2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 25, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 42, Number 3

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SUPPORTING EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

J. Thornthwaite: I'm proud to stand today and talk about early learning and our early learning strategy. Our B.C. early-years strategy is designed to support choice and help parents by making quality early-years programs and services more accessible and affordable.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I thought I'd just start out with going through what we've accomplished so far, because it has been a lot. Everybody is familiar with the success of full-day kindergarten. I know that it was controversial at the beginning, but I can tell you that all I've heard so far with regard to the success of these programs has been immense.

In school district 44, which is in North Vancouver, the province has invested $195,000 for 13 classroom conversions for full-day kindergarten. These include Lynn Valley, Eastview, Carisbrooke, Upper Lynn and Lynnmour.

We also are very, very familiar with the success of the neighbourhood learning centres. In fact, more and more schools every year are signing up to offer these services. Dorothy Lynas, Eastview, Lynn Valley, Lynnmour and Seymour Heights are all centres in my riding.

We've got StrongStart centres — in North Van a total funding of more than a million dollars for Eastview, Lynnmour, Seymour Heights and other schools that are not in my riding but in the North Vancouver district.

One of the things that I find really, really encouraging when I go to visit schools — and I've visited all my schools — is the Roots of Empathy centres. The Roots and Seeds of Empathy centres are evidence-based programs which promote empathy and compassion by coaching children to explore their feelings while observing an infant's milestones and development. I've actually witnessed this at one of our schools in North Vancouver — Braemar Elementary.

[1005]

MCFD and the Ministry of Education have jointly funded $800,000 towards these programs each year as part of our Premier's anti-bullying strategy. This was a five-year commitment made in 2011. Support for these internationally recognized programs helps to reduce incidents of violence and bullying in our schools.

Some of the ones that are available and some of the schools that have shown commitment for Roots of Empathy: Blueridge, Carisbrooke, Dorothy Lynas, Eastview and Lynn Valley. These are just some of the few, again, in the district of North Vancouver.

The B.C. government is steadfast in its commitment to early years, currently investing more than $1 billion annually on early childhood services. British Columbians told us…. And I can tell you that when we first started out with the early learning strategy, we did intensive consultation. One of the consultations, after announcing the families-first agenda, was to go face to face with stakeholder groups.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development hosted two stakeholder forums — the first with the early childhood development sector, which was in November 2011, and the second with the child care sector, May 2012 — to identify opportunities and challenges related to improving existing early-years programs and services.

The key findings from these public engagement sessions were the need to enhance integration, coordination and development of existing early-years policies and programs to address fragmentation and service gaps to better meet the needs of families in B.C. The second main thing that we heard was the need to take steps to improve the affordability, accessibility and quality of child care programs to better meet the needs of families while supporting a broad range of child care choices, including the option to stay at home.

In fact, I did send out a survey to my people in my constituency and asked them exactly what families first meant to them. They did get back to me, and many of the concerns that my constituents had were encompassed in what I just mentioned.

Where is this money all going to and coming from? Over the next three years government will invest $146 million for childhood tax benefits, almost $32 million for new licensed child care spaces, $2.1 million for the establishment of the provincial office for early years to facilitate a one-government approach for cross-ministry policy and programs — this was, again, something that the stakeholder groups had asked for — in addition to $4.8 million to build on existing services and implement a network of early-years development centres that will provide up-to-date information and core services to parents, including advice, assessment and referral services. Then $37 million to enhance the overall quality of early-years services, including child care.

The B.C. early childhood tax benefit is part of the ministry's finance budget that we just talked about last week.

Along with the preliminary work on other strategy and elements, first-year funding will support the establishment of the provincial office for early years. I thought I'd
[ Page 13026 ]
just give you a little bit of an overview of that. It will be starting up as of June of this year. It will begin its work by mapping and reviewing the range of existing early-years services and then developing an action plan to put in place an integrated system of early childhood services across the province that provides practical, quality information and support to better meet the needs of busy parents.

Overall funding for the strategy will increase in year 2 to $17.7 million to support the creation of new childhood-learning spaces. The tax credit in year 3, then backed by incremental investments, will help to make quality early-years programs and services more accessible and affordable for families with young children.

S. Hammell: This is a government in its final hours desperate to secure another term in office and desperate to create the impression that it has a child care program that is worthy and significant enough that B.C. voters will again believe them and their promises. But to the families of this province and to those who are desperate to find affordable, quality child care, I say: you better read the fine print of the offer. You better read the fine print, if you can find it.

[1010]

The government claims it is tackling affordability. Everyone knows that to put your child in a licensed child care space, you'd better have $10,000 to $12,000 a year to pay the cost. And $10,000 to $12,000 is $1,000 to $1,200 a month — the most expensive time in parents' lives of raising a child. That is the time when young people are securing their futures in their employment areas and desperate to know that their child is in good, high-quality care. This time of their life is more expensive than college or university.

Into this context, the government announces a plan for a program that gives parents $55 a month for child care or other expenses. Most licensed spaces charge more than that a day. No one will complain about receiving $55 of their tax money back, but it is more than disingenuous to think that $55 a month will make or break the affordability issue of daycare for parents who are often in desperate need.

The fine print reads that none — not a dime — of this money will be available for the parents or the families until 2015. It's a further insult to bang the pots and pans with this announcement when, again, it doesn't have a penny for new spaces in this budget year. This government has more money for self-promoting, taxpayer-funded partisan ads than it has for child care spaces for child care — very few dollars in the 2014 budget. All of this announcement is back-loaded to 2015.

It's $6 million for this largely touted child care program when you have more than that being spent…. Every day we can see these ads pumping out, self-promoting, and you don't have that kind of money for child care spaces. The bulk of this money comes in the third year, and we've seen promises before that this government failed to keep.

Over 44,000 children are born every year in British Columbia, and we're talking about a program that will not even begin to meet the needs of the children over the next few periods of time. There are 20 percent of the children that can use the 100,000 spaces that the government supports in terms of child care.

If you have a child now that needs to have child care, you will go very quiet when you see the fine print of this program, which in fact promises virtually nothing for three years. You can worry about your child care spaces again this year. You can worry about child care spaces, but the difficulty here is the government putting out a program that implies that it is meeting a need, and in fact, it is back-end-loading it into the third year.

All of us want to see a child care program that supports the needs of children and their families. We know that is a difficult task and one that will take everyone supporting it.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member opposite for their response to my statement. My question, of course, would then be: what would you do? How many child care spaces would you provide? The fact is that implementing universal child care in B.C. at an estimated cost of approximately $1.5 billion per year is simply not feasible now, given our current economic climate situation.

[1015]

However, we recognize the challenges faced by parents struggling to balance raising a family and pursuing work and training opportunities. As I said before, our B.C. early-years strategy is designed to support choice and help parents by making quality early-years programs more accessible and affordable.

Who is eligible for this tax credit? To make child care more affordable for B.C. families and to help families with the cost of raising young children, beginning in 2015 a refundable tax credit will provide $146 million annually to approximately 180,000 families with young children, including those currently receiving child care subsidies. Families with net incomes under $100,000 will be eligible to receive a maximum benefit of $55 per month or $660 annually. Families with net earnings of more than that will get partial credit.

We know that many parents struggle to balance the demands of work and raising a family. We also know that child care is and can be expensive. So there are subsidies in place to support low-income families with tax credit and reach a large number of B.C. families with young children, extending either full or partial benefit.

The child care subsidy program also supports an average of 50,000 children each year with subsidies ranging up to $750 per month, particularly children with special needs, as well as a supplement of an additional $150 per month for the cost of care.
[ Page 13027 ]

Over the next three years the province will invest $32 million to create up to 2,000 more new licensed child care spaces. Emphasis will be on creating spaces in school grounds and areas underserved by child care. The new investment will add to more than the 100,000 spaces currently supported by government for this seamless care.

In summary, British Columbians told us loud and clear what they wanted to see: a more integrated and coordinated system and more affordable, accessible and higher-quality child care programs. We listened. We're moving forward with this cross-ministry B.C. early-years strategy that builds on the foundation of existing programs and services to give families improved access to quality, evidence-based, early childhood services and support.

Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind all members of the nature of private members' statements this morning — non-partisan, please.

COASTAL SAFETY

M. Elmore: : I'm very pleased to rise and talk on the issue of coastal safety. Certainly, along our coast of British Columbia and also Vancouver Island, we really have a wealth of islands and natural beauty that's very much appreciated and well used.

In the Port of Vancouver, the waterways of False Creek, English Bay, Burrard Inlet and the Strait of Georgia…. Vancouver is known as the busiest port in Canada. We see over 3,000 foreign freighters, tanker traffic, over 80 cruise ships annually and thousands of commercial and recreational boats and vessels plying these waters.

Further to that, we have the tens of thousands of people who cross and utilize the waterways daily, either using our busy beaches recreationally or taking the SeaBus or floatplanes. The issue of not only utilizing the waterways but ensuring that marine safety is intact is a high priority.

It has been announced that the federal government has closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard, which is in the Premier's constituency. The Kitsilano Coast Guard, one of the busiest in the country, responds to 350 calls annually — two-thirds of those being life-or-death situations, particularly in the winter months.

The abrupt closing of the Kitsilano Coast Guard last week gravely endangers marine safety and puts lives at risk. Given the very complex commercial activities, the recreational use and also the importance of supporting tourism — which is an important aspect of our waterways, particularly in the harbour — a marine-emergency response is important. A rapid response by the Coast Guard, particularly when emergencies arise, is of primary concern. Given that two-thirds of the life-or-death situations happen in winter months and that the survival rates in cold water decrease, a rapid response time is crucial.

[1020]

The federal government has proposed to install a part-time inshore rescue station in Coal Harbour, staffed by one professional and two students from May to Labour Day, but these are insufficient. Emergencies in the fall and winter will need to wait for the Coast Guard's arrival from Sea Island in Richmond, which is 31 kilometres from False Creek and an estimated wait time of 30 minutes.

Marine safety is a public service that's vital and essential to the safety and well-being of Canadians. The result of closing the Kitsilano Coast Guard will put more dependence on volunteers and students rather than professional staff who are trained and have the expertise to respond to a myriad of emergencies that arise on the waters, whether it be commercial fishing vessels in distress, recreational water users, kayakers, swimmers or larger tanker traffic. We also have to consider the response, particularly with oil tankers plying those waters. They need to have a rapid response to deal with that.

Besides the grave safety concerns — response times, the dependence on volunteers and students rather than professional staff — another problem is that there was a lack of consultation on this decision from the federal government. The province wasn't notified. Metro Vancouver, the city of Vancouver, the Vancouver police department marine services weren't notified, as well as the Vancouver fire chief. It really caught everybody by surprise. I think it has also really shown that all these groups and organizations — the Jericho Sailing Centre, previous employees and commissioners with marine safety — have really stepped up. There has been a united public outcry against this shortsighted closure.

Some of the concern, as well, is that there will be an increased demand on other Coast Guard stations. With the closure of Kitsilano being relocated to Richmond's Sea Island, it's going to be more than a doubling of the calls that they receive in Richmond — as well, the cost.

The federal government claims that they are saving, purporting to save, $700,000 in costs to balance their budget. It really doesn't equate. It's a very meagre savings, and if you look into increased maintenance costs from the hovercraft coming from Sea Island, the savings is really questionable.

On top of that, the cost to human life. We're really facing the reality of the loss of life due to the closure of Kits Coast Guard. I've attended many rallies and activities against the closure at Kits Coast Guard base and at Jericho Sailing Centre and heard a very moving story from Mandip Sandhu, who talked about his brother who died in 2001 when his vehicle crashed into the Fraser River. Just days earlier the Coast Guard rescue dive program had been cancelled.

This closure gives a similar threat to safety on the water in Vancouver, and we need action, initiative and leadership from the Premier and Liberal government. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed a united re-
[ Page 13028 ]
sponse to send a clear message to the federal government — the importance of the Coast Guard request to restore the funding — and to join with the thousands of recreational marine users, commercial employees and, really, a broad range of public support to add their voice to this request for the federal government to restore funding, also offering the opposition to join the government in sending a strong message.

M. McNeil: I'm absolutely pleased to be able to rise in the House today to respond to the member for Vancouver-Kensington. I want to thank her for sharing her concerns on this important issue.

[1025]

You know, it's an issue that's not riding-specific. One could argue it affects the entire Lower Mainland and perhaps all of B.C. as our coast is a popular destination for visitors across the province.

Madam Speaker, this facility is located within my riding. I live on the water in False Creek and have had the pleasure of watching the pleasure boats, kayaks, ferry boats, etc., going back and forth. I have to say that in the 15 years we have lived there, we've watched a significant increase in marine traffic on False Creek. We have personally seen some serious incidents being dealt with by authorities, and I share the concern of my neighbours about the closing of this vital service.

Actually, my husband and I do own kayaks. We're out there often on False Creek, and it's wonderful to be able to do so. But I have to say that in the last few years, we're a lot more cautious going out there, because of the increased marine traffic. I think it's something that needs to be recognized. Not everyone is as cautious as they should be, so it is a significant issue.

Our government shares the member's disappointment with the closing of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base. The base was one of the most important public safety resources in Vancouver. As the member opposite said, its personnel responded to more than 300 calls per year, saving lives.

In any emergency, the difference between life and death can rest on the response time of the emergency personnel. Sometimes that is just minutes. The closure of the Kits base has shifted responsibility to Sea Island Coast Guard station. This station, as was mentioned, is 17 nautical miles away from Kitsilano, which means the response time will be upwards of 30 minutes. These times may be in keeping with international standards, but we're all concerned that this could put additional lives at risk.

The public has been very outspoken about its disappointment. In fact, on Friday CKNW's phone lines were lit up by Vancouverites expressing their frustrations with the federal government, which seems to be ignoring the concerns raised by a broad consensus of marine safety experts who have spoken out about the increased dangers that would be caused by this closure — not to mention our own Premier and Vancouver's mayor, who have both publicly called for the base to remain open.

What's even more disconcerting is that the decision was made to close the base earlier than expected, at a time of year that is perhaps the most dangerous. Our Justice Minister has sent a strongly worded letter to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, and her ministry has been in touch with the deputy minister of the Canadian Coast Guard to reiterate our concerns.

We can all understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. But closing a Coast Guard base to save taxpayer money, only to announce the creation of a multi-million-dollar base on the east coast a few days later, appears disingenuous, particularly when the cost of the new base in Newfoundland could keep the Kits base open for almost a decade. This is not about east versus west. It's about ensuring that both coasts receive equitable treatment to keep our citizens safe.

What our Premier and Justice Minister have been saying — and they will continue to say — is that the federal government needs to find the funding to keep the Kits base open for the safety of our residents. It's not a political issue; it's a public safety issue. I'm pleased that there is support for this on both side of the House.

M. Elmore: Also very concerning — the grave threat to marine safety — is that there are some questions in terms of underlying reasons why the funding has been withdrawn from the Kitsilano coast base and also questions with regards to reports that have come out that the area, the land, is to be sold as an asset to balance the budget. That's an outstanding question that I know is being asked, so we can have some clarification if the grounds of the Kitsilano coast base are a provincial asset that's looking to be sold.

[1030]

In addition, there is not only the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard. We are also seeing the closure of Coast Guard communication centres in Tofino and Comox that are together, so three out of five of our service centres on the British Columbian coast are being closed with this announcement. It's a very grave concern. I appreciate the comments from the member in her constituency, but I think we need to see more action.

We have the offer from the Leader of the Opposition. I also reiterate that today, in terms of joining together and sending a stronger message to the federal government. I think we need to make it clear to not only send a message. We need action, and we need to ensure that funding is restored for the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and also our service centres in Tofino and Comox, to ensure that marine safety is protected and upheld.

I extend and hope that there can be more collaboration. I know our NDP candidate in Point Grey, David Eby, has also been taking a leading role in coordinating activities and efforts and urging all political leaders to step up our fight, to come together.
[ Page 13029 ]

I also ask if we are willing to sign a joint letter and have a joint declaration to express our concerns on the closure of the base, the withdrawal of funding and to ensure that British Columbian interests — the safety of our citizens and the protection of our commercial interests — are upheld, that it's respected by the federal government and, certainly, that the tax money that we contribute to Ottawa is used to uphold public safety in the best interests of British Columbians.

SUPPORTING OUR RESORTS

E. Foster: There's one thing we can all be sure of and can all agree on, and that is that our province is the most beautiful and diverse place in the world. There aren't many places in the world where, on a whim, you can leave your office and go hiking in the wilderness, where you can surf year-round, ski in the winter and mountain bike all summer.

We need to capitalize on our uniqueness. We need to ensure the world knows that we are the destination spot for skiing. Right now Colorado is No. 1, and British Columbia is No. 2. We know that we can be No. 1.

In 2008 resorts represented approximately 10 percent or $730.9 million of total tourism gross domestic product, $1.1 billion in total revenue and 14,267 full-time jobs, and that's $406.3 million in wages.

This past month British Columbia celebrated our first Family Day. Ski hills across the province offered 50 percent reduction in tickets, all kinds of specials. I would love to tell you the impact of Family Day on our resorts.

Mount Washington had a 300 percent increase in visitors. Mount Seymour saw record-breaking numbers of people. Big White Ski Resort reported a 67 percent increase in skier visits and a fourfold increase in occupancy over the week compared to last year. Tourism Sun Peaks president Christopher Nicolson reports the resort scored its best single-day history in sale of lift tickets.

Our ski resorts are a thriving British Columbia business. Our province boasts 13 destination ski resorts which account for 75 percent of B.C. skier visits amongst many of the desired ski hills — Whistler, Sun Peaks, Apex, Kimberley, Fernie, Kicking Horse, Big White, Silver Star and Revelstoke, just to name some. I want to talk about the history and success of a few of these.

Whistler-Blackcomb is consistently named the No. 1 ski resort in North America. It was the alpine skiing venue for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Sun Peaks, located in our sunny interior, is Canada's third-largest resort. [Applause.]

A little response from the Kamloops people.

Fernie Alpine Resort is largely ranked one of the top ski resorts in North America. [Applause.]

From the Fernie area.

Apex is a full destination resort with quality snow, great weather, incredible terrain and friendly people.

[1035]

Silver Star resort in Vernon, voted best family hill in North America year after year. [Applause.]

Thank you to my friends.

In the summer Kicking Horse provides the longest descent in Canada for mountain biking.

Revelstoke Mountain Resort, as some of you may know, was primarily back-country and heli-ski. Now Revelstoke is a unique and accessible destination in British Columbia.

Interjection.

E. Foster: There you go.

Last February the department of community economic development from the city of Revelstoke stated that there has been over $250 million in construction, and business licences have increased by 45 percent from '05 to '12. Let's not forget that this was all through a global financial economic disaster.

It would be an understatement to say they are doing well. In fact, they have been doing so well that over the next 15 years this resort will include 5,000 new housing units, 500,000 square feet of commercial and retail space plus a signature golf course. Revelstoke will be the only resort in the world to offer lift-skiing, cat-skiing and helicopter-skiing from their village base.

British Columbia can be No. 1 over Colorado. We have many competitive advantages. How are we going to become No. 1? How are we going to position ourselves at the forefront of tourism? I think we know. A year-round ski resort, Jumbo ski resort.

Right now, at this very moment, Jumbo Glacier is a year-round destination for back-country and heli-skiers. Having the year-round ski mountain is so exclusive that people travel from all over to have access to what is distinctly in British Columbia.

Our government has created policies to facilitate the plan for this glacier resort. The current plan is for $450 million in development to ultimately include 5,500 bed-units.

What does this mean? It could mean hundreds of full-time jobs for the Columbia Valley, and British Columbia would add another great tourist attraction to be proud of. It means those who visit Jumbo could also have the opportunity to visit nearby communities and contribute to the local and provincial economic viability.

Its alpine elevation will provide the longest continuous vertical drop in 100 percent natural snow in North America — 700 metres of vertical available in summer. This is absolutely unprecedented in North America.

Another distinct feature is that this mountain is North America's only permanent summer training area for aspiring Olympians, snow sports and local youth. Again, this will be the only full-time summer ski school in North America.

Jumbo and the many ski destinations we offer are just
[ Page 13030 ]
a few reasons I strongly believe we will make British Columbia the No. 1 ski destination in North America.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'd like to thank the member for devoting some time to his government's efforts to go downhill fast. It certainly has been paying off. To be a bit more serious here….

Skiing. Our great ski hills, ski resorts. I know the statement was dedicated to finding efforts to support our resorts, and on that, I wanted to note, of course, that this year Dave Barrett was honoured with an Order of British Columbia for his government's work, the NDP government's work, to create Whistler.

I had the opportunity to be up there a couple weeks back to meet with Canada West Ski Areas Association, and they're very excited about what that ski hill has brought to British Columbia. Of course, we all should be excited for what that kind of vision has brought to our province in terms of increased tourism and inspiring other ski hills across the province to grow their product and get more people to visit.

I think, of course, of Cypress, another local resort in Vancouver, which also had the work of Dave Barrett and the NDP to thank for the work to create that provincial park.

Many, many resorts were mentioned. The Powder Highway in the Kootenays was discussed, great ski hills in the Kamloops area. I think about Hudson Bay Mountain up in Smithers area and other places throughout the province as well.

I also think about other resorts, not just ski resorts but places like Wickaninnish that I know my friend the MLA for Alberni–Pacific Rim certainly knows very well, as a former mayor for the area.

[1040]

I think around the Kicking Horse up towards Revelstoke, up near Golden there, another resort that had the support of the NDP and the community. I think that's the key here. If we're going to support our resorts, we need to make sure that they have community support, that they have municipal support, local government support — something that Jumbo does not have.

Other things to support our resorts. We need to give them some certainty. Of course, the government bringing in the HST — and now it's being brought out — did not provide certainty to the resorts. They didn't know what to charge people. I remember being out in Cranbrook, talking to a dude ranch operator who said he couldn't figure out what to charge people. He actually lost, he said, 50 percent of his business to Montana that year because of this government's handling of the HST.

I think of the marketing. I think of Tourism B.C. Of course, we'll be seeing that come in later, so I won't discuss that legislation. Again, the decision to blow up the tourism industry's marketer six months before the Olympics certainly has not helped our resort industry and certainly has made it so that tourism in B.C. has been flat.

I think about the discussion around land base — real questions around what tourist businesses can expect. They put in a trail — I know this is of particular interest in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area — and then they find out later that logging has come in or a mine has come in, and their investment has not been supported. Now, that's the kind of certainty they're looking for — and respect.

I think about skills training. There's a huge skills-training gap facing this industry. Now one of the issues we've got is the government continues to make cuts to advanced education and skills training.

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I take a moment to remind you of the non-partisan — for members' statements, please.

S. Chandra Herbert: For sure. Thank you.

I think we need to invest more in skills training. I think that's a good direction that the government would like to support. The industry would certainly be very supportive.

I know there are some permitting issues that the industry faces, some issues around backlogs, in terms of getting their projects supported. I think that in order to support our tourism industry and the resorts, we need to make sure that they have certainty on the land base and that they have support in terms of getting through the permit backlog so that they can get their projects going, so that they can get their resorts approved and we can have more economic activity across the province, and so that they can actually better develop the resorts they have.

One of the issues that the resort industry has raised with us and with the government — I know the minister's council of tourism certainly has raised this — is how to grow the business to the existing resorts, how to increase use of the existing surplus capacity so that they are actually having more business in terms of the capital infrastructure assets they have and the investments they have already made.

They are concerned, and the council of tourism that reports to the minister advised the minister that they had great concerns about increasing capacity in their resorts rather than just increasing capacity provincewide. That's something that we need to pay attention to.

We have a great future ahead of us in our province. Tourism will continue to grow with the support, and I hope that we can have more focus on the basics and less focus on political demagoguery.

E. Foster: We're well aware on our side of the House of the opposition's stance on a lot of these issues, and this may be the only stance that we hear. They appear to be against economic development and prosperity for the province — obviously against jobs. You're against the pipeline, LNG, supporting our woods industry. So what is the plan?

Well, here's the message. They are against placing B.C.
[ Page 13031 ]
into its rightful position as a world-leading tourism destination. They want to increase spending without offering solutions. Madam Speaker, we're not willing to ask our children and our grandchildren to foot the bill.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member, please.

E. Foster: I appreciate the member opposite's comments about Kicking Horse, Revelstoke and certainly about Whistler. Former Premier Dave Barrett supported that. That was looking into the future. I totally agree with you.

[1045]

My concern is that if we don't look into the future, we would lose out on those things. We wouldn't have a Whistler, if the people of that day had had the same opinion that some people have about the development in Jumbo.

This kind of brings us to the next inconvenient fact. How could anyone believe that a 22-year process is moving too quickly? It's been discussed. There are pros and cons. We need to move forward on this development. Had we not moved forward on Kicking Horse, Whistler and other resorts that we've done around the province…. There's always controversy.

Interjection.

E. Foster: "We" being the province of British Columbia, "we" being the government of the day. Had we not moved forward on these great opportunities for this province, they wouldn't exist today.

People had foresight. People took the opportunity. They seized the opportunity, and they made wise decisions for the day and for the future — a huge economic impact on the province from all of these resorts.

What I'm saying is we need to value what we have, but we need to look into the future. Blind opposition is not looking into the future. There's been a long process of 22 years to get where we are, a huge number of environmental criteria that have to be met by the developers. The opportunities are there. If we don't seize these opportunities, our children and grandchildren won't have the benefits, both economic and social, that we have today.

FUTURE OF OUR FORESTS

N. Macdonald: I'm going to be talking about something different, of course. The focus that I have here is the future of forestry. In fact, before we got started here, one of my colleagues, the gentleman who's going to be responding…. We were sitting in the corner talking forestry, because it is something that as you come to understand what it means to this province, you develop a real passion for. In fact, both of us are wearing pins that we're really proud of. We were able to be given pins from the Forest Service. It's one that I wear everywhere, and you'll notice my colleague has worn that as well.

I know that this is supposed to be non-partisan. Likely, both of us will drift into that area, but I ask the Speaker for a bit of patience with it.

I want to talk about three things in the seven minutes that I have. Basically, we have — there's no question — a number of challenges. But we also have to remember the opportunities that we have in forestry. I'll just talk about three of them, and then I'll come back and talk about the challenges in those areas.

The first opportunity that we have is our public lands, and 94 percent of the land here in British Columbia is something that the people of British Columbia own. You hear different figures. You hear $250 trillion being the value of the forest resource. You hear the land valued anywhere between half a trillion and $1 trillion. What if it was only half a trillion that we collectively owned? Isn't that an incredible opportunity for any jurisdiction to have control of that?

We know that the forest is resilient. We have been through some incredibly challenging times with the hit of the pine beetle in our forests. Yet when we toured through there as a committee this summer, we saw the resilience of the forest as it came back on its own. We know that work can be done to increase the resilience of that forest.

We have biodiversity that is second to none in this province — opportunities there to lead the world, if we managed it properly. We have expertise in communities that I think members here will recognize. I remember we went to Smithers and had presentations from people who were world experts on climate change and the impact on our forests. You found that everywhere. So on our public lands, a huge opportunity.

The second is markets. We have the U.S. market rebounding. You have to remember…. Jock Finlayson used the figure — again, a huge figure — of a collapse in the American property market of $6 trillion — a $6 trillion collapse. You do not escape that, and British Columbia did not. But we are starting to see that market come back. We are starting to see the efforts in China pay off. That will only go forward.

[1050]

We have always been supportive of those efforts. I know every time I say something nice, the minister from Prince George wants to stuff it back in our face. But we have always been supportive of those efforts.

There is every reason to believe that those opportunities will get better and better, that the work done can be built upon. We also have, of course, Korea, Japan, Europe — possibilities in India, which I think will be a bit more complex. So we have every reason to be proud of the opportunity to sell a green product, and we have the certification to do that.
[ Page 13032 ]

The third thing I would say is that there are new products that are coming on line. We have always been experts with structural wood, with some of the finest production in the world. We also have nanocellulose, or microfibrillated cellulose, technologies that are coming on which could offer, in ten to 20 years, a whole host of other products that most in the public wouldn't even be aware of the possibilities of. And you have the cross-laminated timber. You have possibilities there that we see with construction in Europe and other jurisdictions. We have not fully tapped into that opportunity.

There are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. I don't think there's a jurisdiction in the world that would not trade places with us. But we know we have problems. Government has to do certain things well. Let's come back through that list.

The public lands. Dozens of years of neglect — let's be honest — and problems in inventory, silviculture, problems with the research branch. There is every reason why the public would want government to do a better job on our public lands, and we need to. We need to do a better job. We are the ones that have been handed the responsibility for a period of time to look after the lands. We were handed an opportunity, and we are passing off to the next generation a land that has not really, over the past dozen years, been looked after properly.

The second thing is the markets. In all of those markets — the United States, Europe and, I think a lot of people would be surprised to know, China as well — we depend upon this wood being certified as coming from a forest that is sustainably managed. I have to emphasize with all members here the importance of that certification, the importance of the B.C. brand, for our markets to accept what we are sending to them.

We are marketing a green product from a sustainably managed forest. The problem with what we have done on the public lands is that it becomes increasingly difficult to make that case. We have to watch it, in this next number of years — to start to get it right. That's the challenge with markets.

The third thing is with new products. You cannot take raw logs and send them offshore. You cannot have the amount of waste that we have in our forests — two million cubic metres a year of waste. Good sawlogs are left on the floors of our forests on the coast, and up to 30 percent of good logs in the Interior are just piled and burnt — a huge lost opportunity. We cannot afford to do that anymore.

Those are the challenges. What I would say is that people are ready for a change. They know we have to steward the land better. They know we need to protect our markets, to be able to authentically say that we are managing the land sustainably. We need to incent new products and be confident that we can compete with any country in the world in terms of the quality of our workforce here in British Columbia.

With that, I look forward to comments from my colleague from Nechako Lakes, and I'll be back with two minutes. Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for the discussion this morning, for having an opportunity to talk about something that obviously I'm very passionate about. It's so important for my area of the province and also very important for the entire province, as forestry has been historically one of the backbones of the economy in British Columbia. When forestry does well, our economy is doing well.

I want to take a step back, though, and talk a little bit about forestry from a lengthy period of time. As my colleague mentioned, we're both wearing the pins which recognize 100 years in the Ministry of Forests. That's the challenge with forestry — thinking about it over a long period of time. Decisions that we make today impact a little bit today, but they impact greatly down the road.

[1055]

Back, for example, in the 1950s we used to have tiny sawmills dotting the landscape. Pine trees at that point were considered a weed species and were plowed under. Things change. The industry changes and develops. We saw some consolidation of some of those mills, and we saw the start of the utilization of pine. Pine became a very important component of our forest industry over that time.

Then we got into the 1980s and saw probably one of the most significant changes to our forest industry in decades, which was in 1987 when we changed the responsibility for planting trees from government to industry. So when industry was logging they were now responsible for planting those trees, for getting them back to free-to-grow and for managing them up to that state.

What we saw in the improvements with that is we saw our survival rates, our success rates, go from 65 percent to today where it's 95 to 98 percent. We saw the regen delay go from what was between six and eight years in a regen delay to what is today six to 18 months in a regen delay. We also saw the free-to-grow rate go from what was around 20 years or more down to around 11 or 12 years now to get to free-to-grow.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The success from that change was quite dramatic, and it's that kind of change that I think we need to be looking at in the future. We need to harness innovation, and we need to have that focus on what we can do in terms of growing additional fibre and capturing additional value from the land base.

Through the 1990s we also saw changes. Our industry went from what was one of the world's low-cost producers to one of the world's high-cost producers. We also saw the epidemic of the mountain pine beetle break
[ Page 13033 ]
out, and unfortunately, due to policies and decisions of the 1990s, that epidemic ran wild. It wasn't able to be contained. You would not have been able to stop it, but there's no question that we could have slowed it.

Decisions such as in Tweedsmuir Park, where the ministry had set out to want to do a big fire in Tweedsmuir Park and there was a political decision not to burn it. That's the decision — the decision where industry tried to step forward to do additional harvesting to try to control the spread, and what happened. Once again there was a political decision not to do that. I worked in the industry at the time, and I was actually part of some of those decisions trying to encourage them to happen.

Over the last ten or 12 years what we have done is…. We have been trying to fight the mountain pine beetle epidemic, particularly in the Interior. We've been increasing harvesting, trying to capture value, and we've been focusing our investments where we need to get things done.

Today and going forward over the next two years, we're actually going to be planting almost twice as many trees as we have been in the past couple of years. We've increased our budget for forest inventory. We're going to be re-inventorying the entire province over the next ten years, and over the next five years we will be re-inventorying the pine beetle area.

It's important, Madam Speaker, because the opposition had said that they think we should have inventoried earlier. But when you're in the middle of very significant change on your land base, you don't want to be out trying to inventory in the middle of that, because it's out of date the very next year.

Another thing that is going forward that I think is very, very important is the opportunity to move towards area-based management. This is about building what the future could look like 20 years from now, because forestry is such a long term. It should not be about short-term throwing money at a problem.

Getting to area-based management, I'll give you an example. Dunkley Lumber, when they went to area-based management on their operating area…. Even post–pine beetle, after the pine beetle had ravished their area, they are still 17 percent above their annual allowable cut than what they were before. And they did that because of strategic investments, because they drove innovation, they're capturing the waste product, and they've had success.

There is a tremendous amount of opportunity with that, and I very much look forward to carrying on this debate in the future with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

N. Macdonald: Basically, two minutes to wrap up.

This is a discussion, of course, very familiar to what we had over the summer. A couple of things, just for members' interest. If you want to know what happened with the pine beetle epidemic, there is a certain line that the B.C. Liberals put out. It would be worth looking at the government website that explains the issue, and of course, it contrasts pretty dramatically with what is said. The epidemic is one of many that are coming, and we need to plan for them.

So things we need…. Climate change is a reality. We need the research branch back again. We need research done on our forests.

[1100]

Seedlings planted. Well, the Forests for Tomorrow program was supposed to have up to 50 million seedlings by 2012. They had 16 million seedlings — one six — so that's how dramatically they missed the target. We need to get back to a place where we're replanting.

The B.C. Liberals removed the obligation to replant, by changing legislation in 2002, and then cut the budget by 90 percent. Predictably, we got to the place where we are now, with over one million hectares of land that should have been replanted by the province and that hasn't been replanted. We need to do better than that.

We need to make sure that we look after our inventory. So 74 percent of the land base has inventory that's 30 years or more old. It's simply inadequate. Everybody knows that. The program that was laid out by this government doesn't come close to dealing with it, as $35 million is the cut to forest health this year — $35 million.

There needs to be a change. There needs to be a change for the better, for all sorts of reasons. I think that that's something that's coming, and I look forward to it, as do most who live and make their living through the public lands.

With that, thank you for the opportunity.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call upon private members' motions.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 3 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 3 — NATURAL GAS SECTOR

P. Pimm:

[Given the significant international potential for British Columbia's natural gas and the new jobs and increased provincial revenue this
[ Page 13034 ]
demand will create, be it resolved that this House fully support this important sector and encourage its growth.]

I rise to speak to the motion today, in support of this motion. It's certainly something that's very near and dear to my heart, to my constituents, to our region of the province and to the province as a whole, in fact. The talk about natural gas and LNG projects is something that's going to be leading us through the next few years and certainly going to be something that could turn our province completely around for the future.

We have LNG Canada. That's Shell, KOGAS, Mitsubishi and PetroChina. There are about five major projects that are going to be on the go. That's the first one.

Kitimat LNG. We've got Apache and Chevron Corporation. Chevron just bought out the EOG and EnCana shares, bringing another world player onto the market there.

We've got BG Group, obviously one of the largest LNG players in the world. We've got the Petronas and Progress Energy partnership. They're certainly extremely busy in our region of the province, drilling substantial amounts of natural gas. And we've got a smaller Douglas Channel project that's underway at the present time.

We've got huge opportunities here. The potential for the British Columbia government ranges anywhere from $130 billion at the low side up to possibly a trillion dollars' worth of revenue if all these projects go forward. That's certainly something that we have to be very, very conscious of — the jobs that are involved, 40,000 jobs to begin with, up to 75,000 jobs for this province. I think that's something that's absolutely astounding.

These jobs are happening already. They're happening in my part of the province already, the drilling. We have up to 10,000 people working in that industry at any given time between the Montney and the Horn River.

We talked a little bit about visionaries this morning in a couple of the other debates. When you look at the prosperity fund, I think our Premier may go down as the next great visionary as well, because the prosperity fund is going to mirror the heritage fund, and it's going to be something that we're all going to be extremely proud of. Down in the future it's going to be something that's going to take the province into a great, great place, and I have to say that.

The opposition say they support LNG as well, and I'm hoping that's true. I really in fact hope that's true because that's going to be something that's huge for my area. The problem is they don't tell us that they support Site C. They tell us that they don't support natural gas cogeneration. They don't support IPPs. They don't support fracking, so I'm wondering how they support LNG. All of that stuff is all tied together. I guess they think that maybe you can go to Surrey and turn on the tap, and the gas is going to come from there. I'm not sure, but maybe. I'm not sure.

[1105]

What does it mean? Everybody talks about LNG. What does it actually mean? We've got gas requirements. Each one of these LNG phases is called a train, and each one of these trains is going to take anywhere from three-quarters of a BCF, or billion cubic feet, of natural gas to one billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Putting that in perspective, we produce about three billion cubic feet of natural gas today. That's it — three billion cubic feet. That's all we have in the system today. That's what we've generated over the life of this product. So we have to do a fair amount of drilling to make this project happen in the future.

LNG Canada, Shell…. Let's just talk about what all these companies are going to need. The LNG Canada — that's a Shell project. They're going to have two trains, minimum, going up to four. The Kitimat LNG is going to have one train, going to two. BG Group — there are two trains, going to four. Petronas project — two trains initially, going to four. The Douglas Channel project, the very small project but the first one to get us up and running — they'll be running by 2015. So certainly, it's a great place for us to be.

That means that by 2020 we need to have an additional five to seven billion cubic feet of natural gas more than what we have today. That's twice as much. So three billion today, and in five more years we're going to have to have twice as much. That means we're going to have to drill, we're going to have to frack, we're going to have to do some things that people have to get their minds wrapped around.

When you talk about fracking…. Let's talk very quickly about fracking. There have been over 300,000 fracks done in Alberta and British Columbia over the last 50 years. Fracking is not new. Fracking is not dangerous. It's something that we need to get behind, that we don't have to study. We don't have to put a moratorium. It's something that we've done for an awfully long time.

Power needs. Let's talk about the power needs we're going to need. Each train is going to need 250 megawatts of power. We're talking about seven trains that we're going to need by 2020.

Putting that in perspective, that's 1,100 megawatts of power. We're going to need an awful lot of power, and I want to hear how the opposition's going to bring that to us.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the member putting this motion up for debate this morning. Really, the discussion in British Columbia today is about, in many ways, whether B.C. wants to continue to have a natural gas industry, which it has enjoyed for five decades or more, or whether they wish to see it decline further.

I was at a conference recently about LNG. I was very pleased to see the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines describe in his PowerPoint at this industry conference that one of the things B.C. has going for it is that it has an opposition party, soon to be a governing party again, that has a long history of supporting the natural gas sector, that understands the industry, that opened up FairShare agreements where the member comes from to help develop communities from the resources that natural gas provides, and that in the 1990s opened up gas fields through programs that helped the industry, which the then Liberal opposition opposed.

That's a credit to the Deputy Minister for mentioning
[ Page 13035 ]
that. That's something I don't expect we'll see acknowledged in the debate this morning.

I think the first thing I want to say, as a member of this side of the House, is that B.C. would be wrong to turn its back on the opportunity that LNG provides. We are seeing our markets to the United States dwindle. We need to find new markets for British Columbia's natural gas. But we would also be wrong to view this economic opportunity as British Columbia's only play in our energy playbook. That is something, clearly, that the throne speech tried to categorize LNG as.

Putting all of one's economic eggs in one basket makes no sense. We know from global experience that it's diversified economies that are the ones that are resilient and prosperous. Single resource–dependent economies are the ones that are cyclical and vulnerable.

One of the interesting things about last….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. I need to be able to hear the debate.

Member, please continue.

R. Fleming: I understand the anxiety and the temptation to heckle on the other side of the House, because for many of them it's their final three weeks in this place. I understand that.

What was interesting about the throne speech last week from the B.C. Liberals is that it promised a Shangri-La-like royalty regime that was described by some as Ed Stelmach on steroids.

[1110]

It came in the same week that the Alberta Premier — the current one, Alison Redford — took to the airwaves and explained the difficult choices that Albertans faced because they had put all of their economic eggs in the same basket, that the market has changed for the oil sands and that Albertans have got to make some serious economic choices. By the way, their heritage fund in that province sits at $17 billion, not some fantastical $200 billion or $300 billion number which the Premier of British Columbia put in her throne speech.

LNG is a new industry, and like other B.C. commodities in the 21st century, it has to be developed responsibly. The lessons that B.C. LNG needs to learn are ones that they can find from other industries in British Columbia.

As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned earlier, the key to getting back into a tough U.S. lumber market, after the housing collapse, for B.C. forest products was to pursue Forest Stewardship Council–certified wood. That has huge value for large retail chains in the U.S. Their consumers demand it. To the extent that we've been able to get B.C. lumber back into that market, it's because it has had an environmentally stewarded label to it.

Mining operations here domestically that want to operate long term and profitably are the ones that have embraced the concept of sustainable mining, that are working actively to reduce their greenhouse gases and are investing in innovative technology around reclamation and ecosystem stewardship. That's the model we should expect from LNG.

We know this fossil fuel can have benefits to our economy. We know it can have lower burner-tip emissions and greenhouse gases in the developing world. That's why it is an opportunity that's worth pursuing.

But the reality is that B.C. gas reserves must be responsibly developed. The member who introduced this motion talked about fracking as if there's nothing to be concerned about. Well, I've talked to the industry itself. They know that their licence to do business in British Columbia depends upon the public having confidence that water isn't being squandered and wasted, that it's not being contaminated and that science-based policy governs it.

That's what this side of the House is going to champion. We want an environmentally responsible LNG industry so our children can benefit from it.

D. Barnett: I am pleased and privileged to stand today to support the motion by my colleague. I take a look at what has happened over the last few decades in the province of British Columbia with our resource industries. I am fortunate I live in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, where resource industries have always been our economic engine.

The proposal put out for natural gas is a vision, and visions become reality when you work hard, you believe in them, and you understand economic development and investment. This province was built by visionaries and will always be supported and built by visionaries. But we also have to face facts in reality.

I am very pleased to hear my colleague from across the floor, from the Victoria–Swan Lake riding, today say that we must have other industries, that we cannot only have one vision and one industry. I am so pleased he said that, because in my riding we have an industry that we have been working on for 19 years.

We are hoping, through a new federal environmental review process, that a mine called Prosperity is going to become a reality which gives hope and future to the Cariboo-Chilcotin and gives the dollars and cents we need to provide the wonderful services in this province that have been provided for so long.

I heard this morning from a colleague across the floor that we need more child care spaces, we need more health care funding and we need more education funding. But when I hear the opposition say they don't want a mine in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I say: where are we going to get the dollars and cents from for the future of the well-being of the people of this province? Where are regions like the Cariboo-Chilcotin going?
[ Page 13036 ]

We do have what we call the pine beetle epidemic, which was started in the '90s because we couldn't touch the bug in that class A park. We need to move forward. We need to quit saying no. We keep encouraging the public, through the opposition, that everything we say is a good industry is not. We now have one process for an environmental assessment review opportunity. The opposition says: "We're not going to believe them. We're going to do our own thing."

[1115]

So what are we doing? We're going to encourage investment to go elsewhere, because we're going to have another 19 years of studying.

We have to move forward. This is an opportunity that is second to none. I encourage both sides of the floor to work together to understand the resource industries.

It was interesting yesterday. I took a community bus in Victoria, because I was here a day early to do some touring and look around. A young bus driver brought up the topic about where this province is going — a young man with a young family who understands the need for resources. I was so proud to hear that the younger generation is finally getting it that we can't continuously say no. We have to let science decide decisions, not emotion and not playing one group against the other.

I am once again pleased to stand here today with this side of the House that understands economic development, good environmental management and resource industries.

C. Trevena: I was quite disappointed. The member who spoke previously to me, talking about coming from a resource community…. I also come from a resource community. We both, similarly, have forest-based economies. I thought the member would be more defensive of having a diversified economy, not just pinning all hopes on one industry. That is one of my concerns with this push on LNG, liquefied natural gas.

It is going to be important. There is the possibility there for a great return for our province, but not at all costs. What we've been seeing over the last few weeks since we're back in the Legislature is a focus solely on liquid natural gas as though this is going to be the saviour for all the economic woes of the province. Everything that is going to happen is going to come because we've got LNG development, because we're going to have this LNG prosperity fund.

Many years down the road we're going to have all this money coming back to the province. It has been described by many people — many commentators, many people who are looking very strategically at what is going to be happening in B.C. in not just the coming months, not just as we head towards an election, but really looking at our future — as a fantasy.

I think that it's telling. There's a piece in today's Vancouver Sun talking about LNG, liquefied natural gas, and the government's throne speech, which said that we're going to have this prosperity fund, and noting that the government mentioned that the prosperity fund plan was based on a couple of reports but didn't have those reports at hand for people to see. Those reports are now out.

According to Grant Thornton LLP, one of the ones, the potential revenue to the B.C. government…. They make it very clear that we're not talking about this amazing amount of money that's going to be miraculously coming. They are saying: "The estimates are not forecasts, and this report is not intended to attribute any probability that those impacts will occur or not occur in the future."

Another report from Ernst and Young says: "The inherent uncertainty and variability in the assumptions may result in the province receiving significantly different revenue from the LNG projects than estimated."

As my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake suggested, putting all eggs in one basket over this one possibility, this one industry that hasn't yet grown, is very, very risky for our economy.

We also know that it costs a lot to transport the product, to liquefy it, to reliquefy it. It's a costly product to move, so we've got to make sure that there is actually going to be a return on that investment. And unless we have an economy that is based on other things, we're not going to have that basis.

[1120]

The members opposite continue to heckle and ask: "What other things?" As I mention, I come from a forest-based community, where this has been a long-term basis for our financial stability in the north Island. However, this government has sorely neglected the forest industry over its last 12 years. It has sorely neglected forest health. If the government paid as much attention to our land base as it's paying to liquefied natural gas, we'd be in a much better position. We wouldn't be grasping at these fantasy straws.

What we've got to do is look at both the new possibilities and work on how we can make sure that we are getting the benefit from those but not neglect what we already have. It is detrimental to everything that we are looking for in our province to just focus on one thing. We need to be able to diversify. We need to be able to invest in our traditional resource, in our land base, in our forestry, in our waters. We have many, many opportunities here that are being sorely neglected.

I close on one note that I think also needs to be highlighted — that is the unanswered question from the government side on what impact it's going to have, the explosion of liquefied natural gas. If it comes in the way that the government is envisioning, we suddenly have five plants. We suddenly have this big prosperity fund, and it's all going to happen. What impact is that going to have on their own climate action goals? We hear two different messages — one from the Minister of Environment and one from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and for Housing. It would be nice to get some answers on that.
[ Page 13037 ]

B. Lekstrom: Thank you for the opportunity to speak here on this motion today — that this House fully support our natural gas sector in our province. I'm here to stand firmly behind that motion. I can't imagine a British Columbian who wouldn't, to be honest with you. It's what drives our economy. It's what allows us to invest in our social programs and our transportation infrastructure, in health, in daycare, in all of the things that we so much enjoy in this province of ours.

It takes industrial development for us to be able to deliver those programs, regardless of which government is in power. We're a resource-rich province. We actually enjoy the benefits of living in British Columbia because of the resource sector we have. Many years ago the forest industry was driving the economic well-being of our province. That shift has occurred now to the natural gas industry.

I do believe there's still a great deal of education that has to take place for the people of British Columbia when it comes to the issue of not just liquefied natural gas but natural gas exploration and processing, for example. I hear a lot of people talk about liquefied natural gas as a new industry and as a new product. It's really natural gas that we extract in northeast British Columbia, going down a pipe to a plant that will be built. They will liquefy it for export, take it to overseas markets and increase the value, not just for the companies that are working there but for all British Columbians.

There's also, I think, the issue of fracking, and everybody — we live in a free and democratic society — can have their views. I fully support and respect that. But I do think there's a lot of misinformation out there. I think that it is our job as parliamentarians, whichever side of the House you sit on, to make sure that if you have the facts, you share those facts with the public.

We frack at incredible depths in the northeast part of our province. We hear some horror stories from south of the border — how a frack has impacted freshwater aquifers, what's gone on. We frack at two kilometres below the surface, not where you are going to impact freshwater aquifers. But again, people have seen things that have taken place south of the border. They see different shows that would get their minds thinking: "My goodness, is this going to impact my quality of life?"

I understand their concerns. It's our job to make sure that we actually get out there and have the ability to communicate with the people, to say: "Here's what we do in northeast B.C. Here's what it means. Here's what the reality is."

The Oil and Gas Commission, for example, has a sub-office in Dawson Creek. It has a centre in the front of it that explains how you actually drill for a well, what takes place, how you do the casing, how you cement that casing in. I have encouraged them to take that little mobile unit throughout the province to actually show people so that they can gain an understanding, when we're talking about natural gas development, of what it means and how it's done.

For example, I'll tell you, we have increased our ability to look after the environment significantly over the last decade. Each and every day we better hope to improve on what we've done the day before.

[1125]

Multiwell pads. We used to make one pad, and we would drill one hole. We actually now have multiwell pads, where you can drill five, ten, 20 holes on one pad, lessening the impact on the land base and increasing the opportunity for ourselves, for jobs, for royalties and our ability to actually work together.

The one thing I will say is that we've come a long way. We continue to make great strides in the development of natural gas but also with our companies that work in this province. I'm grateful for the companies that do work here and the relationships that they develop with the landowners.

That's always been an issue that we've had to work on, making sure that as we drill wells…. About 95 percent, I think, of the wells that we drill are on Crown land. My numbers may be a little off by one point or two. I left the ministry a couple of years ago. But we actually do a very good job. We do a good job of making sure that we cooperate with the landowners on the land base. We cooperate and make sure that the companies are treating them fairly.

Now, having said that, do I think there's more work to do on that front? Yes, I do. I think that not only does industry recognize that — in order to maintain their social licence to operate in this province — but the landowner realizes it as well.

Many of our farmers don't make their living on the farm individually anymore by just farming. It is a tough business to be in. I don't think that we have done enough for agriculture across this country. That includes not just parliamentarians but every British Columbian. I don't think that people probably go to the store and see if it's a B.C. product — very few do. If we can actually have an industry where our agriculture industry can work cooperatively with the oil and gas sector like they do today, we see benefits on both sides of that.

The other highlight that I see, when we talk about an increased liquefied natural gas opportunity, is that we are in a race with the rest of the world. People should understand that. Now, whether it's five LNG plants or one or two or three, I see a benefit for all of us. I think that we've come a long way. I think that our regulatory environment is a sound regulatory environment.

I'm proud to be part of an oil and gas industry in this province, and we should all certainly be thankful for that.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to rise to speak to this motion today on the natural gas sector in this province. If you actually read the budget, no one can deny the importance to the province that this sector currently provides, but evaluating the promise it holds is what we're discussing in this motion today.
[ Page 13038 ]

With this motion to fully support the important sector and encourage its growth, it infers that the member for Peace River North needs to convince his colleagues of the importance of this motion. It's no wonder. The public is very skeptical — and warranted skepticism — of this government's plans around the natural gas sector.

We can look at the economic argument, first of all, and the economic returns that are considerable versus the hyperbole that we saw in the throne speech. Putting all our eggs in one basket is what we saw in the throne speech. Today and recently we've learned what that hyperbole was based on.

A quote from one of the reports that the government used to justify this hyperbole says — and this is from the author of the report: "The estimates are not forecasts, and this report is not intended to attribute any probability that those impacts will occur or not occur in future." Again, the public is skeptical, and it's warranted skepticism, about the economic hyperbole from this government.

It was also interesting to note that Premier Redford, the Conservative Premier of the province of Alberta, just talked last week in an article, saying that she does not want to put all her eggs in one basket on the dependency in that province on oil. Yet this government, through the throne speech and the hyperbole, wants to put all of their eggs in one basket.

It's no doubt, if we want to have a meaningful discussion and a meaningful debate on this kind of topic, that we need to focus on reality, and that reality was missing from the throne speech.

It's not just skepticism around this government on the economic benefits but the environmental side as well and the ability of this government to manage the environmental standards side. Again, to fully support this important sector and encourage its growth, as the motion says, you need to evaluate the environmental risks in order to meaningfully analyze the benefits. The record of this government on the environmental standards side warrants skepticism, warrants increasing skepticism, from the public.

[1130]

The Auditor General last year had a report saying that this government was unable to monitor the mechanisms that the environmental assessment office would put in place to mitigate measures that had environmental risk. They couldn't have the resources. They don't have the ability to actually even monitor that. That's what the Auditor General said, and that was last year.

Just last week we had the Auditor General saying this government cannot even monitor its biodiversity commitments. They are not adequately measured or reported. So again, the public has warranted skepticism, not just about the economic benefits of this government's proposals around natural gas but also on the environmental side. The environmental assessment office was not even given any adequate funding in the budget to deal with the increase that this motion infers around LNG and natural gas.

The communities and First Nations have questions, warranted questions, about this government's approach. But I'm going to be positive and give a suggestion about one potential approach the government could adopt to increase public trust. That would be to fully endorse the cumulative effects assessment framework that this government has embarked upon.

It is a multidisciplinary team. It's a cross-ministry framework. And it was started by this government. So why not listen to your own project, the CEAMF, and bring it to the forefront when looking at the potential economic and future benefits of natural gas? Their own initiative, their own multidisciplinary team. It's reporting out in March. It hasn't been used to analyze this potential growth sector.

If that happens, if we really want to fully support and see growth, then this work needs to be done in order to understand the real benefits for future developments, both from the economy side and then the risk side on the environment.

I would encourage this government to look at that cumulative effects assessment framework that they've begun. There are demonstration projects that they can look at, and that would be a good, positive step.

K. Krueger: With the way the last federal election turned out, it's pretty obvious who's calling the shots for the members opposite, and that is the Leader of the Official Opposition in Ottawa, Mr. Thomas Mulcair, who said on May 20, 2012, that resource development is, by definition, the "Dutch disease."

Well, what does Dutch disease mean? For one thing, it means they are very much opposed — in the national NDP, and they are all the same organization — to resource development. Mr. Mulcair thinks that somehow resource development is going to put down his manufacturing industry because it drives up the value of the Canadian dollar. Thankfully for him, the value of the Canadian dollar is very strong. Otherwise, eastern Canada wouldn't have the revenue streams that they count on from British Columbia.

It was very obvious in our debate with regard to the gateway proposal — it's not a project yet — on pipelines…. The motion that one of the Victoria members opposite brought on was this weird motion where we're supposed to abandon the environmental assessment and do one on our own, even though his provincial leader has already said that they are opposed to that project.

Last week, in this very part of the debate, they used that debate to attack the Prime Minister and the federal government throughout, acting as Mr. Mulcair's attack dogs. That's the way that debate went.

Speaking of fracking, speaking of this very industry
[ Page 13039 ]
that we're debating today, Mr. Mulcair said: "Quebec has a moratorium on shale gas exploration and extraction…. It is a model worth following." That's his opinion — a moratorium, the model worth following. He also said: "An economy based on shale gas is an economy without a future." No wonder this opposition is speaking so very negatively, when they can get away with it, about this industry.

Now, they kind of try to say things out of both sides of their mouths — that really, we'd be wrong to turn our backs on the industry — but of course they have much smoother, quieter, more nefarious ways of opposing things than flat-out opposing them in this House or in public, things like regulating them to death or taxing them to death.

[1135]

They have made statements — members from across the House — to the effect that they are opposed to fracking, that they are opposed to the extraction of natural gas from shale, that they are opposed to the construction of electricity projects like Site C, where electricity obviously will be needed for this whole new emerging industry. They are opposed to all of those things, and they even think that it's not a good idea to use this resource at all. So it's very obvious what their marching orders are going to be. They are in fact opposed to this very important industry.

I'd like to remind them that this is history repeating itself. In 2005 the members opposite — some of them are the same members, but they are all the same club, and now it's national — the official opposition, was opposed to carbon tax. Then when they lost the election and found out the public thought it was a good idea, they were suddenly for carbon tax.

In the 2009 election they were against independent power production. They went out in a charter plane to view an IPP site, and they couldn't find it. It was the most comical moment of the election. Anyway, they had an epiphany somewhere along the road to Damascus in that plane. They came back…. Well, actually, it wasn't until after the election was over that they said: "Oh, it looks like maybe the public is in favour of independent power production." So now they're in favour of it too.

For a month now their House Leader has been blasting away, alleging that we have this alarming overabundance of electricity. Well, when they were in power — Madam Speaker, I'm sure you remember — we had a real problem with wondering where in the world we were going to get the electricity for our economy, because they hadn't built any new generating capacity in their whole ten years in office.

Now, this industry is not going to be any fast ferries project, opposition members. We assure you of that. It's going to be developed responsibly. It's going to make British Columbia a lot of money. It's not going to be something on which we spend the kind of money the members opposite, the NDP, did when they were in government and then sell what we built for a tiny fracture of what it cost the public. It's not going to be like that at all.

They have a very bad track record in government, Madam Speaker. But I submit…. I've just given you a list of things that they've demonstrated a very poor track record in opposition. I really believe their opposition these days is directed at the Prime Minister, directed at the federal government, the government of Canada, because that's where the boss sits now.

You cannot let the tail wag the dog. You cannot let the province that counts on a constant revenue stream to fund their programs calling the shots for what we do.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the debate on this motion. I listen with interest to my colleague across the way, from Kamloops, as I always do. I would be remiss if I didn't point out to him that the last time I checked, the next electoral contest in this province isn't between us and the federal government; it's between us and his side of the House.

I also listened to some of the member's comments. Again, it's one of those things that I think needs to be set straight for the record. Natural gas in this province has been part of our economy for decades, and it's going to be part of our economy for decades into the future. It has a really bright role to play.

I mean, I remember, in the late '90s, working with the member for Peace River South — when he was the mayor of Dawson Creek at that time — in a very productive, cooperative fashion, around the FairShare agreement. The reason that FairShare agreement was important was because of the exploration and the development that was taking place in the Peace River country at that time — tremendous economic activity that was having a significant presence. It was putting real pressure on the communities in the Peace River to be able to service the development that was taking place.

What happened? You had a provincial government that recognized this, an NDP government, and you had responsible leadership at the municipal level saying: "You know what? Let's fix. Let's work and deal with this problem."

The local government came forward, sat down with the provincial government and put together a FairShare agreement that allowed some of that revenue generated in the northeast to stay there, to improve community infrastructure and, at the same time, economically benefit the oil and gas industry that was taking place.

[1140]

That was the record that we brought to the table, and that's the record that we will bring to this issue in the future. It's about working cooperatively. It's about doing things right, not running around, weeks before an election, with some messianic, visionary boosterism about: "We're going to get rid of the provincial sales tax. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. There's $300 billion."
[ Page 13040 ]

People don't buy that. What people want to know is that the legitimate questions they have and the legitimate issues they raise — whether it is economic, whether it is environmental, whether it is social — are addressed.

There are some real questions that have to be answered. I believe we can answer those questions, and we can answer those questions in a responsible way. That's what needs to be taking place. Unfortunately, that's not what we're getting from this government.

What we're getting from this government is division, that it's all or nothing, that it's all our eggs in one basket, when there are many people who have real questions that they want answers to. That's what needs to happen. LNG has tremendous potential in this province, but there are legitimate questions being raised.

From a community side of things. How will those communities benefit? Will the infrastructure be there in those communities to deal with development as it takes place?

On the environmental side. How are we going to deal with fish and habitat protection? How are we going to deal with fracking? Are we going to see those practices in the United States that people are concerned about? People deserve answers to that, and they deserve them in a real way — not in a dismissive way, not in a pat-on-your-head way, but in a respectful way. That's not what's happening.

Finally, when it comes to the province itself. How are we going to benefit, realistically? That's what people want to know. They want to know that it's part of a broad-based economic strategy — not that we're going to place all our eggs in one basket, not that we're going to place all the chips and bet on this particular industry, but rather that it's part of a broad-based economic resource development strategy in this province that includes forestry, includes oil and gas, includes mining, and working constructively.

That's what this side of the House is all about. That's different from that side, and that's what, in many ways, the coming electoral contest will be about — which side is going to be responsible. I'm happy to say, it'll be this one.

J. Les: I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning on this very important topic. I am grateful that the member for Peace River North has brought it forward for discussion, because it is one of the more important questions facing this province.

In the electoral contest, as the member previous to me has referred to, this will be very much in the forefront, I think, of discussion. Our government and our Premier have brought forth, I think, a very realistic vision of what this could mean to the future of our province. It's not just for the northeast or for the northwest. This is something that is going to be of tremendous benefit to the entire province.

As I've sat and listened carefully to the debate this morning, the only conclusion I can come to is that the position of the official opposition is one of impeccable equivocation. They are in favour, but…. Then you start lining up all of the buts.

They're not really in favour of extracting the natural gas. They're not really in favour of liquefying the natural gas. They're not really in favour of the pipelines. So yes, they're in favour, but they're not really in favour of doing anything that would in fact realize the vision.

When it comes to the extraction of the natural gas, you know, you need to engage in hydraulic fracturing. I'm interested, for example, in the position of the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Is he in favour, yes or no, of hydraulic fracturing? I'm interested in the position of the member for Saanich South. I hope she gets up in this debate and tells the House whether she is in favour of hydraulic fracturing.

We heard previously from the member for North Island, but I heard nothing about hydraulic fracturing or whether or not she is in favour. I'd be interested to hear from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast to see whether he is in favour of hydraulic fracturing.

[1145]

But no, we hear none of that from the members opposite. They say, "Yes, we're in favour of this exciting new industry," but then silence as to how exactly they would accomplish any one of those necessities that are required to give life to this industry.

Again, I encourage those members — and there are others I could mention on the opposite side, Madam Speaker — who really have been ambiguous, at best, in terms of their position on those kinds of issues.

Now, we've had a discussion as to what the benefits could be. And if I was to be conservative for a minute, I would suggest that it's not at all out of the question that royalties alone could amount to something like $5 billion a year to the B.C. treasury. And I'm very pleased that our side of the House, the government, is suggesting that we should put that directly into a prosperity fund to be well managed on behalf of all British Columbians.

One of the first priorities would be to make sure that we eliminate the provincial debt. There can be no greater gift to our children and our grandchildren than to eliminate the debts of this province and then, beyond that, to invest wisely in health care and education. Members opposite will sometimes suggest that we're putting all of our eggs in one basket, ignoring conveniently, of course, that we actually have a pretty substantial existing economy in the province of British Columbia, composed of such things as tourism and agriculture and mining.

Oh yes, mining — an industry that is now flourishing after a decade of neglect by the NDP which meant that it had almost disappeared from this province. Thankfully, today we have a robust and healthy mining industry in this province.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that if we
[ Page 13041 ]
go about this opportunity in a very deliberate way, we can deliver very significant benefits for the future of this province. But it's important that we act. It's important that we not equivocate. It's important that we not fumble this opportunity away. But when we do it and we do it well, the benefits are enormous. Let's not lose sight of that, and let's get on with the future of this province.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate in the debate brought forward by the member for Peace River North. I've been listening intently to the interjections from members on the other side. I know that this is all….

For those who are watching today, this isn't really about liquefied natural gas. This isn't really about fracking. This is about politics. And no one articulates that more coherently than the member for Chilliwack, who stood up and said: "I want to differentiate us from them."

I've got news for you, Member. Read the paper. New Democrats support LNG in British Columbia. Read the paper. It's a bipartisan issue. We can go back to the 1990s. I know the members like to do that.

Let's go back to the 1990s when we established the Oil and Gas Commission here in British Columbia. Let's go back to the 1990s when we did the FairShare program. My colleague from Port Coquitlam worked cooperatively with the then mayor of Dawson Creek to establish that program.

The problem — and for those watching in the gallery and at home — is that the B.C. Liberals are so focused on politics and not focused on good public policy. They've had half an hour in this debate. The Minister of Environment has sat silent. They've had half an hour to say there will be a significant increase in our greenhouse gas emissions if we proceed down this road, and they chose not to talk about that. They chose not to talk about that.

They want to talk about some illusion 30 years out, when they will be long forgotten as members in this place — 30 years out, when somehow the debt will be eradicated, sales taxes will disappear, and there will be health in every community. That is pie very well high in the sky.

I will say that, as always, I enjoyed the intervention from the member for Peace River South. I know he doesn't like it when I highlight his reasonableness, because it separates him so much from his colleagues on that side of the House. It must be difficult to be the only reasonable one. And my good friend from Whistler — let me not forget her as well.

I want to highlight the comments from the member for Peace River South because this is his community. This is where his family was born and raised. He was raised there himself. It's important. These are important policy decisions.

[1150]

They're not about wedge issues and politics, Member for Chilliwack. They're about people, they're about the environment, and they're about the economy. Rather than trying to score some cheap points, rather than creating a conference so that you can airlift the people into Vancouver and spend lots of money saying, "We discovered liquefied natural gas," why wouldn't you talk about the benefits, over time, of rational, coherent policy-making?

There are challenges with respect to LNG. How are we going to power these plants? Who is going to provide the energy for that? Who's going to provide the energy for that, hon. Speaker?

Now, I appreciate the member from Kamloops south. The keeper of our targets for greenhouse gas emissions is not going to participate in this debate because he can't possibly stand and support this if he's going to meet those targets. But the reality today is that if we were only able to have a reasonable discussion and have the member for Peace River South duplicated in table after table after table on the other side, perhaps then the public — those watching today in this chamber and those at home — would understand the challenges we face.

It is a competitive industry. We are in a foot race with other jurisdictions to meet emerging markets in Asia.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Why don't you stand up and participate in the debate, Member? Stand up and participate in the debate. Hide behind your heckle rather than having the jam to stand up and take a position. Have the jam to stand up and take a position.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Easy now.

The challenge we have is that this is a complicated issue. The member for Chilliwack likes to simplify everything down to us-and-them: "We're in favour; you're against."

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin said that science should decide these matters. That was an interesting intervention at a time when we were saying: "Why don't we look at the science of hydraulic fracturing?" The industry, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, say, "Why don't we look at the science of fracking?" because they know that social licence in British Columbia is integral to success on the industrial land base.

They know that. The member for Peace River South knows that. I'm surprised that there aren't more members of the government caucus that recognize that working cooperatively we might well bring this industry home, we might well bring investment to the north coast, and we might well have a sustainable industry in the Peace country.
[ Page 13042 ]

We do that by working together, not by driving wedges between people, as the member for Chilliwack so likes to do.

The challenges are enormous. I believe that on this side of the House we're prepared to take them on.

Deputy Speaker: Noting the hour, hon. Members, perhaps we can reduce the time.

J. Rustad: I look forward to taking some time to discuss this, because it is an important issue. But I want to start off…. We just heard the member for Juan de Fuca with his: "We support LNG. You know, it's good, and this really shouldn't be an issue that divides." Let's just get to the point of this thing.

Here's a quote from the member for Juan de Fuca from the Vancouver Sun on June 22, 2012. It says, about natural gas: "It remains dirty in every other corner of the province." Okay? So this is his perspective on natural gas. You know, it's good to have that perspective, but here's the key. From the Vancouver Province, October 21, 2012: "I wouldn't rule out" a moratorium. Oh. And he stands up and says: "And we helped to create this industry in the province."

The reality is very simple. Natural gas is a tremendous opportunity for the province of British Columbia. The opportunity to turn that into liquid natural gas, to move that off our shores, is a generational opportunity that is…. It is hard to imagine that we could potentially miss this opportunity.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But when you talk about the idea of maybe creating a prosperity fund — something big, an opportunity that could be there for our children — what the opposition say is: "Nah. You can't think long term. Only a vision for today."

The only way you will ever create the long-term benefits that we want to see from our natural gas industry, from liquid natural gas, is to think big, is to challenge the province to try to do it — try to increase our production, try to increase our opportunity for offshore, increase the revenues that we can have. That's what this side of the House wants to see happen.

That side of the House talks about a possible moratorium, talks about it as dirty. "Yeah, we'd like to see LNG but, you know, you can't think about how it could potentially benefit our children," because they only can think about today.

[1155]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nanaimo — and noting the hour, Member.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the caution.

I do appreciate the remarks of the member who just spoke and talked about thinking big. The problem is there's a difference between thinking big and fantasizing. What we're having here today is not the kind of rational debate that British Columbians, I think, in the 21st century are expecting.

The potential for liquid natural gas is enormous, and it is significant. And what it requires is a consideration of the facts and the science to ensure that our environment is protected and that revenue sources in the future may in fact provide the kinds of benefits that people have talked about.

I think it's very interesting — the large numbers that have been thrown around by the government, in particular, relying on reports. I refer to Potential LNG Revenue to the B.C. Government, by Grant Thornton. They say: "The estimates are not forecasts, and this report is not intended to attribute any probability that those impacts will occur or not occur in the future."

Hon. Speaker, sometime in this House when we have the appropriate time, let's discuss it in a meaningful way, because what has happened here this morning, frankly, I don't think has advanced the cause of the future prosperity of this province in any way, shape or form.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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