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)
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 41, Number 7
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Throne Speech Debate (continued) |
12887 |
Hon. I. Chong |
|
G. Coons |
|
C. Hansen |
|
M. Sather |
|
D. Hayer |
|
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Lake: I now call debate on the Speech from the Throne.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
Hon. I. Chong: When I last spoke and we adjourned…. I believe I have just over ten minutes, so I will do my best in earnest to wrap up some of the comments I want to convey with respect to the throne speech and certainly reiterate once again that I am in support of it.
[D. Black in the chair.]
It is ensuring that we look at the speech with the strength that is within it, and that is the focus of having an ability to move our economy forward, ensuring that we have a plan. That plan and that way forward, as has been identified in the throne speech, is in fact an ability to take a look at our abundance of natural gas, to liquefy it and export it to a market that is in dire need of that, to ensure that when we are able to receive those revenues to not have undirected spending but to focus it and to have those funds come into a prosperity fund, one that can be used over time to eliminate our provincial debt.
That is a vision that is forward thinking. That is a vision that requires planning. That is a vision that requires leadership. And that is one of the reasons why the support of this throne speech is so important. Imagine not having any debt in this province. It is hard to imagine.
What I was having a look at, in trying to understand where the NDP opposition was coming from…. And it's been hard, because they have not at any point conveyed to us what their vision, their plan, is. I've heard a few things about: "Well, we're going to be modest." Well, what does that really mean? If there is no plan to eliminate the debt, if there is no plan to take advantage of this abundance of our natural gases here in British Columbia, then you would have to….
Well, you would lead one to believe, then, we're going to be taking a look at increased taxes — I don't know to what extent — possible cutting of services — again, to what extent, I don't know. So I think it is important that the NDP….
And I would challenge the leader that I think he needs to come clean. I think he needs to let us know what their election platform is. After all, I've heard that they're trying to force an early election. If they're trying to force an early election, they must be ready. They must have a platform. So where is it? Where is that platform? I have no idea.
It's even more disconcerting. I think taxpayers feel it's more disconcerting. Not only have they not shown us the platform; we have an opposition leader believing that he is going to be the Premier. He's even hiring staff, as I understand it. I find that amazing — hiring staff, choosing who should be in charge of the provincial civil service.
Now, some would call that arrogant. I'm not saying it's arrogant. However, it does seem a little presumptuous, I would think. So again, I challenge the NDP to come clean with their plan.
I have heard a few things, though. I've listened to some of their supporters — or who I believe are their supporters. Most recently I think it was on Voice of B.C. I heard Doug McArthur mention Forest Renewal B.C. Is that what we're looking forward to — that boondoggle, that billion-dollar boondoggle and the six-foot-high page of regulations that stifled the forest industry and caused loss of jobs?
Now, I know that there are some members opposite who have no idea what Forest Renewal B.C. was, because they weren't here…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. I. Chong: …but I would suggest these members ask some of the former members who were there what this was all about. It really just about killed the forest industry. It certainly did. Forest renewal. And it's being talked about again. Hard to believe.
Now, corporate capital tax. We have heard that. We have heard the corporate capital tax. And although the NDP says it will only be on the financial institutions, we know their record. It starts in one place, and it spreads like wildfire. So I would have some concerns about that.
But what I find most disturbing — and I think many taxpayers do — is that they have already indicated that they do intend to repeal the balanced-budget legislation. What does that mean? When unchecked, the NDP in the '90s…. What they were doing…. They were passing special warrants to cover off overspending all the time.
Now, again some members might not know what special warrants are, and I don't blame them, because under our administration, we never had to pass special warrants because we were controlling spending. I see some members chuckling, and they're not sure…. But special warrants are not a way forward. Special warrants, in fact, are unchecked spending. So I would be very concerned, hon. Speaker, from what I've heard and what I've seen so far.
[ Page 12888 ]
What's been leaked out, in little dribs and drabs, is a return to the kind of financial disarray, uncontrolled spending, fiscal mismanagement that happened in the 1990s. I don't think taxpayers want that, nor do they deserve that. And that's one of the reasons why I would challenge the NDP opposition leader to reveal to us exactly what is in his election platform. Then we could cross those off if they don't intend to do those things.
Then we don't have to talk about them anymore. Wouldn't that be grand? Then we could talk about the positive things that I think they're trying to convey. After all, the leader did say he wants to be very positive. I'm still wondering when we're going to see that.
We want to know, as well, exactly where they stand when it comes to the fiscal future of the province. Do they intend to return us to a GDP-to-debt ratio level that the bond-rating agencies rejected? Do they intend to have credit downgrades again? Because right now they're not indicating that they're going to have any kind of discipline that would stop that.
We worked very hard on this side of the House, really hard, to get to that balanced budget, to have credible balanced budgets so that the bond-rating agencies allowed us to maintain — not only allowed us, but first of all, upgraded — our credit rating and have even maintained them in spite of the global financial uncertainty and instability that is happening.
The bond-rating agencies have still said that they have confidence in this government. That is why we have investors who are still looking to come to this province, to bring their dollars, because of the confidence they have had in the administration of our financial sources here in this province.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Chong: That's not the same. That is not the same as the NDP. I am already hearing people who are concerned about the NDP possibly getting their hands on the treasury again, because those dollars will evaporate. We will see job losses once again. We know that we will see credit downgrades fairly quickly.
What a credit downgrade means…. People wonder why we talk about it. It means more debt-servicing costs.
You know, I recall — because I did debate this in the 1990s — the provincial debt that the NDP had, which they racked up over ten years. They doubled it. When they took over from the Social Credit, it was about $17 billion. By the time they got to 2001, it was $33 billion, I believe.
They doubled it. And the interest at that time, if you were to put all of the debt-servicing in one ministry, amounted to $2.7 billion. That is over $7 million a day in interest. Wow. That's right — $7 million a day. Can you imagine the kinds of essential services that could have been augmented, been provided for, the additional tax cuts making families' lives more affordable that could have occurred if they did not allow that kind of uncontrolled spending to take place?
Now, I'm not saying that the debt hasn't risen. No. But let's put that in perspective. We have greater assets in place. We have new hospitals with cancer centres. We have a Canada Line that is used daily by hundreds of thousands of people.
What did the NDP show for their capital outlay? I think it was three fast cats. Oh, yes. It was three fast cats. And however else they contributed to their escalating provincial debt, I believe there was a mill that kept receiving additional dollars that they couldn't bail out.
Those are the financial practices of the NDP. They might think that I have forgotten. I have not forgotten. They might think taxpayers have forgotten, but taxpayers have not forgotten. Taxpayers will be reminded of that kind of fiscal mismanagement very, very soon. As soon as they reveal their election platform, I would hope.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to take the last few moments that I have to once again thank all those who have supported me in this job: the residents and constituents of Oak Bay–Gordon Head who allowed me to serve them for 17 years — an honour and a privilege. I look forward to serving them for another four years.
I want to thank, as well, all those colleagues that I've had the pleasure of working with and who are not returning to this Legislature after 2013 — on both sides of the House, hon. Speaker, yourself included. I will miss seeing you, because you have done this job in a very professional manner. There are a few others on the other side I will miss, but maybe not as much as I will miss you.
Once again, I will say unequivocally that I support this throne speech. I believe it has a vision, and I believe it is important that we compare our vision to what I hope we will soon see revealed through the NDP opposition.
G. Coons: Again, it is an honour to stand and respond to the Speech from the Throne, the last opportunity I will have to do this. Before I put forward some thoughts on the throne speech, I'd like to take some time to thank and give my best wishes to colleagues from all three sides of the House — I guess there used to be four sides of the House — those again submitting their services to and for British Columbians and those who will assess and reassess where they've been for the last while and where they plan to be in the near future.
I do want to offer my gratitude to the member for Penticton in his time as Speaker and, as well, to all of
[ Page 12889 ]
the other members who have taken time in the chair. Also, to the members for Peace River South and Surrey-Cloverdale, who, as Transportation ministers over the years, allowed significant and pertinent debate on the ferry file despite government policy that has morphed our ferry system from a safe, reliable and affordable service that was a key component of our transportation infrastructure to a flotilla of profit-and-loss centres. We have to remember that B.C. Ferries is not only important to those that live and depend on the ferry service. It's an integral part of our provincial economy.
I want to acknowledge some of the people that are leaving the House — the members for Shuswap, Vancouver-Quilchena, Kamloops–South Thompson — who have spent many years in here and I'm sure going to miss. Whenever the member for Kamloops–South Thompson joins the debate, it reminds me of the foghorns up in Rupert, so I think that's going to be missed around here.
There are some members of the Finance Committee who are retiring — for Chilliwack, Surrey-Tynehead. Again, Surrey-Tynehead — we have to remember the comment about the Port Mann Bridge, the widest bridge in the world. Perhaps it should have been a lane wider, with the ice bombs coming down, but besides that….
I do want to talk about one other person in the House that has been here just about every day in the last eight years that I've been here, attending the House around here. He's a cousin of mine, and I do want to mention that my mother's maiden name was Cantelon. So down the family tree there, I do want to wish the member for Parksville-Qualicum the best of health. We have to remember that cousin Ron was the black sheep of the family.
Of course, I do want to acknowledge the four members of our caucus who, like myself, are moving on to bigger and better things: the member for New Westminster, thank you for your service in both provincial and federal politics; the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville; Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows; and, of course, the guy from Delta North. We can't forget him, who, I can attest, has tactfully handled numerous issues of concern not only in this House but in his own constituency.
I do believe Winston Churchill said it best when he stated: "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." So I do want to thank those colleagues of mine that are also moving on.
I want to acknowledge the caucus that I've spent eight years with. I do see a big future for British Columbia on May 14, and I do thank all of them.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my family for their encouragement, their support and guidance over the last eight years. A huge thank you to my wife and partner, Lois. We've been together 32 years, and she's been there from the very beginning. I'm not too sure about the end, because she's in Costa Rica right now and I'm not too sure if she's coming back. But I do want to express my gratitude to Lois and to my two wonderful daughters, Hannah and Breton, who have put up with the trials and tribulations of my escapades. Thank you so much. I love you both.
I want to recognize the huge contributions of my staff over the years, the legislative assistants I've had: Christina Hunt, Lucy Mears, Angela Miranda and Joleen Badger. Thank you for all the work that you've done.
My constituency staff over the period were Erika Rolston, who is now with the member for Saanich South; Judy Carlick-Pearson; Anna Lamb-Yorski; and currently James McNish, who's in the office right now. A special thank-you to Pauline Woodrow, who has stabilized and directed the office for close to eight years. Her work, her contributions, her coordinated efforts, I believe, have made the North Coast constituency office one of the best in the province. Thank you, all.
I want to acknowledge the many people that have guided and supported me on my journeys through the realm of politics. I do have to admit that politics, eight or nine years ago, was not on my radar. I was in the right place at the wrong time or the wrong place at the right time. But I do think that it's been an experience and a real honour to be in the Legislature.
I want to thank some close friends — Peter Northcott, Fred Beil, Marty Bowles and Jamie Scott — who were there to convince me to run. The executive of the North Coast NDP have to have significant gratitude given to them — Gloria Rendell and Dave Smith as presidents, who are instrumental in the election planning. A huge thank-you to two tireless workers, Gina Clark and Andrew Laforest, for their dedication and the hard work they've done provincially and federally.
I do recall during the two by-elections that happened last April in Port Moody–Coquitlam and Chilliwack-Hope that Craig James, the Clerk of the Legislature, commented that since 1871 there have only been 883 MLAs in the province that have come in here. With B.C. with a population of six million, that's a pretty small number. It is a real privilege to be elected and sit in this chamber making decisions on behalf of British Columbians.
As far as the North Coast constituency, the first electoral race was in 1916, and that saw Thomas Dufferin Pattullo elected — Duff. He was elected and re-elected seven times from 1916 to 1941 and was the 22nd Premier of B.C. from 1933 to 1941. So there is significant history in the North Coast and Prince Rupert riding.
In the time since 1916 there have been ten MLAs for Prince Rupert or the North Coast constituency. For the first time, after the May 14 election, the North Coast will have its first female member of the Legislative Assembly, and that will be Jennifer Rice. I'm really looking forward to that historic moment. In the nomination that we had for the North Coast, we had two excellent candidates,
[ Page 12890 ]
Jennifer Rice and Joanna Larson. Either one would have been an excellent candidate. I congratulate them both and thank them both for putting their names forward.
Now, it's a real honour to represent the constituents of the North Coast and British Columbia in this incredible place. The constituency that I represent, the North Coast of British Columbia, is such a diverse region with issues and concerns that are unique to each area of the province. I feel blessed to represent the many municipalities, regional districts, the school boards and First Nations in the region.
On my last trip to Bella Coola, which was about two weeks ago, I mentioned in a meeting that I'm the MLA, basically, for the Great Bear rainforest. The North Coast constituency encompasses the Great Bear rainforest. I had an elder correct me, saying that I was a representative not of the Great Bear rainforest but of the Nuxalk Nation, the Oweekeno, the Kitasoo/Xai'xais, the Heiltsuk, the Haida, the Nisga'a, the Tsimshian, whose traditional territories make up the area called the Great Bear rainforest. That put a different perspective onto things, when I understand and realize the significance of that riding.
Just recently, last weekend, last week was the 54th All-Native Basketball Tournament. For 54 years it's been happening, the largest sporting event, I would say, in Canada — 54 teams, four divisions and a week long. It goes from a Sunday to a Saturday, and thousands of people come into the community.
I do want to acknowledge some of the winners of the event. In the women's division it was Nanaimo Spirit, and the intermediate was Kitamaat, the Haisla Pride. In the seniors, it was the Skidegate Saints. In the masters, it was the Haida Watchmen, from Old Massett, so the Haida dominated that. It was an excellent tournament.
When we look at the north coast…. When I first started running, for the 2005 election, I'd knock on the door and say, "What are the issues?" and they'd say: "I don't really have any that I can think of." Thinking it would be health care, education, the economy, basically, I would say: "Well, what about, um, fish farms?" The key component on door-knocking was the opposition to open-net fish farming and drilling for oil in the Hecate Strait.
The number one priority throughout the region on the north coast and in northwest British Columbia is the environment — clean air, safe water, unpolluted land — because that's what sustains the multitude of jobs that we have. Clean, safe, unpolluted water and land drives our economy. Whether it's forestry, agriculture, tourism, fisheries — those are the jobs on the north coast. If we look at fisheries alone, if we look at the diverse number of jobs created in the commercial or sport industry, we look at shellfish aquaculture, crabbing and prawning — thousands, tens of thousands of jobs alone.
A key component for the north coast, I believe, and the central coast is traditional harvesting — the clams, the shellfish, the cockles, the seaweed, the oolichans, the herring. That has sustained First Nations in the regions for tens of thousands of years. If these are put at risk at all through unsustainable practices, there will be push-back and strong resistance. We've seen that in many of the projects that have been proposed for the north coast.
Although there's been a 41-year moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and it's been in place in the Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Sound for 41 years, this B.C. Liberal government is still bent on drilling in the Hecate Strait. Those on the north coast will oppose it. Open-net fish farms. North coast residents fought against the introduction of fish farms on the north coast, and they won. Right now there's a moratorium on any fish farm applications on the north coast.
The Sacred Headwaters was mentioned in the throne speech. That's the headwaters of three pristine, key salmon-bearing rivers — the Skeena River, the Nass River, the Stikine River. If you look at the history of that, it's been nearly a decade of a fight for Shell drilling in the Sacred Headwaters. It sounds like this government at the last minute came in and said: "Look at what we've done. We've solved the problem of the Sacred Headwaters. We put a moratorium on there."
If we look at the history, in 2004 Shell was awarded a tenure to drill in the Sacred Headwaters. They drilled three exploratory wells and had plans to drill 14 more by 2008. In 2005 the Tahltan elders blockaded the access roads for Shell. That ended in several arrests. It's been a long history of fight. Since then, communities and people in the north stood united for nearly a decade in defence of these three rivers.
Finally, we do have the necessary moratorium to prevent any drilling in the Sacred Headwaters. That is the fight, the resolve of the people from the north, protecting their environment, protecting their resources, protecting their jobs.
When we look at the Enbridge project…. Coastal First Nations have initiated their own moratorium on tankers within the traditional waters. Every First Nation, basically, along the pipeline route is opposed. We look at the municipalities. The Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district, the Kitimat-Stikine regional district — they are opposed. The Smithers council, Rupert, Terrace, Masset, Queen Charlotte, Sandspit — they are all opposed to the project. But again, we have this government, the B.C. Liberal government, pushing forward and being pro-pipeline, as the minister said a year and a half ago. The UBCM has taken a stance against tankers and against the pipeline.
I think what's equally outrageous is the equivalency agreement signed in 2010 by this government that diminishes our ability to influence major projects in our province by handing over decision-making powers to Harper and Ottawa. So B.C. has no person, nobody to represent
[ Page 12891 ]
our interests.
But there is an out. We heard that out yesterday. A right to have a say can be reclaimed with 30 days' notice. Again, we were stressing to the government the importance of that by encouraging the Premier and the members on that side of the House to take action and protect our statutory right for the final decision on the Enbridge project, and they still failed to do that.
Now, in the throne speech there are a few areas I'd like to talk on. We look at post-secondary education. The government says they're going to help families save for post-secondary education. But under this government student debt has risen to be the highest west of the Maritimes, an average of $27,000. With a ten-year repayment period that debt even climbs higher, to $34,000. Tuition fees have doubled under this government, and the Advanced Education budget is going to be declining. It's forecast to decline by $70 million between 2012 and 2013 to 2014-15 — the largest cut. So it's sort of smoke and mirrors again with this throne speech.
The agriculture industry. My brother-in-law Jim Elliot, from Oyama, is the ex-president of the Okanagan Tree Fruit Cooperative. I know the importance of agriculture, not only in the Okanagan but throughout the province, and again, there's nothing in the throne speech to support the B.C. agriculture industry, no commitment to local purchasing.
Education. I do have to talk about education and the ridiculous ten-year agreement that the government has put forward, a farcical attempt to create a calm in the education realm. Teachers have called it ludicrous. Media commentators have written it off as grandstanding. You know, I think that what this government needs to do is look at the dire needs in public education that are being ignored by this government. There's nothing to deal with the consequence of the previous decade of underfunding, nothing about growing school board deficits, school closures, overcrowded classrooms, reduced services for students with special needs. All of these are due to this government's policies.
Noel Herron, a respected former school principal and school trustee, said: "It's very clear that the gap between rhetoric and reality has widened dramatically since 2001. It is an appalling, decade-long record of multiple cutbacks, repeated missteps, policy reversals and instances where the province has opted for ideology over clear public needs. These varied, often snap, piecemeal, discriminatory and regressive policy decisions impacted negatively on every single aspect of public schooling since 2001." That's what we've seen in the education system.
Now, what we also failed to see in the throne speech is anything about commitments to reducing poverty or a poverty reduction strategy. Nothing about tourism, arts or culture or, more specifically, Destination B.C., Creative B.C. Nothing about forestry, one of the driving forces in the province. We heard nothing last week.
Now, I do have to comment about the environment piece and the LNG gas facilities, where the throne speech talks about having three liquid natural gas facilities operational by 2020. Work is underway for ten others. This gold rush for putting LNG into northern British Columbia is something that I think has to be looked at carefully. As the Premier is proposing massive expansions of resource extraction, she hasn't addressed concerns, especially from those in northern British Columbia, about environmental impacts.
There are concerns about fracking in the northeast, about water use and other environmental issues. We've put forward — and I believe we have to enlist — an expert panel to look at a broad review of fracking, looking at having public hearings, consultations with First Nations communities, industry, environmental groups and citizens. We need to look at and ensure that we make changes to protect B.C.'s water resources, and we have to question how the exponential growth of LNG impacts our climate action plan.
It seems that this Premier, this government, have put their eggs all in one basket, especially with the prosperity fund. You know, the night of the throne speech a couple of us met with some proponents of some LNG projects, and they were shocked and concerned about the prosperity fund, the $100 billion mythical prosperity fund that appears to be just a political gimmick laughed at by pundits and questioned by the industry. I heard that loud and clear meeting with proponents the night of the throne speech.
The future of this fantasy fund ignores the need to take care of B.C. today — the real plan that's needed for skills training to ensure that British Columbians are ready for the jobs of the future.
Now, I noted the transportation and infrastructure section, and we looked at some projects — you know, replacing the George Massey Tunnel, some four-laning of Highway 97, the South Fraser perimeter road, the Evergreen line, but nothing — nothing — in the throne speech about ferries.
There's a consultation process that's just ended. We're waiting for the report. The minister has said: "Oh, the report might come out, but we aren't going to act on it before the election." I think that this government needs to take a strong stance and come out with support for our transportation, important transportation infrastructure at B.C. Ferries.
It was said that ten years ago, basically, the B.C. government unveiled a brand-new, not quite arm's-length coastal ferry model. It promised jobs, economic development, modest fare increases, better service — all with no new public debt. What have we seen? Well, we've seen a model that had no business case. It's falling apart. Fares have skyrocketed. Ridership has gone down. Finally, after ten years, the government is going out and consulting people.
[ Page 12892 ]
They have the opportunity to show some leadership on the ferry file, and they do nothing. They sit on their hands.
I looked at some of the projects that were mentioned: the South Fraser perimeter road, a $1 billion project and rising. I go back to the Bennett Bridge in Kelowna, $144 million, with SNC-Lavalin getting $179 million over 30 years, so $6 million a year for maintaining and operating it; Sea to Sky Highway, $1 billion, with $100 million a year for maintenance; the Port Mann Bridge, $3 billion; the Cariboo connector, four-laning between Cache Creek to Prince George, on the books for $2 billion.
All of these projects….
Interjections.
G. Coons: I'm glad that you are touting public taxpayers' dollars going into projects that support transportation infrastructure. That's where B.C. Ferries falls into the line.
We need to make B.C. Ferries part of the transportation infrastructure so that ferries and terminals are included with the infrastructure, as all British Columbians pay in their taxes. That the Cariboo connector, as the minister said, is costing a huge amount that all taxpayers are paying for — those in Powell River, those on Quadra Island, those on Haida Gwaii. I think those people in Prince George, in Mackenzie, should also feel privileged to pay for the infrastructure for B.C. Ferries.
We need a long-term vision. This government has failed B.C. Ferries, and that's the middle piece of the puzzle — the long-term vision. We haven't had one for over ten years under this government's model. We have a $1.3 billion debt. There's interest debt of $72 million a year. But we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.
We don't know the projects, the contracts, that B.C. Ferries has committed to. We don't know about the vacation centre, the new atrium and the management cost, because we don't have access to those finances. We need to ensure that B.C. Ferries and their management structure, with the outrageous bonuses and pensions and salaries paid to the Million-Dollar Man and some of his other cohorts, are brought under control. We have two boards of directors that don't really do too much to help the system and have failed, I believe, in ensuring that we have addressed the real needs of B.C. Ferries.
I do want to, in the short time I have, look at where we've gone with B.C. Ferries. In 2003 it was basically putting the fox in the henhouse. There was no scrutiny, no accountability, no access to information. They were exempt from FOI. Some of the key components of the Liberal policy were user pay and no cross-subsidization to the smaller routes. The number one priority was the financial sustainability of the ferry corporation.
What happened is that in 2010 — seven or eight years after this quasi-privatized legislation came into play, a failed model — there was Bill 20. It finally made B.C. Ferries subject to FOI. It looked at the interest of ferry users, which was ignored in the legislation, and the search for alternate service providers, or privatization, of B.C. Ferries was also deemed not mandatory.
They also dealt with the board of director conflicts. They reduced the board's remuneration. Executive pay was somewhat looked at, where even though the current executive were grandfathered in with their multi-million-dollar contracts and $300,000-a-year pensions…. Hopefully, in the future we'll be dealing with that.
A year later, Bill 14. They set fares and mandated a review. Then we saw Bill 47, where finally there was a defined definition for ferry users. They had to be taken into account. Cross-subsidization was allowed, user pay was eliminated, and the commissioner was given more power to force B.C. Ferries to do plans, review policies and do public consultations.
What drove B.C. Ferries into the ground under the B.C. Liberal government was the no freedom of information, the cross-subsidization limitation, the user-pay model where, if a new ferry came into service, it had to be paid for by the users — all those things are gone now.
I think this throne speech basically lacked courage and vision. I believe last year the throne speech was given over a radio show. That's perhaps where the Premier should have done her throne speech this year — again, on CKNW.
Now, seeing the end of my time, I do want to thank the constituents of North Coast for putting their faith in me for the last eight years. I was going to refer to Corky Evans' speak, his final speech, and some of his recommendations to new MLAs — you know, love the building; refuse to make decisions about land you haven't seen or visited; listen up; what you cannot fix, leave it alone — but I think one thing I would advise to people: be true to yourself. Be true to your convictions. Be true to your constituents, and always consider what's best for the public interest.
I think after a decade of B.C. Liberal policies, it is time for a change — a positive change that's going to benefit families in all regions of the province. I think next May 14 we're going to see a real change in this province, a real change for the better.
C. Hansen: You know, I think one of the things that members of this chamber realize very soon after they become MLAs is how intricately issues are overlapping and how much interconnection there is between issues that come before us in our elected capacities.
When you think about the importance of good health care, good education, support for young families…. These don't happen in isolation. These are all things that happen because we have a strong economy. Without a strong economy we can't have many of the benefits we get
[ Page 12893 ]
from the various social programs that families in British Columbia enjoy in every corner of this province.
There's one theme in the throne speech that I wanted to highlight, because I think it's key to everything else that we do as we look forward to the strength of British Columbia as a province and our ability to really meet the needs of British Columbians and British Columbia families in the decades ahead. It's an area that is of considerable passion to me, going back for the last 30 years, which I'll talk about in a little bit.
We often think about our ability to fund the health care system and the education system based on the economy. When we talk about the economy, we think about the importance of jobs, we think about the importance of skills training, and we think about how we would not have a good health care system or a good education system if we didn't have a strong mining sector in British Columbia, if we didn't have a strong forest sector, if we didn't have the technology sector — all of those sectors that are really the backbone of the B.C. economy and the backbone of the jobs that in turn allow families to have that paycheque that is so important to their quality of life in British Columbia.
But even when you start looking at each of those industries and their relative importance to British Columbia, there's still one more area that I think is of overriding importance to the B.C. economy as we look forward into the future. That's probably summed up in two words: Asia-Pacific. When you look at the dynamism of so many of our industries in British Columbia, it is really being driven by the tremendous growth that we've seen in the Asia-Pacific region over the last number of years.
My involvement in Asia-Pacific affairs and Canada's relationship with the Asia-Pacific actually goes back…. It will be 30 years, actually, this May that I was recruited to assist with the establishment of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada — the national organization headquartered in Vancouver that has served this country, I think, very well for these past 30 years. It tends to keep a low profile, but I can tell you that the work it does and the work it has done over those 30 years is incredibly important to the economy of Canada and, in particular, the economy of British Columbia.
I was recruited 30 years ago to help with the establishment of the foundation. It was a volunteer board that was made up of leading Canadians from all across Canada. There were university presidents. There were CEOs of banks. There were the executive vice-presidents of major corporations. There were professors from universities. There were leaders from the medical community, really representing every single province and the territories, as well, that were coming together to help put the foundation in place.
I was brought in on a contract to do the machinery, to actually put the organization in place. In fact, it was incorporated by an act of parliament in 1985. I drafted the initial draft of that piece of legislation, which is probably my first kick at trying to pretend I knew how to be a legislative draftsman. I don't think any of the language that I drafted was in the final version, but at least I can claim to have a small role in that part of it as well.
I spent a lot of time. I know my son was a newborn at that time, and I was away from home a lot at that period, travelling across Canada, meeting with officials from provincial governments to get them on board with the foundation.
I remember that at the time one of the provinces we were encouraging to participate in the establishment of the foundation was the province of Quebec. At the time it had a PQ government. It went without much celebration, but it was quietly noticed in circles all across Canada that when Quebec came on board and agreed to be one of the founding funders of the Asia Pacific Foundation, it was the first time that a PQ government had ever provided funding for what was a national Canadian entity. I think it just reflects the importance that all jurisdictions across Canada placed on the emerging Asia-Pacific at that period of time.
But it was really an uphill battle. I can remember going and talking to business groups across Canada, speaking to university audiences and chambers of commerce and others, and at that time people still didn't recognize that Canada was a neighbour to the Asia-Pacific. People talked about the Far East instead of talking about the Asia-Pacific region as the near west. I think, as is pointed out in the throne speech, that today the Asia-Pacific is not an emerging part of the world; it has emerged. And I think it was really the work that was put in back in the 1980s and 1990s that got us to where we are today.
I want to talk a bit more about some of the recent history over the last 12 years as well. You know, I also question at times whether or not there's still a lot of work to be done. A couple of years ago I saw a headline that was a result of a national politician who was speaking at the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. The headline in the article in the Vancouver Province at the time said that this particular national political leader was urging the business community to look east for future opportunities. I read the headline, and I kind of thought: "What's that about?" As I read the article, I realized: "Oh, he was talking about the Far East."
I think that's still a challenge we have in British Columbia: to make sure that leaders and Canadians in general from all parts of Canada appreciate the importance of our near west across the Pacific and what that's going to do to the economy of Canada in the future. When you start looking at what happened in the early 1990s, we saw a time when our forest exports to the United States fell off. We were in a period of recession. The housing starts in the U.S. dried up. Now, does this sound familiar? It's because history repeats itself.
[ Page 12894 ]
The reason I revisit that is because I think it's so vitally important that we not allow history to repeat itself again. There's actually a story that I heard about in the early 1990s of a British Columbia company that, because their markets in the United States had softened considerably, started exploring some new opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region. And they actually got some contracts for shipping British Columbia product into that market. They were successful for about a year supplying that market. Apparently, the companies that were buying the product were happy with the quality that they were getting from British Columbia.
Then what happened? The U.S. housing market came back. The demand for British Columbia wood products came back from the United States. That particular company, I think, made a decision that is still haunting us today. They cancelled their contracts to ship to their new customers in the Asia-Pacific so that they could fill their new orders that they were getting from their traditional customers in the United States.
I knew about this story in the mid-1990s, but it came back to revisit me as a minister when I was travelling in Asia because I was meeting with a business group in the Asia-Pacific, one of the Asian countries, who told me about this story. I kind of thought: "This is a story that has really made the rounds." It damaged our reputation as a reliable supplier, significantly.
But there's a lot of work that has been done, I think, to build back that reputation. I think back to 2003 when we as a government opened offices in Shanghai — this was the Canada wood project — to try to build markets for British Columbia lumber in the China market. Even though it was an office that was there to represent Canada and the office proudly flew the Canadian flag, it was primarily funded by British Columbia and the federal government, with some participation from other provinces. But it was really an initiative that was there to help to drive British Columbia exports.
A lot of people said: "You know what? It's probably a waste of money, because in China they don't live in a wood culture." They don't use wood in construction very much — very little, actually — and in fact the word, I'm told, in Chinese for a wood-frame house is a word that we would probably translate into something like "shantytown." Even wood construction in China was not something that was seen as desirable.
A lot of people said that the investment in the Canada wood project would not reap dividends for British Columbia, and by 2004 there wasn't much sign of progress. If you go back and look at the total lumber exports into China from 2003 to 2004, they hardly budged. In 2005, hardly budged; 2006 was when they started to take off. They started to increase exponentially in the years that followed, and today, from 2003 to last year, we have seen an increase in the dollar value of lumber exported into China of 1,500 percent — just a phenomenal increase.
In fact, in 2011, for the first time, we exceeded $1 billion in exports, and we know that growth is still there. But it was some painstaking efforts. It was the current Minister of Finance, who was Minister of Forests at the time, who opened that office in Shanghai, and it was actually the current Minister of Jobs who made frequent trips into China to build that relationship and to work with governments.
I think it's a classic example of what governments have to do to build markets. It's not a case of ministers and government leaders sitting in Victoria and setting up offices — although we've done that, and that's an important part of this process as well. It is vitally important that cabinet ministers and the Premier actually travel to Asia and meet with government officials and industry leaders in those countries to build that relationship and, in turn, build those markets.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
I had the privilege of doing several trips to Asia in my capacity as Minister of Economic Development. I had responsibility for the Asia-Pacific Initiative at that time, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that those are not fun trips. A lot of people sort of say: "Oh, well, you've got a cabinet minister spending X number of thousands of dollars to get on a plane and travel through Asia." I can remember one two-week trip where, I think, on average I got four hours of sleep a night for two weeks. I came home absolutely exhausted.
But I can tell you it paid dividends for British Columbia because of the meetings that were set up that would never have happened had it not been for a cabinet minister or the Premier leading that group. Those doors would not have opened. I think the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training can testify to the importance of building those relationships, because I think part of his legacy is that stellar job that he did in opening up those markets for us. A lot of that tremendous increase that we saw in our lumber exports to China, I think, is a direct result of the time and effort that he put into building those markets. It's something that we have to continue.
I think that we have to change a bit of the political culture in British Columbia. Somehow when a politician spends money on travel, that's a bad thing. In fact, I think we should be spending more money on travel to make sure that we can continue to build on the momentum that we have, going forward.
It's not just about China. You know, I can remember, back when I was working for the Asia Pacific Foundation, it was all about Japan at that time. I can remember giving speeches talking about how just 20 years prior something that was stamped "Made in Japan" was not considered a quality product — in the 1960s. I can remember that
[ Page 12895 ]
growing up as a kid. There was actually a story that went around about a community that was set up that was titled Usa — it was Usa, Japan — so that they could stamp "Made in USA" as a way of getting around the reputation that Japan had at the time.
Well, 20 years later, in the 1980s, that stamp "Made in Japan" was seen as a stamp of quality, and it still is today. We've seen the same transition, in terms of other countries that have emerged, in Japan today. It wasn't that long ago that "Made in China" was not considered a stamp of quality, but it is today because they're producing leading-edge products that are really shaping the world consumer markets. That's true of other economies going forward too.
When you start looking at the results that we've seen from our marketing experts in Asia…. If you go back and look at that mix of British Columbia products…. In 2001, 70 percent of all of the exports from British Columbia went to the United States. By 2011 that was 43 percent.
You sort of think: "Well, that's sort of a diminishment of our exports." No, it's actually a huge increase in our markets into other parts of the world. It's that diversification that is really the underpinning of the strength of the British Columbia economy today.
Let's look at some of those countries in Asia-Pacific. Japan: in 2001, 13 percent of our exports; in 2011 it was 14 percent. So we've had a good, healthy share of our exports going into Japan, and we have been able to maintain that as a province.
China is probably the one that has seen the biggest increase. Just a decade ago it was a grand total of 2 percent of our exports that were going to China. As of 2011 that's up to 15 percent, and we know that that's going to continue to grow as we go forward.
If you look at the other Asia countries, ten years ago it was 4 percent. Now, a decade later, it's up to 12 percent.
I can remember when I was Minister of Finance and we did what was a periodic — it worked out to about every two years — visit to some of the investment houses in New York and Montreal and Toronto. Those visits by the Finance Minister of the day were important to make sure that those financial houses really had British Columbia on their radar and really understood the importance of that.
This was right after the recession. I think it was late 2009 when I did my first investment trip with staff from the Ministry of Finance. I took with us a slide deck that sort of showed the underpinnings of the B.C. economy — where our strengths were, how the economy had come through the recession. The fact that we had a triple-A credit rating was something that they noticed.
There was actually one slide that stood out in the eyes of the people I was meeting more so than any of the other slides, and that was a pie chart showing the mix of our exports. We showed some of the other countries our provinces across Canada. They were very familiar with Alberta, of course, with its energy powerhouse and how important that energy powerhouse was to the United States.
We compared it to Ontario, and those provinces — and really, every other province other than British Columbia — were so dependent on the U.S. market. And what caught their attention — and these were Americans in New York — was the fact that we had such a diversified export market. Their comment was that that, more than any other thing, was the signal of the strength of British Columbia — that diversification of market and the fact that we had seen this tremendous growth in Asia and that we were so well integrated with the Asia-Pacific economies at that point.
It's something that we have to continue to build going forward. We've opened offices throughout Asia. The Shanghai office is a true success story. It was diversified, actually, when I was the Minister of Economic Development, to be a trade and investment office — so, broader than just the wood export market.
We also at that time opened offices in Tokyo. We opened an office in Seoul, Korea. Subsequently, there have been offices opened in Guangzhou and in the Philippines.
Most recently there were offices opened just last fall in India — two offices, one in Mumbai, which is the financial capital in India and counts for about…. Forty percent of all of the economic activity in India comes through Mumbai. Also, an office opened in Chandigarh, which, of course, is the capital of Punjab, which is so vitally important to so many British Columbians in terms of their ancestral and family linkages that are there today. We need to continue to build on that as we go forward.
I think when it comes to our trade relationships with Europe and our trade relationships with the United States…. Yes, those are different in the sense that you can build those trade relationships in terms of a corporate-to-corporate relationship. It's not as pivotal for governments to be involved in building trade relationships in those parts of the world. It obviously helps.
I think we've seen the success of our offices and our B.C. representatives in Europe in terms of how they have been able to build economic activity for British Columbia, particularly in terms of attracting inbound investment to British Columbia. But it's not as dependent for a political leader to be part of building those relationships. It's an area that I think we need to focus on going forward.
If you look at some of the other successes — the agriculture industry, for example…. Seizing some of the new markets in Asia has really been a central part of our agricultural strategy in British Columbia. That is part of what's going to help grow our agriculture sector to a $14-billion-a-year industry by the year 2017.
In 2011 we saw our seafood exports to China reach
[ Page 12896 ]
record levels. We've seen B.C. wine exports go up by 300 percent since 2008. Those are the kinds of numbers that I think we will continue to see, if we don't lose our focus and don't lose sight of how important that is to the future as we go forward.
If you look at how the B.C. economy has fared over the last number of years, it is really seizing those opportunities in Asia that has been pivotal to that. I think there has really been a huge shift in the corporate culture in British Columbia as well. Unlike the early 1990s, when some short-term opportunities were seen in exports into the Asia-Pacific region, I think there is now a solid recognition that Asia-Pacific is there as a permanent part of our economic activity in the years to go forward.
We need to make sure that that message gets spread across Canada, because I'm not convinced that Canadians in the other parts of Canada recognize the importance of Asia to their economic future. There's not enough recognition that British Columbia is not Canada's back door off the east coast. It is, in fact, our front door to these growing Asia-Pacific markets for the future and something that we can't lose sight of.
Canada has certainly fared very well compared to other countries around the world as we've gone through the economic challenges of the last 4½ years. In fact, if you look at that period of time from 2007 to 2011, over that five-year period, and you look at the annual average real GDP growth of countries around the world….
You look at a country like Germany, which is considered one of the economic powerhouses in the world. Yes, they're facing some of the challenge of the eurozone, but they're actually getting the huge benefit of the fact they are in the eurozone. I would say that if Germany still had its deutsche mark today, it would have significantly appreciated in these last number of years as the euro has gone through its challenges.
In fact, if you compare the exchange rates of the Swiss franc, which is not part of the eurozone, obviously, and the value of the euro, the Swiss franc, of course, has appreciated tremendously against the U.S. dollar and against the euro. That's made the exports from Switzerland a real challenge. Switzerland is an exporting country, and the value of their currency has been challenged by that.
Germany has had the benefit of a depressed euro relative to what the German currency otherwise would be, and hence, their unemployment rates are at all-time lows. We have seen their export markets showing huge success over that period of time, because you can buy a Jetta or a BMW for a lot cheaper than you would have been able to buy if their currency had appreciated in a way that would probably really, truly reflect what's happened in their economy.
In Germany over this last five-year period from 2007 to 2011 the annual GDP growth went up by 0.6 percent. Now, that fares better than the United States that went up by an annual average of 0.2 percent. France actually was zero. Their real GDP growth was flatlined during that period of time. In the United Kingdom we actually saw an annual average yearly decline of 0.6 percent. Japan was down by 0.8 percent. Italy was down by 1.1 percent on average over that period.
Now, Canada fared tremendously well, relatively speaking to other countries. Even right through that recession, the worst recession that the world had seen since the 1930s, Canada still grew at an average rate of 1 percent during that period of time.
British Columbia during that period of time had even a higher average rate of growth at 1.1 percent. Now, 1.1 percent is not stellar when you look back over the course of history, but relative to the other jurisdictions around the world and relative to other parts of Canada, we fared extremely well.
It's one of the reasons why we have seen job creation in British Columbia now, once again, hitting record highs, and we have seen the number of people employed in British Columbia at all-time highs in spite of the fact that we went through such a devastating recession. It really is as a result of the markets that we had built in the Asia-Pacific region that we were able to sustain that kind of growth during that very difficult time. We see that growth starting to increase, and the projected growth for British Columbia, of course, still running ahead of what is expected for Canada as a whole, as a result of those markets.
In the final few minutes that I have, I just wanted to close. It's counting down the number of days that those of us who are not seeking re-election have to serve in this chamber and to serve our constituents. It has truly been an honour and a pleasure for me, over these 17 years, to represent the constituents of Vancouver-Quilchena. There are a lot of people to thank who have supported me during that period of time.
I particularly want to acknowledge the support from the staff who work in the Legislature. Whether it's the Hansard staff, the staff who work in the dining room, the staff who keep the buildings in such great shape, the staff in the library — such a phenomenal resource to those of us that serve in this chamber — the security staff, the Clerks or the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, they really help us do our job in such a profound way. We owe them a profound thanks for the support they give us.
There was a book that was written by one of our federal politicians a number of years ago, and I think the title of the book was The House is Not a Home. I think there are lots of times that we would much sooner be in our own homes in our constituencies than being stuck in the legislative buildings for hours and hours at a time. Sometimes it feels like days. For some of those all-night sessions that some of us have had to endure over the years, there are truly better places to be.
But given that we have spent so much time in these
[ Page 12897 ]
buildings as MLAs, it is really a tribute to the staff who work here that we are able to do our jobs and that it is as comfortable as it can possibly be as we go through and do our work.
I would like to say thanks to colleagues on both sides of the chamber. It is really a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with individuals who are so dedicated to their communities, dedicated to the province and dedicated to Canada.
I think when you look around this room at the personalities and the backgrounds of those of us who serve as MLAs, we come from very different walks of life. We come from different occupations. We have different experience.
Some of us are quite young, and some of us were young. Some of us are older. Some of us, when we first got elected, didn't have quite as much grey hair as we have now, and some of us, when we were first elected, had hair, and maybe not so much anymore. But I think one of the real gifts, one of the real benefits of being able to work in this environment is getting to know people and learning from their experiences.
It really is a place where the whole is so much greater than the sum of its parts, because we all come together with our different backgrounds to work to try to make this province a better place and to serve the interests of our constituents.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak.
M. Sather: I, too, am joining the growing ranks of the nearly departed. So I wanted, before I got around to talking about the throne speech, to thank a few of the people that have helped me over the years. I can't get to all of them by any means, including a whole lot of my colleagues who have been exemplary in the work they've done.
First off, I want to thank my lovely wife, writer and painter Annette LeBox. Being the spouse of a politician, I think, is sometimes as difficult or even more difficult than actually being a politician.
I couldn't have made it through the rough spots without you, sweetheart, so thank you.
Thanks also, of course, to my able constituency assistants, both past and present. My current constituency assistants are Donann Kinar, who has been with me since I began in 2005. Donann has a really wonderful touch with constituents, which reduced the number of stressful encounters that I had to deal with. Second is Carly O'Rourke. Carly's lightness of heart and style makes us all feel happier. She's just a bright light and a very positive person to be around.
I also wanted to thank some of my past constituency assistants. Carmen Ortega was with me in 2005 and assisted me at that time and has now gone on to a career with Port Metro Vancouver. Sheryl Seale was with me, I guess I would say, during my most difficult time in the Legislature and remains a very good friend. Sid Ramsoondar was a very capable constituency assistant, easy to work with. Sid has gone on to a career with border security services. Finally, I'd like to thank Renee Poley and Melissa Lazeo, who filled in admirably when I needed some extra help.
Here in the Legislature, I want to thank Gurbrinder Kang. Gurbrinder is my legislative assistant and has been for a long time. Gurbrinder has assisted me to a great extent, and I want to thank her for all of the help and support that she's given me.
Finally, I want to thank my constituency association, especially to Craig Spears for his years of leadership, and now to Bob Goos, my current constituency president.
You know, there are a lot of things one could talk about after ten years or eight years in the House. Of course, there's not time to get around to all of them. But I did want to mention one that sticks out in my mind, in my time here. This goes back to the first session. I'm not sure of the year, actually — maybe around 2006 or 2007, something in there.
We were having one of those delightful all-night sessions of the Legislature. I always found them really exciting up until about midnight or one o'clock. Then it starts getting really draggy.
One night I was sitting in this House, House duty. It was about 2:30 in the morning, and the unforgettable Corky Evans was here in the House. Corky decided to sing a song. He sang Woody Guthrie's song about people killing you with a six-gun or a fountain pen. Now, I have never heard anybody else…. I don't know. Some members have been here a lot longer than me, but I have never heard anybody else sing in the Legislature. So that alone caught my attention.
I don't know if it's allowed by the House, and I can't remember who was in the chair at the time. Maybe it was you, Mr. Speaker. He's shaking his head. He was here. So he kindly allowed Corky to continue, but to top it off, the lights went out. It was just eerie. We all, on our side of the House, always thought that Corky had some special powers. It was a bit spooky maybe. But that was something I'll never forget.
So on to the Speech from the Throne. You know, the throne speech, as the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill used to remind us, is their time. It's the time when as an opposition member you have to just kind of suck it up, because the government has all the capacity to implement their plans. They've got the human capacity and the financial capacity to do that, so it can be kind of a difficult day for opposition members.
This is the eighth throne speech that I have witnessed in the House, and it was really, I have to say, remarkable for its lack of substance. Really, there were only two
[ Page 12898 ]
specific proposals. One was to establish a prosperity fund, and another was to produce legislation to establish a seniors advocate — something that we've long supported on this side of the House.
I won't say a lot about the prosperity fund, as others have commented on it at length, but I would note that the price of gas has dropped more than 30 percent between 2005-2006 and projections for 2012-2013, and projected gas revenues for 2012-2013 are only 8 percent of what was realized in 2005-2006. These are not indicators that would suggest that projections of massive earnings from LNG are realistic, not to mention the question of the desirability of maximizing production of fossil fuels.
There was no mention, in the budget, of climate change — not at all, not a single word. That is astounding, to me at least. Talk about prosperity, but the prospects for prosperity are massively diminished by the devastation brought about by climate change.
The Iroquois reportedly said we should be living sustainably with a horizon of seven generations. We're way off the mark.
You know, it reminds me of that Pink Floyd song that says: "And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run; you missed the starting gun." Well, we missed the starting gun over and over again.
So instead of working to solve the climate change catastrophe or at least diminish its effects, we're talking about pedal-to-the metal development of fossil fuels. I understand that we cannot transition away from fossil fuels immediately and that the transition will be difficult. But we just can't give up. Why don't we start with putting solar panels on our roofs, something that a friend of mine calls run of the roof.
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member opposite — I think he said he has one.
Now, I'm told that the smart grid — vis-à-vis the project that's going on with smart meters — would facilitate that, I understand. So let's get on with it.
But let's have a look now where we're at in B.C. regarding actions to combat climate change. In 2007 B.C. passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which set targets of 33 percent decrease in emissions by 2020 and a 2012 interim target of 6 percent below 2007 GHG levels. However, these targets do not count the export of GHGs, which I'll talk about more in a minute.
The story continues with some apparent good news. As of 2010, B.C.'s emissions had fallen by 4.5 percent. The 2012 goal of a 6 percent reduction below 2007 levels would have been achievable except that B.C. is trying to move aggressively to market natural gas. Eighty percent of B.C.'s GHG emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels.
Only 15 percent of B.C. gas is consumed in B.C. The rest is exported, and of course we know that the government hopes to export massive amounts of gas to China. The government argues that in the case of gas exported to China, the gas is a transitional fuel and will help China to reduce their emissions. This is far from clear, however.
The main component of natural gas is methane, a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in a unit-to-unit comparison. It is estimated that if methane gas leakage amounts to only 3.2 percent or more of gas emissions, this will wipe out any advantage that natural gas has over coal.
Also, it is not obvious that exporting liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to China will displace coal-fired electricity production as opposed to just adding to China's growing demand for energy. The bottom line is that in order for the gas industry to expand as the government is planning for, and for the 2016 and 2020 GHG emission targets to be met, the rest of B.C.'s economy would have to undertake emission reductions that are just not plausible.
When the government brought in the GHG reduction targets, they argued that they were committed to these targets because they had put their intentions into legislation. But we've seen the government put balanced-budget legislation as well, but this hasn't been adhered to. So just putting it into legislation doesn't mean that it's going to happen. We are giving up on the fight against climate change in the drive to export LNG.
Again, I understand we cannot completely abandon fossil fuel usage, at least not in the near term. But to massively accelerate fossil fuel consumption, as the government seems bent on doing, is foolhardy in the extreme.
In addition to the conflict between fighting climate change and maximizing oil and gas production, there are other systemic barriers to a cleaner and better planet. These barriers relate to the way in which we have restructured our economic and social instruments over the last 30 years. The principal features of this restructuring were free trade, deregulation, tax breaks that disproportionately favour wealthy individuals and corporations, offshoring of manufacturing, and the creation of fraudulent financial instruments.
Perhaps the most egregious of these so-called free trade deals is the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA. This is another investors' rights agreement that cedes huge power to corporations, in this case the dictatorial government of China. The deal would give Chinese companies operating in Canada more power than Canadian companies under what is called the enclave legal status. Arbitration is done behind closed doors, and damages are unlimited. Chinese entities already in Canada can contest all government or court decisions. HD Mining, anyone?
I would like to hear what our government's views of this impending deal are. There was no mention of that
[ Page 12899 ]
in the throne speech.
Speaking of HD Mining, that's something else that's missing from the throne speech. The Premier in her trips to China was very vocal in trumpeting all the mining jobs that would be coming to B.C. She just neglected to tell British Columbians that they would not be eligible for a whole whack of these predicted jobs.
Despite the debacle that has led to the current long-lasting economic downturn, the processes responsible remain in place, largely unchanged. Yet some ask: "What do the Occupy movement and Idle No More want?" Why is that so difficult to figure out? They are simply tired of being ripped off by wealthy corporations and their attendant compliant governments.
The goal of maximizing production and profits is at loggerheads with the need to fight climate change. Buying local and the 100-mile diet conflict hugely with global corporatism. Buying all our stuff from China is just not green. The transportation effects are huge. Then there is all that excess plastic packaging, which you can't even open, much of which ends up in the ocean as small particles which are adhered to by bacteria and dangerous chemicals and are then ingested by humans and other animals.
Chinese workers save 30 to 50 percent of their monthly income. This massive capital is lent by Chinese banks to our banks at cheap rates, so we can go on consuming and spending and, in the process, running up huge debts. We're losing our means of production and are now relegated to being consumers.
This system is economically and environmentally bereft. However, the current economic system, as deficient as it is, does create jobs and wealth.
So how do we make the economy work while protecting and enhancing the environment, including fighting climate change? Obviously, it means we have to do some things very differently. We will have to function in a way that will often be outside our comfort zone. We will have to put the interests of the whole ahead of our own interests, while ensuring that incentives for individuals and groups to excel are still there.
We need to put things on the table that typically don't get serious consideration. For example, is the reality of growth, including economic growth, actually working for us? If we conclude that it is not — and the situation regarding climate change is one strong indicator that it is not — then what can we do differently?
Certainly, the case for growth has a lot of merits, as I've alluded to. But in my view, we're failing to understand, or we're ignoring, the costs. One of these costs, but by no means the only one, is climate change.
I find the way people tend to think about growth interesting. For me, when we destroy another heritage tree that supports wildlife — and virtually all trees do support wildlife — or we drain another wetland, I say to myself: "There has to be a better way." We're devouring the system that sustains us and the other denizens of the planet.
Others tell me, though: "Well, cutting that tree or draining the swamp is the price of progress." And that's only if they're at the place where they see value in trees and marshes, because a lot of people, unfortunately, don't.
There are lots of peculiarities in life. For example, oftentimes the same people who cut the trees are the ones advertising to consumers to buy in a particular neighbourhood because it has a lot of greenery.
The other response I get to restraining growth is: "People have to have somewhere to live." That brings me to the issue of the population of earth — seven billion and rising fast — and what, if anything, should be done to control the size of the human population.
Now, talk about sacred cows. Here's one. The economists, of course, equate more people with all the good things that growth can apparently bring. But here again, we don't count the costs. The human population, in many respects, is simply destroying the planet. In my opinion, this is unavoidable unless we can limit the growth of our numbers.
We have to count the cost to understand the damage. It's overstated but true that despite our knowledge, our vast knowledge, we have a very limited understanding of our physical surroundings and what effect we have on them. We need to educate ourselves. No matter that in British Columbia our population is low, relative to most of the earth. Our reach is great. Our effect is huge.
You can't count the costs unless you see them as costs. Here's where we need not only the scientists but the artists, the writers, the poets, the musicians, the spiritual people, the children. It's all about learning. It's not the economists, the bankers, the developers, the politicians, who will lead us out of the mess we're in. Real progress won't happen until we understand what the artists, writers, poets, musicians, spiritual people and children are saying.
Our approach to work will probably have to change. Work-sharing is a concept that is already in place in some countries. We'll probably have a little less wealth, but we might actually have some time to enjoy life.
This comment is only applicable to the vintage crowd among us. Remember in the beginning how we were told that computer technology was going to lead to an era of increased leisure? It's not working that way. We work more and more, we consume more and more, and we have less and less time to enjoy life. Work-sharing would help us regain more balance in our lives.
In summary, we will have to tread much more lightly on our precious planet. But I think that in the process we will come to discover and rediscover that while we have gained a lot in knowledge, we've lost a lot in quality of life. We need to slow down. We need to relate more and better. We need more leisure time in which to do this. We
[ Page 12900 ]
need to stop and smell the roses, as they say. We need to value what we have, including all of the other creatures that we share the earth with.
If we do these things, I'm convinced we will emerge from where we are into a much better place. Call it utopian, if you will. But why would anyone want to turn their back on utopia? As John Lennon said: "Call me a dreamer." We all need to dream — to dream, perchance to learn.
I want to wish all the best to all of the members of the House. I'll see you around.
D. Hayer: I'd like to speak to the throne speech. This throne speech is all about thinking and planning for the long term. The planning for the construction of liquefied natural gas plants is realistic and necessary. Planning for long-term prosperity and for the permanent, well-paying jobs that will sustain our economy over the years and for the future generations is vital.
It is what the government does and must do. It must set plans, set goals and must work diligently towards them. A government without a long-term plan, without long-term goals, that only accomplishes short-term achievements, will do little to sustain our province and our people into the future.
Another vitally important issue is international trade, particularly with the rapidly growing economies of China, India, Korea, Taiwan and other South Asian countries. With the billions of people in those markets, it only makes economic sense to encourage trade and cultural exchange with them. International trade will strengthen B.C.'s economy and will be a significant job creator throughout our nation.
Our federal government recognizes the importance of international trade, and our government here in British Columbia has made some great strides of our own. We now have two new trade offices in India and one in China. But we can't just rest on our current success. We must increase the number of offices and do all we can to foster the strongest economic ties possible. That is our future, because increased international trade will create thousands more jobs and will encourage investment in B.C. and across Canada, which will greatly strengthen our economy.
For too many years we relied on our neighbour to the south, and to some extent, we still do. But the true wealth in trade, a real job creator for our province, our country, will only come when we expand our economic relationship with Asia-Pacific nations. At the same time, we must keep our economic relationships strong with other areas, such as South America, the U.S. and the European continent too.
Again, the throne speech and this government are all about planning for the future and setting goals to achieve those goals. For instance, when I was first elected 12 years ago in 2001, I set a number of goals that I would achieve to ensure Surrey was not overlooked in the provincial spending and that Surrey would benefit greatly from having our government in power.
Over the past 12 years we have made enormous strides, and Surrey has gained many great assets that were lacking before our government took office. It took a great deal of work, a lot of convincing and asking and getting support from my colleagues, ministers and MLAs, a huge investment of provincial money and asking the deputy minister and the other staff to help. As a result of all of those efforts, I am very proud to say we have achieved unparalleled benefits. That was all about setting goals and planning for the future.
I promised from the outset in 2001 that I would do everything I could to bring about the replacement of the Port Mann Bridge. The new Port Mann Bridge is now open. It is the widest bridge of its type in the world and not only offers ten lanes of traffic but future capacity for light rail. The new Port Mann Bridge improves everyone's commute time and eliminates the almost day-long traffic gridlock that generated an enormous amount of pollution into the air and created costs of millions of dollars a year to our economy and to individuals and families.
Additionally, the bridge was constructed on a design-build principle in which the company building it is responsible for the cost of any remedial work that needs to be done. Not only is the new bridge in place, but our Highway 1 will have four lanes each way all the way from McGill Street in Vancouver to 216th Street in Langley. This was achieved with an incredible $3.3 billion investment that not only benefits my constituents and the rest of Surrey but all of British Columbia and the rest of Canada, because it is the main route for all of the commercial transport to and from our ports.
We did not just stop with the Port Mann Bridge. We are building and have already partially opened the South Fraser perimeter road, which was in the planning stage from 1970, but no government had touched it. This will not only provide access to and from Deltaport for commercial and container transport, but this route will take big, heavy trucks off residential streets, making neighbourhoods much safer.
We have also built and rebuilt all new overpass interchanges on Highway 1 in Surrey, something that never occurred with any previous provincial administration since the original Port Mann Bridge was completed in 1964. Not only that, but to further improve access north and south of the freeway, we built the 156th Street underpass and also added a new pedestrian overpass just west of 152nd Street and another just east of 160th at 168th Street.
These overpasses allow walkers and cyclists to link up to the parks, for residents of Fraser Heights, Guildford, Fleetwood, Tynehead, Port Kells and Barnston Island and connect those communities to walking trails and recreational facilities.
[ Page 12901 ]
With all of our financial investment, all of Surrey's major traffic roads have been upgraded: four lanes on 176th Street, Pacific Highway, from the U.S. border to Highway 1; four lanes on Highway 10 from Langley to the junction of Highway 91 in Delta; four lanes on Fraser Highway from Surrey centre into downtown Langley; four lanes of 96th Avenue and road upgrades throughout the city of Surrey. For the benefit of cross-river commuters and to strengthen the major industrial park area, Port Kells, the Golden Ears Bridge was built and is open.
One of our major objectives when I was first elected MLA was to have Surrey Memorial Hospital upgraded to meet the needs of my constituents and all Surrey residents. That has happened. The structure is complete, and finishing work is now underway on eight new floors and on two floors below the basement.
The Surrey Memorial Hospital tower. This construction project is one of the largest investments in health care in the history of British Columbia — more than a half billion dollars being spent right in Surrey, which is the largest investment in B.C.'s history.
When completed, the eight storeys above ground and two storeys below ground of the critical care tower will mean that 151 new beds will have been added to Surrey Memorial Hospital, along with a new, large emergency department, about five times larger than the old one.
It will also expand many other services offered at Surrey Memorial Hospital, including the new prenatal centre of excellence for high-risk newborns, new children's emergency department and a large adult intensive care unit. It will also include partnership with UBC medical school, Kwantlen University and Simon Fraser University. Kwantlen University provides the nursing program, to create and expand the clinical academic campus of care at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
These new improvements vastly increase the health care opportunities. It has also become a magnet for other campus-of-care investment on the adjacent lands, including the facilities for mental health and for those suffering from addictions.
But Surrey Memorial is not the only health care facility we have created in Surrey. We recently opened the Jim Pattison Outpatient hospital. That was completed with another $239 million of provincial investment in Surrey.
On May 30, 2011, we officially opened the $237 million Jim Pattison Outpatient hospital. This is the first facility of its kind for Fraser Health and British Columbia. It combines day surgery and diagnostic procedures with community services, a specialized clinic and programs, all within one building. It will see around 450,000 outpatient visits a year and has a capacity to serve up to 600,000 patients, annually, by 2020.
Construction on the project began in September 2008. It is now open, and it was on budget. During the construction the Jim Pattison Outpatient Centre resulted in over 1,400 construction-related jobs. At 188,000 square feet, this outpatient hospital is larger than the entire Surrey sports and leisure complex in Surrey. It includes six operating rooms and ten procedure rooms, with further expansion capacity; new state-of-the-art medical equipment, including an MRI and two CT scanners, radiology, bone density, mammography, ultrasound, nuclear medicine and cardiac diagnostic equipment; extensive space for community clinics, including a breast health program, a urology clinic; the first comprehensive HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C program in the Fraser Valley; an enhanced family practice clinic with GPs; and other enhanced clinics for other chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and heart diseases.
Millions and millions more have been spent on education for our children in Surrey, for K-to-12 students in Surrey, with new schools being built, many others improved and upgraded, and seismic work being done across the city to make our schools safer for our children, for our students.
Surrey school district is the largest school district in the province. Since 2000 the enrolment at schools has increased by around 15 percent, but the funding for education has been increased by more than 56 percent. Since 2001 over 51 capital and seismic projects worth more than $243 million have been completed in the Surrey school district, including the new schools.
Surrey received 58 new classrooms for full-day kindergarten, including additions and new modular classrooms. The province has invested nearly $1.3 million since 2007 to establish and operate 20 StrongStart B.C. centres for Surrey to support early learning.
Also, our government fixed the CommunityLINK program, which was a problem for the Surrey school district since the '90s. Our Minister of Education fixed that, and the Minister of Finance helped us with getting some extra funding.
For our schools, I have provided over $40,000 in bursaries to seven senior secondary school students in Surrey since 2001. These schools include Fraser Heights Secondary School, North Surrey Secondary, Holy Cross secondary, Guildford Park Secondary, Pacific Academy School, Johnston Heights Secondary and Surrey Christian School.
We also increased the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University at Surrey City Centre. Today, at this campus in Surrey of Simon Fraser University, over 7,000 students attend classes there. Back in 2001, before we were elected, there was Tech B.C. there that only had 173 FTE — full-time-equivalent — students.
We upgraded Kwantlen Polytechnic University to full university status so that our children don't need to leave our home, or Surrey, to receive the finest in post-secondary education.
On top of that, we expanded the Kwantlen University campus in Newton. We also opened a new world-
[ Page 12902 ]
class trade and technology training centre of Kwantlen University in Cloverdale to ensure our children do not fall behind in skilled-trades training, and we are well-equipped to take advantage of today's and future employment opportunities.
Additionally, and certainly a benefit to students and the community at large, our government invested significantly in the construction of Surrey's new $30 million Surrey centre library, which provides educational and entertainment resources for our entire community. This exceptional facility is part of Surrey's grand plan, part of our Surrey mayor Dianne Watts' grand plan, to create a new Surrey city centre, complete with new city hall and huge civic square.
We in government are proud of the accomplishments of Surrey and its citizens and have been doing all we can to ensure they benefit from our government.
Part of these benefits was the transfer of 70 acres of land in the heart of Surrey, Green Timbers, to the city of Surrey for the expansion of a natural park, plus funding for an all-weather artificial turf playing field for sports use as part of a decision to promote physical activity in individuals of all ages. This will encourage not only the healthy lifestyle but will provide a valuable activity place for our youth, to discourage them from turning to crime and gang membership. We have provided many programs to keep kids and students out of gangs.
We have, over the past 12 years, made record investments in the expansion and improvement of seniors care in B.C. It is my firm belief that the government needs to do as much as possible for our seniors because they are the ones who have, through their labour, created a province we all so strongly believe in.
Seniors created the economy, the towns and cities we live in. Most importantly, they created a community that feels of belonging, where people feel comfortable and welcome. Because of them, British Columbia and Canada is the best place in the world to work, to live, to play and to raise a family and to operate a business.
Because this government believes in the value of our seniors and the enormous contributions they have made to our province, our nation, we have made many investments to make life better for seniors in their retirement years.
We have increased spending on residential care and assisted living by more than 51 percent since 2001 — from just over $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion. We have opened hundreds and hundreds of new residential care and assisted-living homes in Surrey in the past 12 years. In 2010 alone our government increased spending for residential care by $106 million over and above the client contributions.
Another of my goals was to see an increase in the minimum wage. That happened. Since May 2012 all workers are now benefiting from the current $10.25 per-hour minimum-wage rate, compared to $7.80 minimum-wage rate before 2001.
Over the past 12 years the province has invested $2.8 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in communities across the province. In Surrey last year the provincial government invested more than $31 million to provide subsidized housing and rent supplements for more than 7,100 low-income individuals, seniors and families.
We also opened Surrey's Maxxine Wright Centre in support of women and their children at risk of homelessness and began construction of the YWCA Alder Gardens. We also built the Quibble Creek Health and Phoenix Transition Housing Centre for individuals at risk of homelessness and with mental health and addiction issues.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Law and order, the criminal justice system and the rights of victims taking precedence over the rights of criminals has been always first and foremost with me. I have always worked diligently on behalf of victims. However, the revolving door of our court system needs to be closed. We must ensure that courts reflect Canadian values and that the rights of victims are stronger and more important than those of the criminals. Judges must take the rights of the victims into consideration when passing sentences on the perpetrators of crime, and they need to hand out more jail terms and prison time to deter and discourage repeat offenders.
Most crime is committed by repeat offenders. That is why I am encouraged by the many pieces of recent legislation that manage the justice system and focus on crime that have been introduced and passed by our government, including the Family Law Act; the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act; and the Criminal Asset Management Act, which gives the government authority to manage and dispose of property forfeited as a result of criminal prosecution or seized during an investigation in anticipation of forfeiture. Anything we can do to reduce the financial incentive associated with crime and deter criminals by removing profits from their illegal activity is a step forward.
We also passed the Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act and amended the Judicial Compensation and the Offence Acts, as well as one that enhances the enforceability of the family maintenance order. We also passed bills that now recognize work-related cancers for firefighters throughout B.C.
Surrey's firefighters are one of the best in Canada. They work very hard. They donate a lot of time and money to our community.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, with your help, the British Columbia Fire Fighters Association held its B.C. Fallen Firefighter Memorial service at the rear of the B.C.
[ Page 12903 ]
Legislature and unveiled a statue at the rear of the B.C. Legislature in memory of all those who have lost their lives.
Firefighters work very hard every day around B.C. protecting the lives and property of the citizens that they serve. In doing so, some have paid the ultimate price in carrying out this service to their communities. In 2004 a permanent B.C. memorial monument for fallen police and peace officers was also built on the B.C. Legislature grounds.
We now have new legislation, the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, for first responders, which includes paramedics. Should they in the line of duty be exposed to a person's body fluids, they have the right to request testing of that person, to ensure that life-threatening communicable diseases are not passed on, that immediate medical countermeasures can be taken if they are exposed to communicable diseases.
I have a lot more to say on this, but I know my time is running out. What I will do is thank all the members of the House, family, friends, supporters, volunteers and all of the MLAs at the end of my speech.
I now move that debate be adjourned, and I reserve my right to continue at the next sitting.
D. Hayer moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Coleman 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.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada