all of the questions.

I realize this has been a difficult issue for the opposition. As I have said, they have been remarkably unclear on their position, saying they don't believe in the process. Their leader — this is the man who wants to be Premier — has said: "My position now is that I don't think it is in the economic and environmental interest of B.C."
[ Page 12837 ]

We contrast that to an agreement signed back in the '90s, when the opposition held government. The existing Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, said that coordinating federal and provincial assessments will make the process more efficient for everyone and ensure that issues are addressed in a timely manner.

I know we always upset the opposition when we go back to the '90s, but given the lack of current position, that's where we must go. So British Columbians have another point of difference to consider. On the one hand, on the government side, we offer a rigorous process aided by professional research leading to world-leading practices.

On the other hand, the opposition offers changing up the process partway through the process, seemingly a change in process to influence the result, an ad hoc approach to approval or rejection of major projects. I think that that is something for all British Columbians to consider.

Whether they would simply stop the project or create layers of red tape so thick as to choke it off, this seems worthy of debate, and this highlights another point of difference. On the one hand, our government offers a single combined federal-provincial process. On the other hand, the opposition wants to double up the red tape, create a second provincial process with as of yet undefined terms, that being the third point for British Columbians to consider.

As we see, there are lots of differences here. I want to go back to the second significant point between government and opposition, which is changing the process partway through the process. Just imagine the chill that will fall on this province if the opposition is successful in this motion. We need leadership, not obfuscation.

M. Karagianis: So fascinating this morning to listen to the previous speaker. Unlike the Premier and this government's evolving stand on Enbridge, we have been very clear. New Democrats have been clear in standing with business, First Nations, coastal communities, 85 percent of the population of British Columbia that are saying no to Enbridge and no to increased tanker traffic here on the coastline. No equivocation on our part — none.

Instead, what have we heard from the Premier? Well, we've heard from the Premier that, in fact, the B.C. Liberals would throw a little temper tantrum and would cut off permits, withhold electricity. That's their answer if they don't like the decision that Stephen Harper makes on their behalf?

[1135]

The provincial government has laid out their five conditions, all of which are already supported in law and none of which actually protect the coast and the rural and pristine northern part of British Columbia. So very hollow arguments on the part of the government, and, certainly, an evolving position. Listening this morning, you'd get the feeling that there is a very pro-Enbridge attitude on the other side of the House.

But the reality here and the heart of this motion that we are debating here this morning…. I am here to urge all members in this House to support this motion because, in fact, British Columbia has ceded all decision-making on this pipeline to Ottawa.

The government here has defended an exemption that hurts British Columbians. We have said that Stephen Harper will make the decision on our behalf. They will run their own environmental process. They will then come to a conclusion, and they will make that decision regardless of what British Columbians want and regardless of the evolving position of the current B.C. Liberals.

This will certainly be a ballot question in the upcoming election, and we have a government that has stood on the sidelines, continues to stand on the sidelines and give us vacuous debate about this at a time when we could be taking real action.

In fact, New Democrats have called on the government to give notice. Now, either party in this current equivalency agreement can withdraw from the process with 30 days' written notice. We have repeatedly called on the government to give this notice to Ottawa, to Stephen Harper, and say that we are going to take the responsibility for this decision back into British Columbians' hands. Let's have a made-in-B.C. process, not a dual process, not sitting on the sidelines waiting for Stephen Harper and his very, very pro-pipeline position to make those decisions on our behalf.

While the government wants to equivocate back and forth about this, in fact what we're saying is we want a made-in-B.C. process. We want the decision made here, and we want to stand up for British Columbians' interests. We want to stand up for protecting our coastline. A very simple decision. Give 30 days' notice to Stephen Harper, get out of the equivalency agreement, take the decision back into our own hands, and we'll have a made-in-B.C. process.

New Democrats have said from the beginning that this pipeline is not in the best interests of British Columbians. But we also do not believe for one minute that we should be giving the decision-making to Stephen Harper and washing our hands of the whole deal. Is this a way to simply stand by and cede all kinds of responsibility? Are the B.C. Liberals afraid to stand up and say: "We want this pipeline regardless of the cost to our pristine north or our coastline"?

Are they simply afraid, so that's why we'll defer this decision to Ottawa? That is cowardice. British Columbians on the eve of an election are going to make this a ballot issue. You can bet your bottom dollar. So 85 percent of British Columbians have said no. First Nations communities have said no. Business has said no. New Democrats have said no. Give notice to Stephen Harper and say no to the Enbridge pipeline. It is a very simple decision.

That's what this motion is about. Stand up, take a position, stop equivocating around and evolving your position every other day, based on what the populist vote might be for you in your own communities, and back this motion.

We will take the responsibility back into British Columbia,
[ Page 12838 ]
as we do for other things like mining, which you've all mentioned this morning, and make sure that British Columbians look after their own responsibilities here and not cede our decision to Ottawa, who has already made a decision. This is a done deal as far as they're concerned, and we need to fight it. Join us — both sides of the House — in fighting this Enbridge pipeline in this province.

K. Krueger: I was wondering how in the world I could ever fit in the things that needed to be said, as I prepared for this brief speaking opportunity. Then I listened to the member for Nechako Lakes and my other two government colleagues who have spoken and even the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, and they're framing this debate beautifully for what it really is.

The member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads seems to suggest Canada doesn't have to be involved here: "Just blow off Canada. We'll just decide on our own." Well, Canada has responsibilities, and it's not going to go away. She speaks like a person who has always been on an island and as if British Columbia itself is an island. You can't just blow off the federal government. You've got to work with them, and we should work with them, and they're good people to work with.

[1140]

I'm very pleased that the NDP opposition has brought on this debate, because it really makes a whole lot of things clear that people might have forgotten over the last 12 years of good government. The NDP members have actually been very helpful in making that clear. I hear them catcall: "Moving forward." But they haven't changed a bit from the NDP of the 1990s. I know they get tired of hearing that, but that was their decade. That was their chance to shine, and they did the opposite of shining.

The more they pretend to change, the more they stay the same. This motion itself is a very stark reminder that the NDP are the very same organization as they were when they were in government for those sad ten years, with their constant effort to make political points by attacking neighbours and allies like Alaska, Alberta and Washington, and Canada and the U.S.A., and investors and their projects.

They incurred ill will for British Columbia and anger against our province, and that behaviour…. Their ceaseless drive to overregulate and gouge British Columbians with higher taxes, their gross incompetence at management, leadership, governance, all of their responsibilities, bombed British Columbia's economy from the best in the country to the worst and left it stuck there for years.

It has been a prodigious effort, as you know, Madam Speaker, for us to bring the economy back to the position of leadership we now hold with Alberta, in Canada. British Columbians struggled for years with the consequences of the very type of thing that the member is suggesting when he brings on this motion — that we should just unilaterally tear up an agreement with the federal government, that we should go our separate ways from them, even though we both have to do the same thing, as some of my colleagues have very clearly said.

This motion shows British Columbians we can only expect more of the same from the NDP, should the colossal mistake be made of allowing them another shot at government. It would be an awful mistake. It has been a mistake every time it happened in the past. The NDP member who moved this motion knows full well that his leader has already taken a position against this proposal.

Due process is being followed, Members. It is being followed, and you want to abort that and just act like it's not necessary. Do you realize the colossal message that that would send to investors, to job creators all around the world? That's what it would do.

Their leader has taken his position. It's already a foregone conclusion what he would do. Why would he ever waste the time doing a process if he thinks he's king, and he can just say, "We're not going to allow these things," without even knowing what the project is all about, what he's talking about? What kind of message does that send to investors?

I'll tell you what it sends: the same message that people got when the NDP vetoed the Tatshenshini project, when they subjected British Columbia to liability for the way that they treated Carrier Lumber; lost a major lawsuit over that. Mysteriously, 47 boxes of evidence appeared at the last minute, and they had to accept that they'd done badly, that they'd done very wrong. Those messages were heard around the world. It has taken us a long time to get over.

One of my colleagues mentioned mining exploration. They were down to just over $20 million a year in mining exploration. We had $680 million last year alone. That's more mining exploration than was done in ten years under an NDP government. We did better in one year than they did in ten.

The beauty of this motion, and the catcalling of members opposite and everything they are saying about it, is it makes things so clear that British Columbians would have to be living in a dream world to think they'd get better results from these people in government than we got from a bunch of them and their cousins in the 1990s.

It was a disaster, and it caused our biggest export to be young people from British Columbia. They moved off to Alberta and other places to get jobs, and that's where they're raising their families. That's a shame. We need them here. We need their skills. We want their children in our educational system. We want them growing up and going to our universities.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Krueger: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thanks for the motion, buddy.

D. Donaldson: I stand in support of this motion by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, our Environment critic,
[ Page 12839 ]
urging the government to use a clause in the agreement to withdraw from the environmental equivalency agreement in favour of a made-in-B.C. process. It's needed because this government signed away our jurisdiction over the environmental assessment of Enbridge to the federal government in 2010 with this equivalency agreement with the National Energy Board.

[1145]

If the National Energy Board gives approval, then there will be little legal recourse, despite the fact that of 1,161 people speaking at the public hearings across this province, 1,159 opposed the project. Only two spoke in favour, and one is a current B.C. Conservative supporter, a former B.C. Liberal MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Dennis MacKay. So the B.C. Liberal position has been confused at best and more aptly described as obstructive and unhelpful to representing our interests.

Just in July the government refused to release a 30-page technical report to the National Energy Board panel despite a request by the Coastal First Nations. A detailed technical report created by B.C.'s own environmental experts in our ministries, and this government refuses to make it public in this process. If we had a made-in-B.C. process in this type of record, it could be front and centre and not buried to public scrutiny.

The government also refused to put B.C. experts from our government ministries on the stand at the NEB panel, using the justification that because we provided no evidence, there was no need to provide witnesses for cross-examination. Unbelievable. In fact, the government of Alberta participated more substantially in this process than we did in B.C. What a damning set of circumstances that is for this government's record in standing up for B.C.'s interests. Under a made-in-B.C. process, those scientists who know the land and waters intimately would be front and centre.

Finally, by putting this motion forward and having our own process, we could remove the situation that has allowed the B.C. Liberals to create such confusion around their position on this project. At first the Premier compared oil tankers navigating the Douglas Channel to that of tankers navigating the St. Lawrence Seaway, hon. Speaker. Can you believe that? She was trying to downplay environmental concerns, obviously, but at the risk of her credibility.

Then she laid out some conditions which are basic components of any project approval in the province, like addressing legal and treaty rights of First Nations, with her main message being that if we got enough money for this project, it was a go, regardless. Well, if the NEB approves this project, any conditional arguments by B.C. that may have been looked upon by the courts…. They'd be looked upon as extremely weak because this government did not take the responsibility of putting our experts on the stand during this process, and that is directly on the heads of this government.

They can't be trusted in this process. They have no credibility. They signed away our jurisdiction to Harper's Conservatives, who are bent on having this project approved. We deserve better. The member for Nechako Lakes said that the mining sector…. If the environmental assessment in this province is good enough for the mining sector, then why is it not good enough for the oil sector? Does he have no trust in our environmental assessment process in this province?

This motion, to conclude, provides an avenue to get us to our own table on a huge issue for the province. I encourage all members to support it wholeheartedly, and then we can have some credibility on this issue for the people of the province, and the people of the north, especially.

Deputy Speaker: If Chilliwack doesn't mind yielding the floor, Coquitlam–Burke Mountain seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce Mr. Ray White, a former MLA from the province of Nova Scotia, who joins us here in the gallery today.

Debate Continued

J. Les: It's a pleasure to engage in the debate this morning. I think first of all, on the topic of the Enbridge pipeline, the government has been very clear. We've laid down five conditions that must be met before such a proposal would ever be approved. But I think the motion that the member has put forward is actually a very interesting glimpse into the NDP platform.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As many people will know, we've been asking for months what it is exactly that the NDP proposes to run on and how they would conduct government were they to form government in British Columbia, and the answer has been mostly silence. But this is an interesting glimpse into what an NDP administration might look like. It would be characterized, largely, by regulatory double jeopardy — back to duplicative processes, back to processes where minds were already made up.

[1150]

You know, I think investors and job creators in this province are going to be watching this debate very, very closely. And just as proof of how the NDP approach didn't work in the past, in the 1990s investment in mining exploration in this province was almost driven into the ground — no pun intended. By the end of the 1990s, less than $30 million worth of mining exploration in the province of British Columbia; in this last year, almost $680 million of mineral exploration.
[ Page 12840 ]

Why have we seen much more investment in exploration in the province? It is because there is a reasonable prospect there. If you have a resource, you'll be able to develop that resource, create jobs, invest in the province and contribute to our economy.

That certainty will be lost by the kind of regulatory double jeopardy that is betrayed in this particular motion. This kind of approach to governance really has no place but is just meant to obstruct, to make life difficult, and really, at the end of the day, does nothing for environmental improvement in the province of British Columbia.

We on this side of the House believe in collaboration. We believe in getting along with our neighbours. We believe in appropriate processes to make sure that British Columbians' interests are protected. On that side of the House they believe in obstruction, in not getting along with the other players in the economy, whether they are political or economic jurisdictions.

I think what we've had here this morning is a quick sneak peek at the true NDP agenda, which is obstructionist, as it always has been.

J. Trasolini: I rise to speak in favour of the motion. The equivalency agreement — what does it really mean? What is this agreement? Well, you know, in its nuts and bolts it means that the provincial government has abdicated a responsibility. What they are saying to British Columbians, young and old, is that they trust the decisions on this very, very important environmental review to the federal Harper government.

This is a federal government that has gutted the Fisheries Act. They have removed any sort of opportunity for scientists to prepare for oil spills in Burrard Inlet and the west coast of British Columbia.

I spent ten years working for Environment Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Trasolini: For those ten years my responsibility was to coordinate, plan and respond to oil spills on the west coast of British Columbia. Let me tell you, oil spills don't happen at noon or in the afternoon. They happen in the middle of the night. They happen at the time when…. Even at the best of times, when you know what to expect and what to do, things go wrong. Where is the trust then? The trust does not rest with the government of British Columbia.

I say to you that young people are watching this debate. Last month I had my second meeting of the MLA youth focus advisory committee, and we had this discussion. They cannot believe how a government is giving up the right to look after their future, the right to look after our coastline, the right to safeguard our ecology, water resources, wildlife. These are young people at the age of 14 to 19. They will be our next leaders. They will be our taxpayers of the future.

Hon. Speaker, I can do no less than bring their message here this morning, speaking in favour of this motion. We need to cancel the agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford-Mission, and noting the hour.

[1155]

R. Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be very brief.

I'm astounded by the hypocrisy of this motion. It's almost unbelievable. Just a couple of years ago Prosperity mine was reviewed by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Board, which found that it should move ahead. The Canadian assessment said no. The NDP were all over the British Columbia assessment process, saying it was no good; it was lousy. It was the federal one that was the one they wanted, and when we talked about having one process and having it assigned to British Columbia, they were absolutely opposed.

Now today they want something different. This is what is called hypocrisy — flip-flop, flip-flop. What do you really want to happen? "Well, let's talk about what we don't want. We don't want the pipeline, regardless if there is science, regardless of a process."

Why would you even want to have an environmental assessment? You have already decided and said it very clearly. No pipeline is what your position is. Why have an assessment? Why have an assessment on anything? Decide everything in your offices, or the Premier's office, if you were ever, God forbid, to form government.

Interjections.

R. Hawes: And there you go. That is what they want to do. They're applauding the fact they can make decisions without having any process.

I'll just leave it there. The hypocrisy is actually astounding, and I think anybody who listens to this and thinks back to their former positions would have to agree. This is just absolutely the height of hypocrisy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

R. Hawes moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada