2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th 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, July 22, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 4, Number 1

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

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

REMOVING INTERPROVINCIAL
TRADE BARRIERS

N. Letnick: It's great to be back in the House after being in Anchorage, Alaska, representing members from all across British Columbia, working with our colleagues in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. This is five members, five states, and five members, including three provinces and two territories.

What we worked on is to try to reduce interprovincial, interjurisdictional trade barriers, to try to find a way to promote economic cooperation and activity throughout our western region and also to build relationships, continue the relationship-building over the last 22 years.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It's interesting to look at the different items we discussed. Actually, I'll be making a two-minute statement on that this afternoon. One thing in particular that we've been working on across the country is the reduction of trade barriers to the importation of wine.

[1005]

That's what I want to focus on this morning in the private member's statement — to look at what's happening in our wine industry, both locally in British Columbia and across our country, and see if there's a way to continue to take the good work of places like PNWER and expand the opportunities for our vintners and our tourist industry all across this great land.

As you know, over the last couple of years the federal government passed Bill C-311, which created an opportunity to work with other jurisdictions and open up the domestic wine markets. B.C. has taken the first step by allowing British Columbians to bring in wine from other parts of the country. Manitoba and, I believe, Nova Scotia have something similar as well. We want to encourage our colleagues in Alberta and Saskatchewan and, of course, the big markets of Ontario, Quebec and others to follow suit so that we can enjoy their wines at the same time they're enjoying our wines.

It just so happens, when I got back from Alaska on Saturday night…. The following morning I was sitting outside watching the sailboats, enjoying the Okanagan and thinking about how wonderful it is for them to be enjoying such a beautiful day in British Columbia and, of course, such beautiful scenery. The scenery incorporates places like St. Hubertus Winery. It includes Cedar Creek Winery; Mission Hill; places like Quails Gate, owned, of course, by Ben Stewart — I can actually say that name now in the House — and his brother Tony; and so many other wineries around the Okanagan, like we have all throughout this wonderful province.

I was thinking whether they actually knew that there were barriers for them, for those wineries, to be sending their product to other parts of the country. In my estimation, they probably don't. They probably don't realize that if they're from Ontario, they might have some difficulty in taking a case of wine and having it shipped to Ontario or to Quebec or other parts of the country.

To me, it's just a natural thing. It's a natural thing that we're working on in British Columbia to open up the interprovincial trade of wine, because as you do that, as you make it easier for goods and services to flow throughout the country, you're also making it easier for our economies to grow. Just look at the impact that the wine industry has on tourism. Just take a case in point on Sunday with those sailboats.

We have to look at wine from a long perspective. You look at the wine industry as probably transcending thousands of years, I understand, going back to Georgia 5,000 years before BCE, when the grapes and the wine industry started, moving through areas throughout the world over time — the Balkans, Greece, Rome, many cultures, many countries.

Of course, one of the big driving forces for the grapes and the wine industry is agriculture, cuisine, civilization. Through the Dark Ages the wine traditions were kept up through Christianity. Christianity was a big consumer of wine. In fact, if I remember my Bible correctly, Jesus Christ performed his first miracle at the marriage of Cana, transforming water into wine. So wine is something that we hold throughout our country as of prominent stature.

If you look at winemaking, it's more than science, of course. It's part art, it's part culture, and it's, of course, in large part economics.

That's my hunch as to why the other jurisdictions are maybe not as quick to the mark as some of us in British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have been. They're looking at the best interests of their economies. But in particular, I think if they look at it from the big picture — which is if we can have that interprovincial trade loosened up a little bit — that would help not only their wine industry and ours, but it would also help tourism in the whole country. And of course, as we all know, a rising tide raises all ships.

I would encourage people all across this country to look at what we've done here and to adopt those particular policies of allowing importation of wine throughout
[ Page 794 ]
each of the provinces' jurisdiction. I have more to say on that, but I'll wait and hear what the opposition might have in response first.

[1010]

D. Routley: While I'm sure it's important to the member's home constituency that wine be the feature of a discussion around interprovincial trade barriers and the removal of those, it seems a fairly small component of the overall picture that we face as a province when we think of our interprovincial trade barriers.

The interprovincial trade barriers, although they existed, were addressed through TILMA. This side of the House opposed the signing of TILMA, and we did so for a number of reasons and warned of a number of outcomes that, in fact, have come to fruition, unfortunately, for workers in British Columbia.

Although Christianity may be a big consumer of wine, Alberta has not been a big consumer of B.C. tradespeople. Do you know why? Because, in fact, B.C. has so reduced our training standards for apprentices and skilled trades that many of our workers cannot transport their skills from one province to the other.

This province in 2002 completely gave up on the notion of compulsory trade. In Alberta 19 of the 50 trades are still compulsory. That means that anyone who works in those trades must have a Red Seal qualification, which qualifies them to work in any province — truly the breaking down of a barrier for the transportation of labour.

In Alberta there are 18,000 registered apprentices. In B.C. there are 12,000. That's even a stretch, because in this province — back at the same time, in 2002 — we introduced a system which allowed apprentices to remain registered for 18 months rather than six months. So we really don't know how many of those are still pursuing their careers.

The completion rates in Alberta are around 78 percent. The national average is 50 percent. In this province our completion rates are 35 percent. So it doesn't look any better, going forward, as to the transportation of labour and the barriers between provinces that labour faces as it moves from one province to another.

There are a lot of reasons for this. Alberta trains 20 percent of the country's skilled tradespeople. They are home, as a working province, to only 11 percent. So people are going to Alberta. Why? Because they've made a huge investment in trades training. They have brought all stakeholders to the table when it comes to planning for an economy and the development of skilled workers for that economy.

They have brought industry and labour to the table together. They have maintained and invested in consultants and counsellors for trainees, to keep them on the path. In B.C. we fired our counsellors who existed before these changes were brought to this province.

While it's important that wine be able to cross provincial boundaries without trade barriers, I would say that it's more important, even to companies in B.C., to have skilled labour that can cross that border. If we are setting up a system of investment between provinces where each company in either province has an equal opportunity to bid on projects…. So many companies in B.C., to remain competitive here, have had to engage in a diluted standard of trades training and cannot transport into Alberta and, therefore, bid on projects. Whereas in the other case, that is not the case. Alberta companies — all of their trades are qualified to work in B.C.

This is something that the government was warned about for ten years. For those ten years the Alberta government has continued to invest in the skills of their workers. Now we are facing a deficit that, unfortunately, in this province is currently being filled by temporary foreign workers, who are coming to this province without the rights that our workers in this province enjoy and are being taken advantage of in many cases in order to fill a gap that was predictable, that was predicted, that was ignored by the government.

So TILMA broke down barriers for wine, but government policy has built up barriers for workers in this province and their ability to transport themselves and earn a livelihood. When the economy is down in B.C., it's difficult for them to go and get jobs in Alberta, even though so many are forced to do that.

While it's important that our products and our corporations are unhindered by trade barriers, it's also important that our workers are supported.

[1015]

N. Letnick: Just to conclude. You know, it's interesting. The first thing that the member opposite said, that the purpose of my discussion was to look at my own constituency…. While I do have to admit that I am very proud of the winemaking region of the Okanagan, this has way more to do with all of British Columbia than my constituency.

Over 200 grape wineries and over 800 vineyards in the province of British Columbia's wine industry are relying on us to continue to open up markets not only in B.C. but all across Canada and the world. This continues to represent over $2 billion in economic impact to British Columbia — $2 billion — resulting in just over $222 million in taxes to our provincial government. This is something we have to continue to work on and to grow.

We're talking about British Columbians enjoying over 47 million bottles of wine every year. That's 47 million bottles of wine. I know that we on both sides of the House enjoy B.C. wine, and we have to continue to share that love with our neighbours all across the country.

An average bottle of wine generates over 42 percent in economic impact, mostly right here in B.C. — in jobs, in purchases and, of course, in taxation. So an average bottle generates over $42 million, and there are 47 mil-
[ Page 795 ]
lion bottles of wine every year. We just have to do the math to understand how important the wine industry is in B.C. It's important not only for people working in the wine industry, but it's also important to help pay for all those things that we take value in, and that's health care, education, transportation, our social services.

More than 10,000 jobs are created in the B.C. wine and grape industry, and that's compared to 31,000 Canada-wide. So almost a third of the jobs all across the country are right here in British Columbia. Of course, we can't forget the impact on tourism, with over 800,000 visitors annually in B.C. generating over $476 million in economic impact, and that's just because of wine.

We have to continue to support our wine industry. We have to continue to talk with our neighbours all across the country. We have to continue to support the work of our wine envoy, Mr. Herb LeRoy, in ensuring that we have that dialogue so that people in other parts of the country can enjoy B.C. wine. I'm sure that our compatriots in the other legislatures across this country are enjoying B.C. wine this year, and I think the best thing we can do is ask them to make that privilege and that right available to all their citizens so they can import to their provinces cases of wine, similar to what we're doing right here in British Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

TAKE ACTION TO CUT
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TODAY

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, wine on a Monday morning. It must be the Legislature.

No, to be serious, thank you to the member for his statement. I'm speaking today about the public sector and about reducing emissions, climate change emissions in the public sector. As members will know, climate change is a very real and present threat to our economy, our society and, of course, our environment. We've seen severe weather systems hit Calgary, Toronto and, of course, British Columbia as well.

Now, some will talk about how climate change and the environment is a threat to the economy, and some will say acting against climate change can be a threat to the economy and resource jobs. But we know that resource jobs in our province are threatened by climate change, whether or not we think of the forestry jobs that we've lost due to pine beetle or the huge forest fires we've seen because of the unseasonably warm summers. Of course, not every wild weather event can be pinned down because of climate change, but many, we can see, are due in part to changing weather patterns due to our emissions into the atmosphere.

The public sector, government — we, as leaders of the public, have a responsibility to do all we can for our children, and that means reducing our own emissions. Of course, we all create emissions in our workplaces through buildings. About 80 percent of the emissions created in the British Columbia public sector come through our buildings. Nearly around 750,000 tonnes or so of climate change emissions are created in that way. Now, that's hospitals, schools, universities, B.C. Housing, to list a few.

[1020]

Of course, we have a new emissions standard that the government has created through the Pacific Carbon Trust, where you have to pay out from the public sector $25 a tonne for every climate change emission you make. Now, of course, they pay $25 a tonne, and then the Pacific Carbon Trust goes out and buys an offset, as they call them, for sometimes as low as $11 a tonne. They say that that then has offsetted and created carbon neutrality.

How much are we paying out? We're paying out about $18 million a year from the public sector going out to the Pacific Carbon Trust, and then they invest it in largely private sector projects. So for the three years approximately $52 million have gone out of the public sector into private sector projects — projects the Auditor General has criticized as potentially being free riders, projects that would already happen and wouldn't be requiring a subsidy from government. That's been the concern from the Auditor General and from the general public.

Over three years that's $52 million, give or take, less money going into health services, education and the other things we would expect from the public service.

Now, the government will say: "Well, we've given $10 million back to schools so that they can invest in climate change–reducing projects." Well, my argument here today is that all that money should go back. We need to put the $30 million that sits currently in a surplus back into the public sector so they can reduce emissions now. I believe it's our obligation to reduce our own emissions.

I also believe that the private sector has an ability — and desire, in many cases — to reduce emissions too. But it should not be the job of schools, colleges, hospitals and care homes to be subsidizing private sector reductions which also lead to increased profitability.

I think about the EnCana project — a project which, according to the Auditor General, had already happened, was already done, before receiving subsidies from the Pacific Carbon Trust. This is a project which led to greater profitability for the company. This is a company that does not pay the carbon tax for its process emissions. Meanwhile, the public sector pays for the emissions created through the use of gas but also pays for the offsets.

Here we have a problem, where the public sector, the taxpayer, the health services, the universities and the colleges are paying doubly and then subsidizing a private corporation, a profitable private corporation, for a project that the Auditor General says would already happen.

Wouldn't it be better if we put the money that's generated here back into retrofits, back into the public sector, back into universities and colleges so they could reduce
[ Page 796 ]
their building costs, so they could save money each and every year on energy costs and so the money that we provide as taxpayers to them is actually used for the services we expect?

I don't think people would imagine that the money that they are investing into their hospitals and schools would end up helping to reduce the cost of a hot tub at a resort in Whistler. But in fact, that's what happens. You put the money into the carbon trust. It then gets refunnelled out to a private business to reduce their emissions.

Now, surely we should look at reducing emissions in the private sector, but is it the public's job to pay for those emission reductions? Is it our job, through universities and colleges — the cuts that happen there — to subsidize reductions elsewhere?

I think people would be very surprised to know that that's how it works, but it has been working that way for three years. We see now that the surplus is set to grow to $37 million each year because of buying carbon offsets high, forcing the public sector to pay $25 a tonne, and then buying offsets low for $11 a tonne in many cases. You're creating a large surplus which just grows each and every year.

Well, we need to invest in the public sector. For example, B.C. Housing, which provides many homes for British Columbians, is paying $650,000 out. We have the Fraser Health Authority, $1 million; Interior Health, $1 million; Northern Health, $600,000; and Vancouver Coastal Health, $1.1 million. All of those costs should be going back to the places they come from so that they can reduce emissions now.

[1025]

A scheme that says it reduces emissions but, as has been pointed out, has actually sometimes paid for emissions that have already been reduced does not get you climate change emissions. It just gets you moving dollars from one hand to the other. We need real reductions of climate change emissions in the public sector.

S. Hamilton: It's my pleasure to stand up today and respond to the statement by my colleague from Vancouver–West End. I guess some of the statements he did make frame very nicely our philosophical differences, in that it was mentioned that we do take this money and we invest it in the private sector and we increase their profitability. That profitability then pays taxes and goes back towards funding many of the programs that were spoken of by the member opposite.

We're the first jurisdiction in North America to become carbon-neutral across the public sector. I believe this accomplishment certainly demonstrates concrete leadership on climate action and saves energy for the public sector and results in investment across the province in emission reduction projects.

We're recognized as world leaders, and that's not by accident. It is by design. Carbon emissions are a by-product of economic activity, and it takes place around the world. Our province's public sector is leading by example.

In 2007 the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act made British Columbia the first jurisdiction in North America to make a commitment to carbon-neutral operations across all public sector organizations.

I can speak from a personal perspective as a former employee of the government service. The ministry that I worked for spearheaded that initiative and rolled it out across the public sector. It was my responsibility to ensure that my staff, my employees, adhered to many of the policies that were put forward by this government at the time.

It was a bit of a growing pain, but we accomplished it, and I think we do an excellent job, as I said, of leading by example. This effort focused these organizations and ministries on opportunities for energy efficiency, low-carbon energy and behaviour change.

By including core government, school districts and health authorities, as were mentioned, and post-secondary institutions and Crown corps, B.C. has engaged 300,000 public sector employees and two million British Columbians to learn in, use or visit public sector institutions.

Since 2008 British Columbia has provided $60 million, as was mentioned, to the private sector to assist them in undertaking energy efficiency projects. We expect annual savings of $12 million and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a result.

I just want to highlight a few other recent enhancements our government has made in carbon-neutral programs. A $5 million capital program is available to school districts for energy efficiency projects. I know that the Delta school district has done an admirable job in spending their portion of that funding. They've moved forward with geothermal technology to help heat and cool their schools.

SmartTool administration costs associated with the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions will no longer be charged to public sector organizations — resulting in an $850,000 cost savings — and will be absorbed by the Pacific Carbon Trust.

Our government already has specific areas of focus for 2013, which will include continually improving and decreasing the costs of carbon-neutral government programs, delivery and support for the public sector; increasing the focus on helping public sector organizations to further reduce their GHG emissions; and renewing Pacific Carbon Trust and providing options for reform.

The B.C. government's commitment to carbon neutrality covers the entire provincial public sector, including government offices — many of which are leased and we have less control over, but we still ensure that we play our part — schools, post-secondary institutions, as were mentioned, Crown corps and hospitals.

Just last year our government announced a new $5
[ Page 797 ]
million carbon-neutral capital program for school districts and energy efficiency projects. The amount of available funding for this program has been set to be equal or greater than the total paid by school boards each year for purchases of carbon offsets from the Pacific Carbon Trust.

B.C.'s carbon offset system is based on international standards. Every offset in Pacific Carbon Trust's portfolio has been twice audited, and third-party experts have passed those audits. It has fully met the requirements of B.C.'s emission offset regulation.

[1030]

Striving for carbon neutrality helps B.C. tackle global climate change. Climate change risk factors include severe economic, social and environmental consequences.

I spoke here last week to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast about climate change. No one takes it more seriously than this side of the aisle as well. I think we're all on the same page. It's important for us to understand that and ensure that we all move forward together to ensure a carbon-neutral British Columbia for our public sector.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it seems that the government has continued to use a set of talking points, which has been thoroughly discredited, to speak again and again about a $5 million fund for schools. Well, it's the schools that pay that fund. The government just turns around and gives it back to the school boards, so that's not new money.

They started off by claiming that the subsidies to businesses make them more profitable and that that's what the government is all about. Well, I question whether or not many members on that side believe that subsidizing private businesses is the way to create profitability, but apparently, that's what the member argues.

Now, what we have here is a system where you have cuts to health, schools, care homes, universities, colleges. So if they have a leaky window which costs them more in energy, they then have to pay for that through the Pacific Carbon Trust, which then goes to subsidize a private business like a hotel chain in Whistler so that they can fund their hot tubs. That, to me, makes little to no sense.

We need to be investing in the public sector. We need real emission reduction targets for the public sector. They can save money to invest in universities, colleges and care homes, not be taking $54 million to $56 million out and subsidizing private business.

Meanwhile, the government has no plans for cap-and-trade, no plans for actually getting businesses that create climate change emissions through their processes to actually do anything to pay for that cost. They claim they're about polluter-pay, but in this case it's people pay. And they give subsidies to big businesses. This is bad public policy. It needs to be changed, and the government needs to get its head set on straight to actually follow the public's will.

They've been clear. This program makes no sense. It does not support good education, does not support good health care, and it does, according to the Auditor General, little to actually reduce climate change. We could be reducing climate change now with a massive green retrofit program to go through the public buildings. If we had an emission reduction target for the ministries and for the buildings, we could do that.

We could also support and go further to support green jobs in the green building industries. Some studies have suggested…. If we invested in a housing retrofit program, 100,000 homes for intensive retrofits, the Columbia Institute has suggested that it could create 14,000 to 30,000 jobs.

Now, there's much we can do to reduce our energy emissions, our climate change emissions, and save money. We just need a government that actually puts that as a priority, rather than spinning talking points about how giving money to big businesses to cut their emissions while cutting public services is a good idea. It's not a good idea. The Pacific Carbon Trust needs reform now.

B.C.'s NEW HORIZONS

R. Lee: The province of British Columbia is blessed with its geographical location, natural resources and its people. Affectionately known as Lotusland, coined by writers Bruce Hutchison and Allan Fotheringham, our province has the natural beauties of the mountains, the valleys, the beaches and the seas.

While we find time off to enjoy our clean air, clear water and the wonders of nature, we also develop the vision to create better jobs for our common future. When we look around to see what kinds of niches we have in this highly competitive world, we increasingly realize that we have a very valuable property in our hands. As any realtor can tell you, one of the most precious characteristics of property is location, location, location.

[1035]

Ever since we launched the Asia-Pacific initiative and carried on the strategy of promoting our province as Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific, our province has been taking actions with other levels of government and the private sectors to realize this goal, a goal which can be seen bringing economic benefits to many British Columbians.

Physically, we climb up a hill to expand the horizon of our vision so that we can see farther. Economically, we build up our infrastructures to expand the horizon of opportunities so that we can create more jobs in various sectors.

Our transportation networks of seaports, highways, railways and airports is the key for goods and people to move effectively. If you want to be successful, a vibrant aviation sector in British Columbia must be an integral part of our Asia-Pacific strategy.
[ Page 798 ]

Let us look at the current situation. In British Columbia we have 38 certified airports, including six international airports, with passenger and freight service. In total we have over 300 airports, heliports and water aerodromes that provide passenger, cargo and medevac services.

The Vancouver International Airport has long been recognized for its excellence in management and its high volume of traffic compared to other Canadian airports. It welcomed 17.6 million passengers in 2012, served over 228,000 tonnes of cargo and facilitated more than 296,000 aircraft takeoffs. YVR supports more than 61,000 direct, indirect and spinoff jobs, generating more than $11 billion each year in economic activities.

This airport connects British Columbia to 119 destinations in 20 countries — 67 flights a week to Europe and 113 flights a week to the Asia-Pacific region in 2012. These numbers continue to increase.

Last month China Southern Airlines' flights increased from three weekly to daily, and Korean Air also increased its flights from five weekly to daily. Just last Friday China Eastern Airlines announced an increase to twice-daily flights on their Vancouver-to-Shanghai route. This expansion of service brings the total number of weekly flights between YVR and China to 75, the most among all North American airports.

This solidifies Metro Vancouver's position as the gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. This is good news for British Columbians. It's estimated that a daily international passenger service creates approximately 186 direct jobs and a daily cargo flight creates 73 jobs.

Although aviation in Canada is the primary responsibility of the federal government, our province can help make our aviation sector stronger and more competitive. We can help expand access in air transportation and optimize its long-term potential. Actions, including the elimination of the B.C. tax on jet fuel in April 2012, helped increase B.C.'s competitiveness in air access, because there were no comparable taxes in competing jurisdictions such as Alberta, Washington or California.

Since then, Virgin Atlantic Airways launched its inaugural service from the U.K. to Vancouver and Sichuan Airlines launched its inaugural service from China to Vancouver. In fact, many airlines would like to expand their services to British Columbia if Canada can renegotiate some of the air transportation agreements.

While many ATAs provide for open access for direct services, others contain restrictions. For example, Taiwanese air carriers are limited in serving B.C. to a maximum of ten flights weekly, despite demand for up to three flights daily.

[1040]

Another issue is the inflexibility on international routings. For example, the ATA with Singapore allows unlimited direct services but restricts airlines from operating through an interim country such as South Korea. Some airlines are restricted on levels of service that they can offer in Canada. Some of these airlines are now operating, in fact, in Seattle, instead of doing that in Vancouver.

In general, following through with the federal government's Blue Sky framework, as released in 2009, encourages "competition and the development of new and expanded international air services to benefit travellers."

B. Ralston: I'd like to thank the member opposite for raising this issue. It wasn't clear from the title of his talk what exactly in the Asia-Pacific he was going to focus on, but I'm pleased to be able to talk about airports and their impact on the prosperity of British Columbia here today in the Legislature.

Like other members, I have met with the Vancouver Airport Authority, and they have explained very clearly their competitive challenges. While geographically, on some maps, it might appear that we are closer to the Pacific, other airports in North America, now given the ability of polar flights, are not that much further away in terms of travel time from many of the major airports in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in China. So they stress that they feel real competitive pressure from other airports, whether in Canada, particularly Toronto and Montreal — but most particularly Montreal — and even Calgary.

What YVR has been successful in achieving is some recent agreements with China Southern. The direct flight to avoid Guangzhou, avoiding the necessity to transit through Hong Kong, is very popular. I've travelled on that airline and taken that flight myself on one occasion. You're there rather than transiting through Hong Kong.

There has been an agreement with Sichuan Airlines for a flight to Shenyang and to Chengdu. In some ways, the centre of Chinese manufacturing is moving inland, because labour costs, in the perception of some Chinese manufacturers, have risen to give a competitive advantage to internal, more inland cities such as Chengdu. Therefore, there's a growing reason to travel there.

Those flights are important methods of conducting business, but one also shouldn't forget or neglect the regional airports in British Columbia. As a member of the Finance and Government Services Committee, one heard over the years representations from the airport authorities in Kamloops, Kelowna, who are interested in developing direct flights to their airports, rather than, again, requiring people to transit through YVR.

As important as YVR is as a hub — particularly from other North American cities, related to tourism, whether it's skiing in the winter or just general tourism in the summer — the advantage of a direct flight is obvious, I think, to many.

The other aspect of the air economy that Prince George — the economic authority there — has strived for over the years, I would say with mixed success…. They had a plan to develop Prince George Airport as a centre for air cargo from Europe and Asia to North America. They did
[ Page 799 ]
some expansion of the runway. They expropriated some further land and built a much more lengthy runway, and there are locations for bonded warehouses, should that be realized.

I think, in terms of its place in North American air space, it's ideally located, although I think they've had some difficulty, notwithstanding their effort, in getting the kind of pickup, because air cargo is also a huge and expanding business.

[1045]

I would just say, finally, before I close — really, following on what my colleagues have said earlier about climate change — airplanes and airplane exhaust is considered to be a major contributor to global warming, particularly in the upper atmosphere. But in some of the newer planes, particularly the Boeing Dreamliner, there's a dramatic reduction in the amount of fuel used. Certainly, the airlines are motivated because of the cost of fuel, but the emission imprint of some of the newer aircraft is quite a bit diminished.

While we welcome expansion of air service and all that it brings for tourism to British Columbia, to the exchange of commerce, I think we also have to be mindful of its impact upon climate. I think that's one of the things that's also taking place as well. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member.

R. Lee: I'd like to thank the member for Surrey-Whalley for his response. He mentioned about regional airports. I think that we also invested, as a province, tens of millions of dollars in some of those airports, including the airport in Kamloops, extending the driveway.

We have four very important regional airports. For example, Victoria is a big airport and also Kelowna. Kelowna, Kamloops, Victoria, and YVR, of course — those are our major airports. For Prince George, I believe the local supports and the government are also very important to realize that goal as a transportation hub for cargoes. I thank the opposition member for bringing that up.

In fact, competitiveness is very important. I think the federal government has a major role to play. We actually would like the federal government to take up the responsibility to improve the Transit Without Visa program so that more visitors can come in and also streamline the visa application process and procedure and develop priority custom designations, because some of the small airports need that kind of designation in order to operate more effectively.

Another issue is the cost structures for aviation — the rent, all the taxes paid to the federal government. I believe that a reduction of those fees is important as well. I would also like to mention that more investment by the federal government in infrastructure is important.

I also would like the province doing more. In fact, at the provincial level we can also work harder in cooperating with industry partners to identify and support global markets and also to identify passenger or cargo issues and barriers and to engage the entire B.C. aviation sector to manage ongoing skill development. I think those are important for our strategy.

B.C.'s position as Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific will be strengthened by moving people and goods more cost-effectively. The number of passengers and the volume of goods will increase over time, I believe, and with this kind of strategy, more revenue will be generated for British Columbians. B.C., indeed, will be aiming for a new and higher horizon.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DIGNIFIED CARE

K. Conroy: I want to talk about seniors care in this province and an aspect of it that just isn't working. I want to tell it from the perspective of a couple who have been struggling with the system. Keith and Wendy had a good life. He was a Burnaby firefighter for 36 years — saved people's lives. They contributed to their community.

Keith was diagnosed with dementia, and after Wendy could no longer care for him at home, he went to Pleasant View Care Home in Mission, in the special care unit for people with dementia. He had behavioural problems and, unfortunately, threw a chair through the window at Pleasant View in an attempt to get out.

[1050]

The procedure when something like that happens is that the RCMP and ambulance are called, and the resident is taken to the hospital. Wendy understood that policy and didn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, while at Abbotsford Hospital Keith was heavily drugged to keep him under control.

The list of antipsychotic drugs is, sadly, something we hear about frequently in our hospitals — loxapine, olanzapine, mirtazapine, lorazepam, haloperidol, benztropine, ramipril, sennoside and acetaminophen. The first six are all antipsychotic or calming drugs, and I use the term "calming" loosely. This is for a man who never even took a pill for a headache. He went into the hospital still able to dress, feed and toilet himself, drink a cup of coffee, walk and talk.

His speech was starting to be affected because he couldn't remember some words, and he used to make fun of that. But he could talk. Almost three months later, when Keith was released from the Abbotsford Regional Hospital, he could do nothing for himself, including walking. Wendy said the drugs turned him into a zombie.

So often we hear the same story — how hospitals are unable to care for people with dementia, and in order to control them, they are heavily overmedicated. It begs the questions: why aren't there enough proper facilities to deal with our seniors with dementia so they don't have to wait in acute care hospitals? And why don't the hospitals have the ability to care for dementia patients with-
[ Page 800 ]
out overdosing them on drugs while they are waiting for proper placement?

When Keith left Abbotsford Regional Hospital, he was taken to Delta View Habilitation, to their tertiary care unit. Wendy was very happy with his transfer, as at Delta View their motto is "Hugs, not drugs." After some time he was off most, if not all, of the antipsychotic drugs. Unfortunately, the damage was done. His quality of life was gone, a situation that Wendy and her family attribute directly to the drugs he was on at Abbotsford Regional.

Keith loved living at Delta View. The staff are caring and compassionate, able to appropriately care for seniors like Keith who are struck by the ravages of dementia. However, while he was at Delta View, they got the news from Fraser Health Authority that they were cutting Delta View's funding to the point that they could not operate like they had been. At a meeting of the Fraser Health Authority and the residents' families, the families even volunteered to make up the amount of money that Fraser Health was taking away. Fraser Health said no — no explanation, just no.

Many of the family members wrote to Fraser Health to try to make them understand just how important the tertiary care at Delta View was. Sadly, their plea fell on deaf ears. So this excellent facility, where Keith had been getting the best of care, they could sadly no longer afford.

Before Keith was moved to another facility, though, he became ill with pneumonia and had to be sent to the Delta Hospital. The family received a phone call one Saturday morning from the doctor there. He told them they didn't think Keith was going to make it through the weekend.

Wendy called Delta View immediately and had him transferred back there for their care. You see, at the Delta Hospital, as in pretty well all hospitals, they have nobody who can regularly feed people who need that kind of assistance. Consequently, Keith was not being fed at the proper times, only when someone had the time or even thought about him there. In other words, he was barely fed at all.

The doctors wouldn't put a feeding tube in because they were afraid he'd pull it out. He was hungry for food, and his body was literally eating itself from the inside. He needed nourishment. He got down to 120 pounds, and this man that's 6 feet 3 inches tall.

They got him back to Delta View just in time. Upon arrival they bathed and put clean clothes on him, fed him, and in two days you would have never known he was so sick. They immediately starting feeding him double what everyone else ate, and he slowly started to recover. A facility with a staff and a philosophy that understand dementia.

Eventually Keith was moved back to Pleasant View but continues to face indignities that seniors just shouldn't have to. First is the wheelchair issue. Many wheelchairs in facilities in B.C. are donated. Keith, in fact, is using a donated chair, one that Wendy paid $134 to have the brakes repaired. Wendy has no intention of paying a monthly fee for its usage.

"I would rather go to jail," she said. "It doesn't belong to the health authority, so they are not getting a dime out of me, and a lot of other people feel the same way. My husband cannot walk, cannot feed himself, wears a diaper and needs a wheelchair just so he can sit in amongst the population and try to have some kind of life.

"The staff have to feed him when I'm not there. They take him to his room in a wheelchair; lift him to his bed; clean him up, which means changing his diaper and cleaning him like a baby; place him back in his wheelchair; and off he goes, only to have to repeat this procedure several times a day.

"Wheelchairs are an integral part of darned near everyone's life at Pleasant View and at most care facilities, and now you come up with the brilliant idea of charging these people for them?"

It's a sad state of affairs in this province when the government allows seniors to be charged for a wheelchair and yet gives raises to the Premier's staff. For Wendy and Keith, the trauma continues. Wendy acknowledges her husband's days are numbered, and she wants to see him as comfortable as possible. He has an enormous amount of phlegm, which causes him to cough and choke when he tries to eat his puréed diet.

[1055]

The other day he couldn't even eat his breakfast, and she asked for help from the staff to try to suction out the phlegm. They told her that they're not allowed to do that anymore. When asked why, they just said they're not allowed to do it.

So she sees the fate of her husband as this. He's literally going to drown to death on phlegm that could very easily be suctioned out and make it more comfortable to eat and breathe and sleep — a procedure that used to be done all the time. Her doctor suggested she use a turkey baster and remove it herself. Well, she told me there are some things she just can't do, and there are limits to life.

I empathize with her. What kind of society is it we live in where a senior has to even think of using a turkey baster to remove phlegm to ensure that her husband can have an appropriate quality of life? What a sad commentary on seniors care in this province.

Unfortunately, Keith and Wendy's story is not unique. There are many other seniors and their families that are struggling to maintain a decent quality of life, struggling to deal with policies put in place by this government that just don't ensure that seniors have the quality of life they deserve.

Wendy is a healthy, active 72-year-old who volunteers at a number of places in her community. She struggles to make ends meet, paying $2,600 a month for Keith's care. She has a mortgage on the home where she lives and an older car that Keith used to fix, which now she has to pay to get fixed. She'd like to downsize but can't fix her house up. Her kids help as much as they can, and yet she doesn't complain about any of her own issues. Her life revolves around her husband, Keith, and his care, even though he really doesn't know who she is.
[ Page 801 ]

She talks about the incredible caregivers Keith has had in his life and how difficult it is for residents when they have to move from one facility to another and leave the caregivers they have gotten to know.

We all know how….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Larson: The province has recognized the need for consistent, provincewide standards in all health services, many in the area of care that seniors receive in residential care, private care and traditional care.

In April 2012 the ministry and health authorities began increasing the focus of inspectors on high-risk areas to ensure necessary changes were made to promote the highest standards of safety. A new risk assessment tool was developed which assigns a risk rating to facilities and enables the inspectors and the facility owners to quickly work towards a solution.

Historically, regulations administered under the Hospital Act and the Community Care and Assisted Living Act were not coordinated. The ministry has since developed a plan to standardize benefits and protections for residential care clients, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to ensure the residential care services are safe, transparent, responsive and accountable. Many of the changes described in the plan also apply to private-pay residential care facilities.

Through the program First Link, those with dementia, families and caregivers, can receive customized information and access to programs and services. An additional $2 million has been provided to expand the First Link program.

The seniors action plan is also addressing three key areas for improvement that will immediately improve the quality of services for seniors within residential care facilities. These include regular medication reviews, enhanced training for care providers and consistent medical oversight. Key partners in this initiative are the B.C. Care Providers Association, the health authorities and the Denominational Health Association.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

As of March 2013, B.C. has 31,555 publicly subsidized residential assisted-living and group home beds. This is a 24 percent increase since 2001.

Also, more seniors are being kept together. In 2001, 600 married seniors were living apart from each other. By 2011 the number was down to 30, and in 2012 just three married residential care clients had spouses living in different facilities. Considerable efforts have been made to keep families together, even in the most difficult situations.

For those involved in palliative care, an after-hours support line is now available. Those who are eligible for palliative care nursing care through the provincial home and community care program now have access to after-hours telenursing support in their own homes for their family and the caregivers. This has added one more level of comfort for those people in end-of-life situations.

This March a comprehensive action plan to improve access to end-of-life care was introduced, and funds were committed for a centre of excellence for end-of-life care. The Vancouver Hospice Society will receive $950,000 to help complete and equip the new facility.

[1100]

Others also receiving funding support were Marion Hospice in Vancouver, Peace Arch Hospice in White Rock, and Canucks Place Children's Hospice. This will bring the number of publicly funded hospice beds to over 300.

The TREA strategy, Together to Reduce Elder Abuse, was also released in March 2013. It identifies key actions to reduce the prevalence of elder abuse. It will help strengthen guidelines to protect all seniors, as well as those who report care concerns in facilities. It also includes an office within the Ministry of Health with an expanded elder-abuse phone line.

This government is committed to improving care for our seniors, both inside facilities and at home. We are continuing to develop and expand programs like Better at Home, a program to keep seniors connected to their communities and provide basic home support services. This program will be expanded to 68 communities around the province. We will continue to develop partnerships with communities and be proactive in all areas of healthy living for seniors so that we can all expect to be treated with dignity in the care we receive as we age.

K. Conroy: Yet seniors still fall through the cracks in this province. I want to carry on talking about Keith and Wendy. She had said how difficult it is when seniors get moved from one facility to another, where they learn and then come to love the caregivers that are taking care of them — as Wendy had said to me: "This is the end of their life, and the caregivers at that point are their families."

She said Keith smiles when the caregivers come around. He rarely smiles at her anymore, but she knows that's okay. His smiles tell her that he's being looked after well. He knows she's a nice person who comes every day to feed him lunch, talks about the guys from the fire hall and is there for him in extraordinary ways — a way that has been made even more difficult by the lack of attention to their issues by the government.

Wendy agreed to let me share her story because, as she says: "It's not just about Keith and me. This is happening to so many other seniors in this province." For Wendy and Keith's sake, this needs to change. All seniors need to be treated with the dignity and respect they have earned and deserve.

I want to talk about what the Alzheimer Society is do-
[ Page 802 ]
ing for someone like Jim Mann, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2007, at age 58. Today at 64, he is still pushing for a plan to improve the lives of British Columbians with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, and of their families and caregivers. In this province alone there are over 70,000 people that are directly affected by Alzheimer's and hundreds of thousands of wives, husbands, sons and daughters who are also affected, many serving as the primary caregivers. There is no cure.

We need to do better in this province. We need to ensure that we have a dementia plan that's going to deal with these needs, that's going to make sure that folks like Wendy and Keith get the help and the services that they need. We need to make sure that there's support for family caregivers, people in this province who are struggling to make sure that their loved ones can stay at home as long as possible.

We need to make sure that there's support for the many programs that the Alzheimer Society does, like the First Link that was mentioned. But it needs to be expanded. We need to ensure that those services are available to people across the province so that when you have initial diagnosis of Alzheimer's in your family, you have somewhere to turn, that you have someone you can talk to.

We need to ensure that seniors in this province get that care and respect that they deserve, regardless of where they live and regardless of their financial considerations, their financial situations. We really need to make sure that this is working for the people in our province. And just for people like Keith and Wendy, we need to make sure that they don't fall through the cracks, that there aren't more seniors like them that are struggling to make ends meet and that they get the care and help and support that they deserve.

Hon. D. McRae: I call debate on private member's Motion 3.

Madame 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 — RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

J. Tegart:

[Be it resolved that this House supports taking a principled stand on responsible natural resource development and seize the opportunities available so we can continue building communities and planning for future growth across British Columbia.]

Madame Speaker, I'm pleased to begin this discussion on responsible natural resource development as the representative of a region that is rich in resources and people.

[1105]

In my riding forestry and agriculture are critical issues, as is mining. Mining is one of the bright spots for the communities of Fraser-Nicola. Highland Valley Copper, between Ashcroft and Logan Lake, is one of the biggest employers in the area, with close to 1,300 full-time employees. The copper mine in Princeton began production in June of 2011 — the first new, major metal mine to open in B.C. since 1998. It provides nearly 400 full-time jobs to the community.

Also nearby, ten kilometres west of Kamloops, we have the New Afton copper and gold mine, which began operations last year. The mine provides 405 full-time jobs for the area.

This growth and success is welcomed by those who saw the industry go through some tough times during the 1990s. These challenges helped people realize just how important this industry is and how we can't afford to lose these jobs.

Today we're poised for significant growth in this sector. Our B.C. jobs plan has set aggressive targets for this industry. We're aiming to have eight new mines in operation by 2015 and to expand at least nine mines currently operating in the province. We have also set aggressive targets to reduce the backlog of mineral exploration permits. We do this because every dollar invested in mining creates $2.50 in benefits for the B.C. economy.

The direct jobs created are some of B.C.'s best paying, and the benefits don't just extend to mining communities. Mining creates service, manufacturing, supply, finance, legal, education and scientific jobs in every region of the province, benefiting local and regional economies. In my community the Ashcroft Terminal is an example of this — a private, logistics-focused, rail-based, transload facility which supports industries like mining, manufacturing and agriculture. And it's expanding, providing growth and jobs for Fraser-Nicola.

The involvement by the private sector in helping to build infrastructure shows the value it sees in the resource development — that it's looking for ways to help government get goods to market.

Our local First Nations are also involved. In areas like forestry and mining we've worked hard to consult with them, work with them and partner with them on revenue-sharing agreements. One such agreement involves the aforementioned New Afton Mine. The Kamloops and Skeetchestn bands will play important roles in its future, and their communities will see economic benefits because of that partnership. The revenue-sharing agreements and discussions with rural resource communities reflect the critical role that rural B.C. plays in generating wealth and economic opportunity for the province.

Partnerships are also important at the educational level. When I talk about all the mining jobs in my riding, I reflect on the training that got those workers there.
[ Page 803 ]
Working together with institutions like Thompson Rivers University and BCIT, we're ensuring that young people in our communities have the skilled trades training they need for the jobs of tomorrow.

Finally, partnerships are important across ministries as well. I value the cross-ministry cooperation that I see. When it comes to natural resource development, I'm glad we're thinking holistically about how we can do more with what we have and how we can do that together. I'm glad we're thinking about sustainability in two ways: how we can maintain our accomplishments for a longer period of time and also how we can do that in an environmentally conscious way.

In closing, our rural communities and their resilient people rely on the good, family-supporting jobs that come to our area from our natural resource industries. We must seize the opportunities before us to ensure stability, optimism and success for more British Columbians.

R. Austin: Thank you to the member for Fraser-Nicola for bringing up this topic. Like her, I also live in a rural part of British Columbia that exists and thrives based on what is happening with natural resources and the fact that we are close to the ocean and can take opportunities from that.

[1110]

I think, in regards to this motion, the three important areas are: what are the principles upon which we take a "principled stand," what is the definition of "responsible natural resource development," and thirdly, what does "building communities" really mean?

It was interesting to note that the member for Fraser-Nicola spoke about the Highland Valley Copper mine — a mine that was actually saved from going out of business in the 1990s when copper prices hit 60 cents. It's important to recognize that on both sides of this House there are people of goodwill who recognized the importance of mining jobs and strove very hard to keep one of the biggest industries in her riding going. That certainly is very important.

I think we also need to recognize what is meant by the word "responsible." There are resources that are finite and resources that will go on forever if properly taken care of.

I live in a riding, as does the member, where forestry has played a huge role. Yet even though we live in a part of northwest B.C. where trees grow faster than anywhere else, we still see 90 percent of our logs exported rather than being used there for any kind of manufacturing. In fact, for over eight years — in communities that were built on forestry — we've not seen one piece of manufacturing take place to enhance the value of that wood. That's certainly not responsible use of our natural resources.

Now we are coming into a time in our province's history where in my neck of the woods we have a successful mining operation starting and the potential for a very new LNG industry. These, of course, are not infinite resources. These are finite resources. So what we need to do is to ensure we can maximize the benefit to British Columbians and, particularly, maximize the benefit to those people who live in the areas where these resources exist, so they can take advantage of this and raise families.

One of the challenges, of course, is in regard to skills training. And the member also mentioned there about training people properly for the jobs that are there. That, of course, is a challenge. We see right now that in my riding Air Canada has moved from three flights a day — which have been there, historically, for the last ten years — to five flights a day. There are even rumours today that WestJet may be moving in.

Now, that's a good thing — to think that this airline business is bringing lots and lots of opportunities to the area. But it also has a bit of a downside, because it speaks to the fact that even though we're on the cusp of a brand-new industry, tons and tons of people are coming in to work from outside of the area, rather than training people who work locally to take these jobs.

You know, you have a situation where the airport is busy, where they're building camps for single men, mostly, to come and work, yet there are lots of people in the northwest saying: "Well, how come this industry is taking off, yet I can't get my family or my son or my daughter into a job that actually pays a living wage?"

I think it's very important, if we want to talk about building communities in a responsible way, to recognize that we take advantage of these opportunities to train the people ahead of time who live locally so that we don't have to see workers coming in from outside not just the region but — in the case of, for example, the Rio Tinto new-smelter build — where they're actually having to bring in foreign temporary workers now.

That's certainly not the idea. It's certainly not my definition or principle of what's building strong communities. A strong community is when people come, live there, raise their families there, have the schools vibrant, have local stores that are vibrant. That, to me, is a vibrant community. And we need to recognize that we can take the resources which are abundant in this province…. We are so blessed to have incredible natural resources in this province, but let's use them to make sure that those who live in rural British Columbia take advantage of that.

D. Barnett: Today I would like to talk about a mine in the Cariboo-Chilcotin that is being proposed. As we all know, our resource industries are the industries that build strong communities, as my colleague across the floor has just said. We have an opportunity in the Cariboo-Chilcotin that will take the Cariboo-Chilcotin back to where it was. It was once very vibrant and had a strong economy.

As we all know, due to the pine beetle in areas like the Cariboo-Chilcotin we have devastation and industries
[ Page 804 ]
that are still vibrant but not as vibrant as they used to be. We have a mine, now proposed for the second time, which starts its environmental assessment panel hearing process today in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

[1115]

I have followed this mine for approximately 20 years. Prior to being the MLA for the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I was mayor of the district of 100 Mile House for approximately 18 years. I became involved in this process when it first started. I fully supported the project then, as did my community and council, and I support it today.

We continue to hear about child poverty throughout the province of British Columbia and in some of our rural communities. In my opinion, there is no such thing as child poverty. It is parental and adult poverty. The unemployment statistics in some of our small communities and, unfortunately, in some of our First Nations communities are astounding. We must give these people, our young people, the opportunities that are out there and the jobs that will bring our communities and these young people forward.

We cannot continually say we have child poverty and yet say no to good resource development projects. I've even taken the time to monitor the environmental concerns around this project. These concerns, in my opinion, on this second round have more than been taken into consideration. While I appreciate the concerns of some, I appreciate and respect our First Nations communities. I believe that through a consultation process, this new project, the revenue-sharing opportunities for First Nations, will come together and be successful.

We have now gone through some turmoil. We have a chief who was chief for 20 years of the Alexis Creek Indian band. He was tribal chair of the Tsilhqot'in National Government. He was opposed to the first project. He now supports it. He understands that what the concerns were of the First Nations people are being addressed in this second proposal. He understands the needs of the young people in his communities. He understands the opportunities.

We talk about training and trades. Through the British Columbia Aboriginal Mine Training Association we have a great, great training centre in Williams Lake and we have many, many young First Nations people training and working now in Gibraltar mine, which is also a project that has just hired another 200 people and spent millions of dollars in the area supporting our communities.

I would also like to pass along a comment about the company that is proposing this mine. They are a great corporate citizen. They are working with some of our local First Nations bands, have signed an agreement with one and have given over 20 young people recently, in one of our First Nations communities, great opportunities.

You know, this opportunity that we have in the Cariboo-Chilcotin…. I encourage everyone to listen, to not say no — to listen to the benefits, the opportunities. In this province, in British Columbia, we have some of the most stringent environmental regulations there are. I know that once the shovel goes in the ground.... Long before it does, the environmental assessment review panel, the province of British Columbia, the monitoring that will go on through this whole process will be the strongest and the toughest there is, I believe, in the world today.

Without this mine….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Rice: Bringing natural resource development in British Columbia in line with best practices and our highest principles requires a carefully planned-out effort. It requires planning that balances immediate desires with future needs, consultation with First Nations and local communities and managing expectations and needs of our diverse society with competing interests.

We live in a time with no shortage of challenges. We must find a way to manage our growing and aging population and the pressure that puts on our environment, while at the same time honouring First Nations rights and adapting to and facing the trials of climate change.

[1120]

It is time for an honest re-evaluation of how we go about creating the communities and the province we want to live in. Decision-making based on media cycles, short political tenures and fiscal quarterlies is not a realistic time frame to create a meaningful plan for sustainable natural resource development, yet this is the past and present path we have taken, and B.C.'s abundant natural resources have allowed for this.

Real leadership and resource management means making the difficult choices necessary to build sustainable communities and healthy societies. It means going beyond an immediate return on investment to examine the longer-term impact of our decisions. Responsible resource development means not waiting for catastrophe and crisis before asking tough questions and making hard decisions. Sustainable natural resource development is impossible if we insist on making decisions project by project, company by company and resource by resource without a larger vision for the land base.

In Australia three LNG plants were constructed by three different companies right beside each other. This has proven inefficient. Here in B.C. it appears we, too, similarly are going down this path.

If we truly believe in sustainable natural resource development, we need to examine cumulative impacts of multiple developments. Land and marine use planning is critical to managing the sustainability of resources. That also means considering ecosystem and social values and not just gross domestic product values.

Principled natural resource development also means confronting what has been, for far too long, avoided, about how we work with First Nations and move towards
[ Page 805 ]
a shared vision that is meaningful. We need to question why natural resource development often doesn't necessarily directly benefit the people living adjacent to the resource or First Peoples territory that's being exploited for development.

Governments have apologized for the ways in which they have treated aboriginal peoples over times past, yet we continuously invite First Nations to participate in the very system we apologized for, one that stole their land and removed their rights. For surrendering forests for pipelines, lakes for tailing ponds and sacred headwaters for gas exploration, we offer in exchange a few dollars and what those in the developed world yield as a given right, such as quality education, good health care and decent housing. While we apologize for a system that has stripped First Nations of their natural resources and culture, we continuously invite them back into the same system.

To be just, sustainable natural resource development will have to venture into the social as well as environmental realms, yet we see a trend where we are moving away from an honest evaluation of development's merits and into one of fast-tracking as many projects as soon as possible. This kind of boom-and-bust approach is devastating for rural and remote communities and bad for long-term economic prosperity.

The primary purpose of the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act is to provide a process to assess the environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health effects of reviewable projects. Until the recent drastic changes to environmental assessment in Canada, under omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act had similar goals. Nowadays the trend is to cut these acts that were initiated to protect the best interests of people and communities in the interest of approving more projects faster with less debate, less engagement and less consideration of long-term consequences.

If the sustainable part of sustainable natural resource development is ever going to be more than an adjective meant to soften resistance to unpopular projects, we need to get over the idea that if you don't take development in its proposed form, you are anti-development altogether.

It will take courageous leadership willing to move beyond an adversarial approach that pits the economy against the environment to make principled natural resource development a reality. It will take courageous leadership to work with First Nations and local communities to help develop a vision that provides local jobs and economic prosperity, all the while without compromising social, cultural and environmental values.

I believe taking up this challenge will give us the best chance to seize the opportunities available so we can continue building communities and planning for the future growth of British Columbia, all the while fighting climate change.

M. Dalton: I'm pleased to stand in support of this motion from the member for Fraser-Nicola — support for taking a principled stand on responsible natural resource development and seizing the opportunities available.

This is a message that really resonated everywhere in British Columbia in the last election. People understood the connection between resource extraction and services, resource extraction and health care and education, resource extraction with jobs and their children's future. Money has to come from somewhere.

[1125]

Just in the last year — I believe it was 2012 — we had $680 million in exploration and the mining industry, which was a record in British Columbia's history. That really contrasts between the record with the NDP. In the last year they were in, it was $20 million of exploration. So there's a real difference.

I talked to thousands of people going door to door, and invariably I would bring up mining. I would bring up LNG and the importance of these industries to people everywhere. Maple Ridge–Mission is not known for its mining economy. We have a couple of aggregate mines, but other than that, no; no oil and gas. But I could not believe how many people had jobs that were connected to it, either as geologists or as people that went and worked up in Fort St. John or other parts of British Columbia.

I met this one lady, a flag lady, who would travel up north or even to Fort McMurray and would make up to $150,000 a year. That's a great wage, and it's helped her pay her mortgage. In the communities that I represent people understand the importance of these industries to their own jobs.

I would ask people: "How does the economy impact your job?" If people were concerned about the economy and the impact upon their jobs, then they were very open to us.

I was quite concerned when I heard the NDP coming up against exporting "dirty oil." I felt that it was being opportunistic and working contrary to B.C.'s economic interests and needs. We have been shipping oil for 50 years out of the port of Vancouver. I was wondering: what are we supposed to ship — butterflies? Vancouver is the largest port in British Columbia. It's the fourth-largest in North America. We grew up as a port city.

The Kinder Morgan decision was a game-changer in this election, and it confirmed to many, as I was going door to door, that the opposition was willing to sacrifice people's prosperity and their future.

I think the former esteemed member for Fraser-Nicola said it well. "The Kinder Morgan decision was basically a decision to the middle-class and blue-collar worker that the NDP is against development" — Harry Lali in the Merritt Herald. He said that. He also said this last month: "You can't be against northern gateway. You can't be against Site C. You can't be against Kinder Morgan and all of that because the message from the blue-collar
[ Page 806 ]
worker is, 'Those are my jobs. I'm in construction. I need those jobs.'"

The Leader of the Opposition, on April 23, during the election, said: "We do not expect Vancouver to become a major oil export port, as it appears to be suggested in what Kinder Morgan is suggesting in the province. I don't see that transformation as being the right approach for our economy or our port." The port is a major employer — and a lot of union jobs.

There are five conditions for pipelines. The first one is a "successful completion of the environmental review process." Our environment is key. It's important. We believe in a one-process environmental process — not delay and delay but working together. We believe in a world-leading marine oil spill response, prevention, recovery systems for B.C. coastlines. We believe in "world-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage or mitigate the risk and costs of heavy…pipelines."

Also, "aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with opportunities…to benefit from heavy-oil projects." Myself, I'm Métis, and my history — the Métis people — is cooperation, working together in extraction of natural resources for their benefit and First Nations.

D. Donaldson: Unlike the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, I'm going to address the private member's motion because I think it's a worthy motion to talk about. I think it's a worthy motion because it introduces a number of concepts — taking a principled stand on responsible natural resource development — and talks about building communities and planning for the future.

On its surface I think it's a worthy motion. I guess the crux of the matter is: how do you define principles around a principled stand, and how do you define responsible development? I'd like to offer a few positive suggestions around those topics.

[1130]

I think that when you talk about principles, one of the fundamental principles is, if you're going to lay out the number of new mines that you're proposing or the number of LNG plants that you're proposing, then, you should lay out, as well, and make transparent the criteria that are behind those and ask local people what they think of those numbers.

I think if you're going to take a principled stand, you should lay out and be transparent about properly assessing risk. Cumulative effects — removed from the environmental act back in 2002 — are something that need to be considered, especially so that local people can have a say and decide on pace and scale of development.

I think that a principled stand would be to provide enough investment in front-line ministries so that you can actually do what you say around environmental monitoring, for instance. The Auditor General came out with a report last year, or in the last year and a half, saying that the environmental assessment office can't even monitor the mitigative measures that have been put in place so that we know whether they're working for projects. This is an important part of taking a principled stand.

I think, overall, what I would say is that the most fundamental part of taking a principled stand is respecting First Nations agreements. A couple of examples have not been very good in that regard in the last little while — for instance, with the Tahltan. They arrived at a shared decision-making agreement back on March 14 in a ceremony here at the Legislature. It was a shared decision-making agreement, so one would then assume that the government would participate in making shared decisions about what happens in the Tahltan territory in the future.

But lo and behold, in May a unilateral decision was taken by the B.C. environmental assessment office to apply for substitution with the federal government, meaning that the B.C. environmental assessment process would be the only process in regards to a proposed new coal mine in the Sacred Headwaters.

Now, the Tahltan leadership typified this as fast-tracking. They typified this as a broken promise from the election. But you know, let's just look on the surface. On one hand, you sign a shared decision-making agreement. Two months later you unilaterally decide to take action with the federal government around environmental assessment without consulting the Tahltan. I think that that's not a principled stand on respecting agreements that you've signed with First Nations.

Another example is with the Gitanyow. They signed a reconciliation agreement in the fall of last year. It took a long time to come to this reconciliation agreement with the province.

A fundamental part of that agreement was a land use plan that actually dovetailed nicely into land use plans in the area around forestry, around other resources. So that was in fall of 2012. In June they're told by the environmental assessment office that the land use plan has no bearing on environmental assessment processes about mines in the Gitanyow area or mines that might be affected — highway traffic on Highway 37, around cumulative effects.

So on one hand, you have an agreement being signed, a land use plan between the province and the Gitanyow, and a matter of six or eight months later you have the Gitanyow being told by the environmental assessment office that the land use plan has nothing to do with environmental assessment on this project. Again, I don't think that's reflective of a principled stand when it comes to agreements with First Nations.

I think that upholding the honour of the Crown is fundamental to taking a principled approach to responsible development. That's a suggestion that I would put to this government, and that's why I welcome this mo-
[ Page 807 ]
tion. I think that without that, we're going to see delays. We're going to see not what this motion alludes to, which is building communities and planning for future growth. And this is especially in regards to planning and building communities.

We have another example, where there were temporary foreign workers approved for a mine in the northeast….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[1135]

D. Plecas: I wish today to speak in strong support of the motion just put forward by the member for Fraser-Nicola. I want to emphasize that we need to pursue resource development and the principled stand on that with some urgency.

We all know that it doesn't matter who you talk to in the delivery of public services. They all have a common problem, and that common problem is, and has been for a long time, that they simply do not have the resources they need to do the job that needs to be done. Members opposite would be the first to point that out.

Even more troubling, though, is the reality that these needs are increasing. This need to do something is going to worsen over time. Nowhere is that more apparent than with respect to health care, and this is going to come upon us very quickly.

Where are we going to get the money to address these needs? One of the things we could do is follow the lead of governments around the world — they've been doing it for years — and raise taxes. We simply can't afford to do that. Businesses can't afford that, the average British Columbian can't afford that, and any economist would tell us that that's not good for the economy in the long run anyway.

Secondly, we could borrow. We all know where that's going to take us if we keep that up. We need only to look at Greece, Turkey, Spain. All over the world governments are falling apart, economic disaster leading to social disaster. That's not an option.

What we can do — because we're blessed with natural resources, so many of them — is we can get the money out of the ground through resource development. We are very rich. We're rich enough that on the LNG initiative alone, we are talking over $100 billion in revenue coming into this province over the next 30 years. It's an unbelievable opportunity. In doing that, developing those resources, we will build ourselves a prosperity fund which will help us get out of debt and give us the ability to pay for those services that we so desperately need.

The question is not: should we or should we not do this? The question should be: how can we make this happen as fast as possible, with full respect, of course, for all provincial stakeholders and environmental concerns?

Will there be risk? Yes, there will. But we all know what the risk is if we do nothing. If we slow this down, the risk is far greater. We can manage those risks. This government has demonstrated that it can do that.

I'm proud to be part of a government that understands this. I'm proud to be a part of a government that is committed to doing this in a very proactive way, seizing on the opportunities we have in front of us and doing it for generations to come.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and speak on the motion, the importance of responsible natural resource development. We've heard from many speakers on both sides on the importance and, really, the richness that B.C. has in terms of our natural resources. That includes renewable and non-renewable resources.

We have enormous natural wealth from resources of energy: our non-renewables — coal, oil, natural gas — as well as renewables — hydro, wind, geothermal and solar. As well, we have massive tracts of forests, certainly, that have built and been a backbone of B.C.'s economy and success throughout B.C. history.

There's also an abundance of minerals and other metals. Leading exports in B.C. are copper, gold, silver. We also mine led, zinc, molybdenum and other industrial minerals. As well, our fisheries are very rich. Certainly, our abundant natural resources are the backbone, an important backbone, of our economy.

It really is an expression of basic political economy throughout the ages in terms of being able to supply natural resources to meet human and societal needs. It provides direct and indirect jobs that benefit local communities and, as the most recent member mentioned, the importance of supporting our public services.

[1140]

I also want to make the distinction that responsible natural resource development does not only include exploiting our environment for economic growth but recognizes the interconnection between the economy and our environment. Certainly, the principle of sustainable development is, I think, a central theme. It's not just a question of getting the money out of the ground but the importance of meeting our present needs — balancing that and not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

When we talk about the opportunities of developing our natural resources in B.C., we also have to balance that with our responsibilities. One of the central important themes is strengthening our environmental standards and recognizing that it's not one or the other — it's not the environment versus the economy, but they're interconnected — and ensuring that we strengthen our environmental standards so that we, for example, continue to maintain a moratorium on offshore oil exploration, drilling and tankers off the north coast, as well as strengthening and improving our environmental assessment practices here in British Columbia.

Important themes as well — to respect, include and
[ Page 808 ]
build partnerships with the aboriginal First Nations community. To promote as much as possible value-added production — this is a very important interest for me. I think we have this richness, so we should maximize that.

As well, in terms of supporting our sectors across British Columbia, doing a better job investing in healthy forests on our land base, ensuring sustainable mining and exploration. There can be improvements in shortening the period of permitting to allow timely access for exploration that's a big economic driver across the province, promoting and supporting our sustainable liquefied natural gas, ensuring best practices in our hydraulic fracturing, as well as supporting sustainable fisheries and protecting our wild salmon stocks.

It has also been mentioned that one of the challenges in terms of ensuring success and productivity for our natural resource development is the need to ensure that British Columbians have access to the skills to meet the jobs that are here in British Columbia, to ensure that rural communities prosper, that British Columbians have opportunities to think that we share — that everyone can support their families and be successful in British Columbia.

In terms of our driving principle and concern around natural resource development, it is not a question of compromising the environment to develop our economy. We recognize that we must ensure the protection of our economy, a sustainable development, and that the jobs that are generated not only support individuals and contribute to local, rural communities but also our provincial revenue base and ensure that our environment is protected for the future.

M. Morris: I, too, speak in favour of the motion before the House right now.

There are $70 billion worth of projects either underway or on the books right now throughout northern B.C. that are going to take place over the next ten to 15 years. I live in the heart of this, in Prince George. Prince George has been reliant on a resource-based economy ever since it first began its roots.

The resource-based economy contributes to all of British Columbia. People in the Lower Mainland and throughout B.C. rely on electricity generated in B.C. They rely on the natural gas that's generated in northeastern B.C. to heat their homes. They rely on the forest sector to build their homes throughout British Columbia. They rely on precious metals to build their computers, their cell phones and the transportation infrastructure we see in the province here.

Prince George international airport — we spoke about airports off and on this morning in the House — is the third-longest airport in British Columbia, and it can accommodate the largest cargo aircraft in the world.

Most major highways cross through Prince George. We can get our goods shipped to most of North America via those highways within three days. Transcontinental railways connect global markets to British Columbia. We have very competitive timelines and freight rates. Major west coast ports in Vancouver, Kitimat and Prince Rupert are within 800 kilometres of Prince George.

[1145]

In the forest sector we've seen considerable diversification. We've seen our mills retooled to accommodate the pine beetle epidemic that we've seen across British Columbia. We've seen a bioenergy sector develop in British Columbia. And most of the $150 million in wood pellets that are exported from B.C. are exported from the Prince George region.

Several mills are now operating exclusively to address the Chinese lumber export market, which has increased by over 1,500 percent since 2003 and is now B.C.'s second-largest market after the United States.

B.C. has also entered into revenue-sharing agreements with 172 First Nations, providing $324 million to them and access to over 63 million cubic metres of fibre. The McLeod Lake Indian band near Prince George has been a benefiter of this program. As a result of that, they have probably the largest logging and construction First Nations company in British Columbia.

The oil and gas sector has major pipelines passing through Prince George, providing crude oil to a local refinery there and also supplying natural gas. British Columbia is on the verge of a liquefied natural gas development that will become the key sector in British Columbia. These pipelines are going to be passing through Prince George, and the secondary industry associated with this is going to provide a new revenue basis for the province.

There are currently nine operating mines, two mines under development and 19 proposed mines, along with 78 major exploration projects in northern B.C. There was $557 million spent in exploration in 2013, up 67.8 percent from the previous year. Employment in the mining sector in Prince George has increased by an average of 31½ percent over the past five years. There are 1,100 people in Prince George and 6,800 people across northern B.C. directly employed in the mining field.

In 2012 Thompson Creek Metals, who own Mount Milligan mine, spent $125 million in the region; $61 million of that was spent directly in Prince George. In 2012 New Gold, a development close to Prince George, spent $130 million in the Prince George region on supplies and services.

The healthy resource sector economy that we have up in the interior of B.C. has contributed to an unemployment rate in Prince George that is below 4 percent. A diversified local manufacturing sector comprised of chemical production, machinery equipment and metal products is supported by a comprehensive transportation network providing a fully developed supply chain for natural resource development.
[ Page 809 ]

The construction sector also plays a key role in resource development. Nearly 30 percent of northern B.C.'s construction employment is based in Prince George and accounts for 23 percent of northern B.C. construction firms. Also, 60 percent to 70 percent of all capital investment proposed in the province is expected to occur in northern B.C. The resource sector and the spinoff industry sector that supports it are all supported by strong education and health systems throughout our province, which in turn exist because of the contributions made by this sector.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to join in the debate today on behalf of the opposition with respect to the motion from the member for Fraser-Nicola. I believe it is a timely resolution and one that I think, for the most part, we've been discussing in a non-partisan way. I think that's a good thing. I know that one of the members earlier on wanted to talk about the election. I think that we need to, instead, as other members have done…. New members to this place, I would note, have talked about the importance of the industries that depend on resource extraction.

My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin — passionate about these issues, I know. I've visited her region many times. I've been to the Gibraltar site. I've been to the site of the proposed New Prosperity. I've been to Red Chris in the north. I've been to coal mines in Tumbler Ridge. I've been to coal mines in the Kootenays. I've been underground at Quinsam Coal — scared the daylights out of me, but I did it anyway because that was my job.

It wasn't just my job to go and see industrial activity, however. It was my job as a member of the Legislature, an opposition member, to go and determine if government resources are being appropriately expended on these resource projects. I have to say that, on balance, that is the case.

[1150]

But there is also an obligation…. And I think I'm speaking more to new members of this place on both sides of the House. In an adversarial parliamentary democracy there is an obligation on the government's side to steward resources as they come to them through resource rents, through taxation, through any host of other revenue sources. It's our job on this side of the House to question, to challenge, those assumptions. I would argue that on Monday mornings it's a great opportunity for us to do just that in a civil way.

Members stand and make assertions. The member for Abbotsford South made assertions that there is $100 billion of revenue down the road, and there may well be. That revenue is a result of a differential between the natural gas price here in North America and the natural gas price in Asia.

Well, if you listen to the government, you would think that that just happened a week and a half ago, and they're seizing the opportunity. That differential has been there for 20 years. Now, other jurisdictions are taking advantage of that differential, some to greater or lesser degrees of success. I believe that it's appropriate for British Columbia to get into that race. I've said that for many years now. I'll continue to say it. But it's my job, and it's the job of my colleagues, to question the assumptions that are being put forward.

It's our job. It's also, I would argue, the job of government members to take a look at the notes they get from the kids in the basement and say: "Does this jibe with my personal experience?" I encourage all members to get out…. The member from Prince George, of course, is already in the north. But some of those members south of Hope: I encourage you to get out of Victoria, get out of the Lower Mainland, and go to resource communities and see the absolute benefits that these….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: "Hear, hear," from Cariboo-Chilcotin. And to Kamloops — I'll leave you be for now.

It's important that we get out of this place and go and see for ourselves, hear for ourselves. Go to the coffee shops and communities right across British Columbia and listen to people's stories. That's our job as legislators. But we, on this side, have a particularly difficult task, a thankless task, of criticizing day after day. We'll continue to do that because, for example….

I'm not meaning to pick on the member for Abbotsford South, but he used the $100 billion number, which has been provided to all members on the government side to be repeated as a mantra. Whenever you get into a jam, say "a $100 billion prosperity fund." There's not a nickel in it. Not one scintilla is inside the prosperity fund. But let's talk about it.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It's coming. "Coming to a fund near you," says the member from Kamloops.

So our job…. And it's not just the opposition side. I know government caucus members will have an opportunity to discuss this with ministers.

What is the tax regime? If there's going to be this bounty, what is it? How are we going to collect it? Carbon taxes? I thought we were freezing the carbon tax. I heard that in the budget just the other day. We're freezing the carbon tax, so we're not going to raise new revenues from natural gas through pricing emissions. I'll put that to one side.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: We'll start there, yeah.

I heard that we're going to be providing electricity through B.C. Hydro. Well, we're in a bit of a jam there.
[ Page 810 ]
The Minister of Energy has identified that we're going to see significant rate increases in the days and weeks and months ahead. Are we going to be subsidizing this industrial activity? If so, if it's appropriate, let's have a discussion here. Let's agree to disagree on some points and try and come together when we can on what is an appropriate resource rent, on what's an appropriate subsidy to provide to industrial activity.

We also have to, I think, look a bit below the surface of those briefing notes. Again, this is a direct appeal to those new members of the government caucus. I know you were all accomplished in your fields of endeavour before you arrived here. Don't give up on that individuality and creativity and thoughtfulness that you had when you were elected. I implore you. Keep thinking. Keep asking questions. We're obliged to. You're not, but do it anyway.

M. Bernier: Good morning, everybody. This, obviously, is a really important topic, an important motion. I think, on both sides of the House, we've heard today that there's a lot of excitement around this and a lot of opportunity going forward.

I'd like, at this point, looking at the time, to reserve my rights for a later date on this topic. I think it's one that I could talk on — unfortunately, people back home would say, obviously — ad nauseam on this topic.

On that, I will, noting the time, move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right for a later time.

M. Bernier moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 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