2014 Legislative Session: Second 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, February 17, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 5, Number 5

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call private members' time.

Private Members' Statements

EFFICIENT FORESTRY

N. Macdonald: B.C. has been blessed with an incredible opportunity economically and a tremendous test at the same time. As a generation, the question is: are we able to manage our public lands in a responsible way so that the economic values are optimized and, at the same time, make sure that the environmental values are retained?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The situation on the coast economically, frankly, is a story of lost opportunity. The fact that this government has given up on manufacturing on the coast is really a lack of leadership. The test now, however, is in the Cariboo and the Interior with the dramatic drop in the cut available to mills.

[1005]

So 18.1 million hectares of forest land has been affected by the mountain pine beetle. We are told that between 53 percent and 70 percent of merchantable pine will be killed by 2021, with a significant amount of that already having died off. As people who are from that area will know, the cut has been high, to salvage dying and dead pine, and now it dramatically falls. And with it, we lose jobs. Houston and Quesnel already will lose mills.

As legislators, we have a role to support communities and to support employment. Government expects between eight and ten mills to close in that area, and frankly, I do not see that the work that should have been done by the government has actually been done. The past ten years we knew this was coming, yet we remain unprepared.

The government will say that pine beetle action committees were set up and that they spent $9 million. Indeed, pine beetle action committees were set up, and they did spend $9 million. Fine. Houston is losing a major employer. What the mayor says, what council says and what I would say is: "Where's the plan?" Where is the plan for that community going forward, if indeed the pine beetle action committee work was work that's going to be relevant in any way?

The provincial government will also say that they spent $884 million over the past decade on the pine beetle issue, but it really is a distraction. If you look at that money, only about $200 million over the past decade really relates in any way to forestry and to employment. The rest…. You're talking about things like the expansion of Prince George Airport, highway resurfacing — fine — but not really addressing forestry and the lack of mid-term fibre, and certainly doing nothing to help communities as they move through what's going to be a very difficult period.

The federal government had promised $1 billion to help but sent only a quarter of that, claiming that the provincial government had no clear plan to wisely spend the money, and has since then said that they're not going to send any more money.

We had a committee that did extensive work in 2012, making recommendations that not only have not been acted on, but areas that the committee identified as needing attention actually experienced significant budget cuts in last year's budget.

In the 2000 election platform we proposed a five-year plan to uplift the annual forest health budget by $100 million a year and to reverse the $40 million in cuts to areas that the committee had identified as needing more money. Certainly, the opposition took its responsibilities seriously with that report and tried to put in place an action plan that would help communities in the Cariboo. It would have allowed government to get accurate inventory — primarily timber inventory, where currently 75 percent of our inventory information is over 30 years old. We would be replanting, as we should have been doing the past decade.

It used to be that there was a law in B.C., before the Liberals came in, that the forests lost to fire, disease and pests had to be surveyed and replanted by government. The Liberals got rid of that law and cut the replanting budget by 90 percent. In my time here Premier Campbell created a program called Forests for Tomorrow, with promises of funding. But those promises never came through. He would always lay out: "In three years' time we'll be up to a certain amount of money, $50 million." We never ever came close to that.

We now sit with millions of hectares that should have been replanted and that simply have not been. The government will stand up here and give a figure that's completely inaccurate. Of course, the figure they're giving is only the land that is surveyed so that it shows that it needs to be replanted, and the government didn't have a budget for surveying. So they can stand up and say: "Well, we only see a couple of hundred thousand hectares that need to be done." But it's completely lost on the people of the Cariboo that needed that work done.

That's where we sit. The way forward for workers, for communities, is looking after the land and establishing
[ Page 1300 ]
a legislative framework as well as government capacity to protect jobs.

[1010]

With that, I'll turn it over to the government side to respond, and then we'll wrap up once that's taken place.

M. Morris: This province has come a long way since the 1990s, the late 1990s, when the government heavily subsidized the forest industry, particularly in the northwest part of the province here. We found out that those tactics didn't work. Back in those days we were reliant on the North American market for our B.C. softwood.

In the early 2000s softwood exports to the U.S. were over $5 billion annually. Then we were hit with the U.S. housing crisis. Softwood exports dropped dramatically to $1.5 billion by the end of 2009. They remained at about $1.5 billion until just recently, when in 2012 they finally rose up to that $2 billion mark, and for 2013, $2½ billion.

In 2004 Japan was another market of ours, and they were importing $1.2 billion worth of softwood. In the mid-2000s they, as well, dropped to a low of around $500 million. They've recovered slightly right now, and I think we're sitting somewhere around $800 million a year for them.

But within this government, we saw a glimmer of light. The hon. member for Abbotsford West, who was the Forests Minister at the time, identified the need to expand our softwood markets during his tenure and identified opportunities in China. My predecessor for Prince George–Mackenzie also continued on these efforts. In 2004 B.C. softwood exports to China were a mere $57 million. By 2013 this had risen to $1.4 billion, a very significant increase. Pulp exports also went from just over $600 million to $1.6 billion.

The '08-09 recession caused industry to rethink how it does business. It became focused on the utilization of wood fibre residuals. The wood pellet industry flourished in British Columbia. Canada is one of the top producers of wood pellets in the world, and B.C. produces over two-thirds of the Canadian wood pellet production. Wood pellet production has increased by over 400 percent in B.C. since 2002.

A wood pellet company in Prince George in the interior of the province has advised me that they have sold all of their production capacity through till 2019. They've also built a dedicated shipping terminal in Prince Rupert just to handle wood pellets.

Bioenergy plants are also flourishing across the province. British Columbia has also stepped onto the world stage by bringing new, innovative ways to use wood, such as laminated panels.

B.C. loggers have harvested more than 70 million cubic metres of wood annually in British Columbia. To put that into context, your average seven- or eight-axle-configured logging truck holds between 50 and 60 cubic metres of wood. Forestry accounted for 56,000 jobs in 2013 — 170,000 direct and indirect jobs that contribute over $1 billion in provincial government revenue.

B.C. leads the world in sustainable forest management. It has the world's largest share of third-party-certification forests in the world and is the largest exporter of softwood. It will continue to hold that status for some time to come.

N. Macdonald: Well, the member talks about the minister that was Forests Minister from Abbotsford West. It would be interesting to note that that minister lost more jobs in forestry than any minister previous to him until he was surpassed by the current minister in charge of LNG. We've lost 30,000 jobs under the B.C Liberal watch — not exactly an incredible record of success. So when the minister talks about job rates, he needs to know that there are 30,000 people that used to work in forestry that no longer do.

A jobs protection commissioner with a legal framework can assist industry that is commercially viable over the long term but faces obstacles to survive in the short term. Now, as I've said, we've lost 30,000 jobs, and we have a period of tremendous uncertainty where we could lose as many as ten more mills. Now, the jobs protection commissioner, with legislation, allows communities to go through transition. It also allows workers that may be in a position to have their business saved actually have the jobs saved.

[1015]

Now, Doug Kerley, in a similar role, saved our mill in Golden with the transition from plywood to laminated veneer lumber. This did not work in every case. He and those that followed in that role dealt with 71,552 jobs and saved 16,748 jobs — this is not insignificant — in all of the major industries.

It was worth doing then and absolutely needed now. Forestry is crucial to rural communities. It is 94 percent public lands, and the government has a unique responsibility to set the stage for workers' security and community stability.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

D. Barnett: Today I rise to speak about the importance of the prosperity and opportunities for economic growth that will be achieved from the development of our natural resource assets throughout our province.

Natural resources built this province to what it is today. The first explorers and homesteaders made their entire living from the land. The gold rush and the forestry sector brought thousands of residents from around the world to build the communities that continue to thrive today in every corner of this province.

As it was then, the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy today can be credited to the natural resource sector. The benefits from this sector have helped to build schools,
[ Page 1301 ]
roads, hospitals and infrastructure that we all use daily.

Economies around the world experienced significant declines in GDP and sharp increases in unemployment rates as a result of the financial crisis of 2008. In Canada and B.C. we were lucky not to see a widespread collapse of our economy. One reason for this is the resilience of our resource-based industries and growing demand for raw materials from countries such as China and India.

At the Premier's natural resource conference last month in Prince George our Premier made the commitment that our province must say yes to economic growth. The way we do this is to grasp the opportunities to develop, extract and process our natural resources.

In the Cariboo this message from our Premier is receiving widespread support. My constituents are eager to take advantage of new opportunities that come with developing resources in our region and throughout northern B.C.

Most of my constituents make their living from working in the forestry, agriculture, mining, tourism and resource sectors. Jobs and economic well-being in the constituency depend on the health of these sectors. This is why speaking to this issue is not just something that is important to me, but it is important to the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and British Columbia.

Forestry has always been the backbone of the economy of the Cariboo. However, over the past decade opportunities and challenges from the mountain pine beetle epidemic and changes to the structure of the forest industry throughout British Columbia have taken their toll in the Interior.

Our government has conducted several successful trade missions to increase demand for B.C. lumber products, and we are already seeing success as B.C. sets a record for value of lumber shipments to China in 2013. That being said, these challenges and transformations in the forestry sector have provided us the opportunity to adapt and seize new opportunities that are available to us, specifically in mining and LNG.

As many of my colleagues and others know, I am a strong supporter of the proposed New Prosperity project in my constituency. This mine could provide billions of dollars of benefits for the people of my constituency for a generation in the form of good-paying jobs, economic well-being and stability for our region.

The job numbers are incredible. The project will generate $11 billion of benefits over the next 20-year lifetime of the mine to the British Columbia economy and $5.52 billion for federal and provincial coffers.

[1020]

This government and I support this project because of the prosperity it will bring to the province and the incredible opportunities that it will bring to the people of British Columbia.

I was part of a delegation last week that travelled to Ottawa to meet with federal officials and representatives to discuss how important this project is to our province and the opportunities that could be realized if the project receives approval. For the record, I paid my own expenses to participate in this delegation, because my region is counting on this project to go forward and bring so many new and exciting opportunities to the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Natural gas and the development of LNG is the biggest and newest opportunity for large-scale job creation and economic prosperity for our province. That will be realized by generations of British Columbians. We are talking potentially 100,000 jobs from seizing the opportunity of developing the LNG industry.

Our government has also taken the initiative to ensure that British Columbia businesses receive the fullest support and opportunities to directly benefit from this opportunity of LNG. What the LNG industry means for the Cariboo and every other region of this province is job opportunities, economic growth and a transformative effect on our province.

Supporting our natural resource industries means stronger communities in the north and the Cariboo. Poverty, unemployment and societal problems such as crime can be reduced in our communities if the economy is strong and people receive the prosperity from a strong and vibrant resource sector.

Also, our government is making the commitment to ensure that First Nations communities are full participants in all natural resource projects through direct employment in projects, revenue-sharing and other tangible benefits from investments in mining and LNG projects on their traditional lands. Overall, First Nations communities want to participate in these incredible opportunities for new resource development projects throughout the province.

By investing in skills training for aboriginal youth and by listening and building a stronger relationship in these communities, prosperity will be achieved and realized for the current and the next generation of First Nations and all communities.

R. Austin: I'd like to thank the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for her comments around the resource industries and the economic benefits that they bring to British Columbians. In fact, she and I share some things in common. We both represent small communities in rural British Columbia that have grown — and came about — as a result of our ability to extract resources.

Similarly, forestry was a big element in northwest B.C. My fear when I hear the member speak is that what's going to take place in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is the kind of dislocation that has taken place in the northwest part of British Columbia over the last ten years.

In our case, we had a very struggling industry that had trouble finding export markets and, as a result, got into all kinds of financial difficulties with one large company. We then found ourselves, for a period of ten years, in a
[ Page 1302 ]
part of the province that grew trees probably faster than any other part of British Columbia but had no markets for them. That has resulted in the complete loss of manufacturing capacity in northwest B.C. — except for one small mill that has come back after ten years of not being able to cut one piece of wood — and, instead, a forestry industry which is not so much sustainable in creating jobs and economic activity for us but, rather, simply ships logs out to China.

My fear is that for the member's area of the province of B.C. — the fact that we have not reinvested in that part of the province, which has lost so much of its wood as a result of the pine beetle that, in fact, now the annual allowable cuts in the central Interior of B.C. are going to collapse — the kind of mill closures that happened in northwest B.C. are now, unfortunately, going to take place in Quesnel and other communities in the centre.

[1025]

The member refers to getting to yes on all resource projects. I think the place where we differ on this side of the House is that we don't think that we should be getting to yes at all costs. We need to recognize that it is very complex, that we need to understand the difference between a renewable and a non-renewable resource.

It's fair to say that in forestry, in particular, and in fisheries we have not done a good job of stewarding either the land or the ocean to ensure that there was constant economic activity from something that should be there to serve British Columbians for millennia, forever. That is very different from those non-renewable industries that the member is speaking about in terms of the mine that she's supporting.

In reference to the specificity of the Prosperity mine, I would say this. None of us here in this chamber are environmental scientists and experts. In fact, our government is set up in such a way that when we want to make difficult, complex decisions, we go and engage with experts to find out whether a project is sustainable and satisfies the environmental values that are strong here in British Columbia.

I don't think it does much justice either to investors or to any communities that rely on mining when a mine that receives no environmental licence, not once but twice, then has the government going and saying: "Well, we don't agree with this decision."

That doesn't suggest that we have any confidence in the process of how we do our environmental assessment, and it suggests this. If once we get a no on a mine for environmental reasons and the government decides to try and overturn that, does that mean that a company that works assiduously to get an environmental approval can then perhaps have the rug pulled from underneath them? I don't think so.

I think we understand that this is a statutory responsibility for those people who work and who have the expertise to decide whether a project doesn't simply have economic benefits — we all know that mines have huge economic benefits — but also have to make sure that it satisfies all of our environmental standards which British Columbians hold dear to their hearts.

I think it is very, very difficult now in this particular instance, when the federal government has said no to this particular mine, for the government to be trying to overturn that decision. I hope that they will come to their senses and recognize that we have a process in place. If indeed there are problems with the process, that's something that is a separate discussion.

I certainly know that where I come from, where we have large First Nations communities, they are very dissatisfied with the environmental process. Let's sit down with the government and work out how we can improve the environmental process so that it works for all of us.

D. Barnett: We are incredibly blessed to have such deposits of minerals, coal and natural gas in B.C. While most of these opportunities are found in northern B.C., the benefits of a strong resource sector can be realized throughout this province. As mentioned by a previous speaker from the Columbia-Revelstoke region, where is the plan for government? That was the question posed here. This government has always had a plan.

As the mountain pine beetle has devastated many of our communities, it's a natural disaster. We have done much reforestation. We have done much planning. But looking at new resource opportunities is the plan that we must unfold and that we must implement.

Our forests will always be there in some state, and we will always have forestry. But you have to diversify, and that is what this government is doing to support our communities, our education, our health care. I am proud to say that our government, since we took office, has shown our steadfast commitment to this vital sector of the B.C. economy day in and day out.

I will continue to stand up and support our agriculture, mining, forestry, tourism and resources sectors. I will always stand up and support my community's wishes. We do have a democratic society, and I will stand up and support industries that are environmentally friendly and good for the benefit of all of the people of British Columbia and the people of my region.

[1030]

INVESTING IN YOUNG PEOPLE

D. Eby: Every generation has a social contract with the generation before and the generation after. Those at the peak of their earning power have a strong interest in investing in young people so that when they retire, the next generation can access good jobs, pay taxes and support them in their retirement.

But what happens when our government, through neglect or for temporary political advantage, walks
[ Page 1303 ]
away from this informal agreement — that the older generation invest in the training and learning of the younger? I discovered on a recent tour of B.C.'s public post-secondary colleges and universities that our province is rapidly abandoning investing in accessible education and training for B.C.'s next generation. The consequences for every generation in this province are already very grave.

My tour started at Thompson Rivers University during their orientation barbecue on a beautiful September day. As the point of my tour was to speak to B.C. students, I went down the line of students waiting for hot dogs at the barbecue, trying to find students from British Columbia. It took me 15 students in the line before I found someone who wasn't from out of province — from Alberta or Ontario — or someone who wasn't an international student.

I later discovered the reason that B.C. students weren't the majority in the lineup was quite simple. Education expenses in this province have now reached a peak where B.C. residents can't even borrow enough money to go to school anymore. The statistics back up my firsthand experience at TRU as well as the stories I heard from so many students and their parents throughout the tour.

B.C. lends the least of any province in Canada through our student loan program, and it doesn't even offer enough money to students to cover the basic expenses of studying full-time in a general arts program at UBC — the cheapest program at our highest-profile post-secondary school. When professional programs like law and medicine are considered, our student loan program doesn't even come close to covering tuition, let alone living expenses like rent and food.

This systemic and ongoing failure of our student loan system is the most likely reason that Statistics Canada will tell you that B.C. residents are the least likely in Canada to study full-time and the most likely to study part-time.

In short, TRU's B.C. students weren't at the student orientation lunch because they can only afford to go to school part-time, or if they're going full-time, they're working two or three part-time jobs to cover the difference between their living expenses and their resources through loans or parents. They don't have time for barbecues. One must reasonably ask whether they have enough time to study to prepare themselves for class.

The situation is even worse for skilled trades. A five-week haul truck driving course at College of the Rockies, with what I am told is virtually guaranteed high-paid employment on graduation, doesn't qualify for a student loan at all. Prospective students must find $7,500 and take five weeks off of work to complete the program.

Young people who can afford skills training find wait-lists of two, three and even four years before they can start school in the program of their choice — programs like shipbuilding and welding. This government wouldn't know that because the Ministry of Advanced Education doesn't maintain wait-list data.

Because B.C.'s young can't afford training or they're languishing on a wait-list, they're sitting at home, unemployed and not in school in record numbers. Just six years ago B.C. was second only to Alberta for having the lowest number of 15- to 29-year-olds out of work and out of school. Now we're in last place in Canada among reporting provinces.

One in ten 15- to 19-year-olds in B.C. aren't in school or work. The same goes for an astounding 18 percent — almost one in five — of 25- to 29-year-olds in this province.

These young people who can't afford to go to school — or if they can, they can't get in due to multi-year wait-lists — stand by helpless as 29 percent of the few new jobs created in B.C., less than we lost, go to temporary foreign workers. So 29 percent of new jobs going to temporary foreign workers is almost double the Canadian average of 15 percent and is the highest percentage of temporary foreign workers in the entire country.

These young people watch while employers tell government again and again that they cannot find the skilled workers they need in British Columbia, before those employers head to Ireland and England to hire skilled tradespeople with promises of guaranteed employment at good wages.

While this government advertises skills training on TV and radio, colleges are shutting down English-as-a-second-language training for B.C. residents, opening spaces for international students exclusively. B.C.'s leading skilled-trade institution, BCIT, has announced a multi-million-dollar shortfall in their budget for this year, and layoffs surely cannot be far behind, which will only make the wait-lists for their programs even longer.

If young people in this province are lucky, they'll see one of this government's few new investments in skills training: a $1 million advertising campaign that tells young people they should get a trade so they can get work. They would if they could.

[1035]

Despite lending the least, our province's claim as charging the highest student loan interest rate in the country caused government-held B.C. student debt to rocket past the $1 billion mark in 2011. The province adds $100 million to this total each year. The government charges former students 2½ percent more in interest than the government pays to borrow the money itself, generating more and more revenue for government each year as the debt mountain grows — all on the backs of the poorest students that have to borrow the most.

Prime plus 2.5 percent is not just the highest student loan interest rate of any province in Canada; it neatly explains why there is no interest and no urgency in this government to address the student loan mountain. Victoria is addicted to B.C. student loan interest payments to the
[ Page 1304 ]
tune of more than $30 million a year in revenue. The consequences for residents of B.C., who according to the Bank of Montreal have the highest student debt in Canada — an average debt rate that exceeds even the debt of graduates from private American colleges and universities — appear very serious. But our government only surveys graduates and thereby manages to avoid asking B.C. residents who drop out of their programs why they are dropping out.

Too many students drop out in B.C. or fail to finish their degree or diploma within seven years. A B.C. school has ranked last in Canada for four out of the last five years for graduation rate, according to Maclean's magazine. Three of B.C.'s four reporting schools rank in the bottom third for graduation rates. This trend reflects a massive waste of human and financial resources in this province that must be addressed if we hope to make progress for young people.

It's not enough to stand up and say that B.C. spends $5 million a day on our colleges and universities if B.C. residents can't afford to go to these institutions. It's not enough to say that we're investing more in our universities and colleges than ever before if B.C.'s young people, more than ever before, are out of work and out of school.

Something is very wrong in B.C. that we are failing our next generation. This province must invest the time and energy to fix this problem, or our broken contract with the next generation will cost us for years and years to come.

D. Plecas: Thank you, member opposite.

I'm not entirely clear that my friend across the House has the accurate information on this whole matter of the relevance of student ability to pay for school and the likelihood of going to school. The House should know that the research on this is very, very clear.

Whether or not somebody pursues a post-secondary education, whatever kind it might be, has absolutely nothing to do with tuition rates. In fact, the relationship is inverse. What really matters is the placement of educational institutions. What matters is the relevance of the kind of education provided by those institutions.

We should also be reminded of what this government has done with respect to providing those opportunities. For starters, that investment in post-secondary has been huge. We have undertaken the largest post-secondary expansion in British Columbia history since 2001. We've invested more than $2.4 billion in capital funding on over 1,200 separate projects on B.C. campuses.

We've added, since 2001, 32,000 full-time-equivalent seats. We've added over 2,500 new seats for graduate students since 2007. We've more than doubled, since 2001, the number of spaces for medical students, and that's been in a very distributed fashion. Through the north, Vancouver Island and Okanagan we've invested $165 million to build a new medical program and facilities at UBC, UVic, UNBC and UBC Okanagan. In 2012, speaking of Thompson Rivers University, as the member opposite did, we invested $7.4 million for the expansion of their Old Main building, providing state-of-the-art space for the law school.

[1040]

We have invested $423 million in research, using that to leverage another $800 million in funds from elsewhere. We more than doubled, since 2001, the number of educational spaces for nurses.

Why have we done this? We understand deeply how important it is to invest in youth. We understand how important it is to have a post-secondary education. That is the single quickest path to the right job, to a good job, and of course, it's all great for the economy.

As everyone here should know, we have developed a system which is very much pointed towards access for youth. It's very much pointed towards relevance. That is our current regional university system, which evolved out of the university college system. This all came from this government. No wonder 90-plus percent of students say they are very satisfied with post-secondary education in British Columbia, and that's on a multiplicity of measures.

Speaking in terms of tuition fees, we have the fourth-lowest tuition fees in this country and the second-highest participation rate amongst university students in this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We should be proud.

We also have provided over $5 million a year in scholarships and another $6.7 million in provincial assistance to support students with disabilities. We have invested since 2001 over $3 billion in student loans.

Again, we also always want to remember that while that's helpful, at the end of the day, that is not what increases the likelihood and the opportunity for somebody to go to school. The research is absolutely clear on that. Again, what makes a difference is precisely the kinds of things that this government has done.

We're not quitting yet. We have lots to do.

D. Eby: I thank the member opposite. The member opposite has a long and distinguished history in post-secondary education, and I refuse to believe that he has not heard from students and their families the challenge of paying for post-secondary in this province if you come from this province.

At UBC tuition is $4,000 — that is the lowest tuition; residence, $4,000; a meal plan — the light-eater meal plan — is $4,000. Those costs alone: $12,000. The maximum loan in B.C. is $10,880. Now, that doesn't include books or other incidental expenses. We do not lend enough money for students to go to school — period.

I heard the member opposite also talk about medicine, how wonderful it is that we've expanded the medicine seats in this province. The medicine tuition at UBC is
[ Page 1305 ]
$16,800, but the maximum loan is $10,880. I'm not sure how the member opposite does the math on this, but it doesn't seem to me that prioritizing these seats for British Columbia residents is a priority of this government.

I heard a lot about expansion. "We've expanded so much in this post-secondary system." This government loves to build buildings — a building, the centre of excellence in agriculture; a building, the centre of excellence in traditional Chinese medicine. Well, what about the programs that are going to go into these buildings? What about the students who are going to be sitting in those new seats that you've created?

Who is in those seats? This government does not distinguish between students from British Columbia, students from Alberta, students from Ontario, where students can access grants and graduate student grants, where they can access undergraduate student grants, where they can get additional loans if they're attending professional programs — none of which are available to B.C. students.

I heard the member use the survey that this government loves to use, which is the B.C. baccalaureate study. This is a study of the winners in the education system in B.C. This is a study of the people who went to school and finished and graduated. This government does not survey the students who drop out. Again, I point out that B.C. has a very difficult record when it comes to graduation rates compared with other provinces.

[1045]

It doesn't survey, most importantly, that remarkable statistic — the students who are at home, not working, not in school: 13.8 percent of the 15- to 29-year-olds in the province. Those are the people that this government should be speaking to, to find out how we get them into school.

I can tell you that with the system that we have set up right now, it is difficult if not highly impossible for students, even from middle-class backgrounds, to attend our fine post-secondary institutions in this province.

FISCAL RESTRAINT

D. Ashton: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise today. I am here to speak on fiscal restraint. After the trials and tribulations of trying to get to Victoria from above Hope yesterday, at this time I would rather speak to that. However, thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.

We are here to represent and serve British Columbians, to carry out the mandate that was given to our government and to fulfil the promises we made in the last election. I'm speaking, of course, of the assurances that we made to British Columbians that we would balance the budget and cre-
[ Page 1306 ]
ate a strong economy for a secure tomorrow.

This means fiscal restraint, spending within our means and refusing to mortgage the future of our children by spending recklessly on programs that we can't afford. As my dad always said: "Look after the pennies, and the dollars will follow."

I have two great kids. In addition to the love and pride that any parent feels, I feel a tremendous sense of responsibility to leave our communities and our province better off than we found them. To me, that means fiscal restraint, balanced budgets and conditions for businesses to succeed and create jobs that will ensure government's opportunity to continue to fund schools, universities, colleges and hospitals.

The responsibility to serve and better our province is one that, I believe, is shared by all members of this House. Although we may disagree on how best to achieve a secure future for our children, we do agree that something has to be addressed.

As Chair, I toured the province with the members from both sides of the House during the Standing Committee on Finance's government and budget consultations, visiting 17 communities for hearings and conducting video conference sessions from an additional five communities.

At this point in time I would like to recognize some of the members: first of all, the member for Port Coquitlam, who was a great help to me; the member for Saanich South; the member for Saanich North and the Islands; and also the member for Vancouver-Kensington; and over here, the members for Delta North, Surrey-Panorama and Fraser-Nicola. We all worked very well together, and I hope that in the future we can all have that opportunity again.

We received more than 600 submissions from individual stakeholders and organizations over a five-week consultation process. We heard the same message from every corner of the province. British Columbians want a government that is fiscally responsible.

Of the 73 recommendations made by our committee — and I'm very proud to say that our recommendations were unanimously endorsed by committee members from both parties — our top recommendation was one of fiscal restraint.

People want a balanced budget. They do not want their government to borrow on their behalf, mortgaging our children and our province's future, affecting those social and health programs that we all hold so dear.

Across British Columbia families are making tough decisions on their household budgets to provide now and to prepare for tomorrow.

What I learned as the mayor of Penticton and the chair of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, decisions that are made by government at all levels tend to be quite similar. We can't spend more than we're taking in, and we need to make the tough and responsible decisions with every dollar that we have at our availability. That's fiscal responsibility, and that's why British Columbians elected this government: to balance the budget and create conditions for businesses to succeed and create jobs.

My colleague Minister Bennett and myself have been tasked with controlling government spending and to ensure that we make the best use of government resources through the core review process. We've done a lot to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of government.

That being said, we know we can always do more. At this point in time I extend an offer to all members opposite: bring me your ideas and bring me the ideas of those that you represent. We would like to hear from each and every one of you and your citizens that you do represent.

To date the core review process has identified $7.1 million in annual savings. Our government will dissolve the Provincial Capital Commission but will maintain its community outreach programs, which include education and cultural services within government. This action will reduce administrative costs, saving the taxpayers approximately $1.5 million annually.

The core review process has also determined that the Pacific Carbon Trust could be transitioned into a new model and brought within government, saving the taxpayers $5.6 million annually. The new model will require five staff, compared to the previous model, which was 18.

[1050]

Impacted staff, which I'm very proud of, will have the opportunity to join other parts of the public service. That's important, because we all know that the employees of the provincial government are the front-line staff for the needs and desires that are brought forward by the citizens that we represent.

Fiscal restraint also means focusing on our priorities. We will continue to stand up for the services and the programs that British Columbians rely on, especially those most vulnerable in our province. The core review process will not make recommendations on services provided to the most vulnerable citizens except for the extent where they are not achieving the intended results.

The core review will find savings of $50 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year and $50 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year. Government savings are taxpayers' savings. British Columbians work hard to provide for their families, and we are keeping our promise to them that we will show restraint and respect when spending their hard-earned money.

I would like to conclude by reminding all my colleagues that the reason we are here is to serve British Columbians. The message from every corner of the province was crystal-clear in the election, ongoing conversations with constituents and throughout the budget consultation process. We are sent here to balance the budget, to practice fiscal restraint and to work together — and I'll say that again, to work together — to create a strong economy for a very secure tomorrow.

M. Elmore: I thank the member for his remarks on the topic.

When we hear the phrase "fiscal restraint," I think what comes to mind is the so-called fiscal restraint that's espoused by the Liberal government, and it's really an empty term.

The first example, I think, we can compare and contrast is that immediately after the election, what did we see? The first action of the Premier-elect was to award significant raises to her political staffers and, really, to award friends and insiders. As well, we saw the hiring of a number of failed Liberal candidates — I guess the benefits of the B.C. Liberals' jobs plan, creating jobs for their insiders and political staffers. Among them were Barbara Lu, Christina Bates, Steve Housser, Nick Facey, Karen Bill, Rishi Sharma, Hector Bremner, Scott Hamilton, Fatima Siddiqui, Gabby Kalaw and other appointees — failed candidates — to various boards.

This is the pattern, I think, to really juxtapose the rhetoric of this term "fiscal restraint." Fiscal restraint, I guess, for everyone else besides the Liberals.

We also see the tendency of the Liberals to promote a top-heavy management structure, with an average of one manager to five employees in B.C. Hydro, in ICBC, in B.C. Ferries. That's also actually the average of the ratio in our public sector.

As well, we have the record of mismanagement and boondoggles — really, the wasting of taxpayer money at an unprecedented rate here in British Columbia. There's a long list. We have the northwest transmission line, overrun 82 percent; we have the Vancouver Convention Centre, $400 million over budget; B.C. Place roof, way over budget — a long list of boondoggles and overspending on capital projects to really expose these hollow words and hollow claims by the Liberals.

As well, we have the claim of balancing budgets, but B.C. is now experiencing record debt. It's ballooning debt, the highest debt of all time. Our record-breaking ballooning debt has risen 65 percent under the Liberals. Under the last two years that the Premier has been at the helm, we've add over $10 billion to the debt, and this means that we're going to see 55 percent, the biggest increase, in the debt in B.C. And that's not even talking about off-book debt.

As well, we have the issue of mismanagement going hand-in-hand with these over-expenditures — mismanagement of B.C. Hydro, which has caused skyrocketing cost pressures; mismanagement of B.C. Ferries, where we see, on the one hand, raises in executive compensation and impacts for the public — the public paying higher fees.

[1055]

On the one hand, we see executive bonuses and service cuts to the public and increasing rates really putting the public under a lot of cost pressures around affordability. We also see, in terms of the claim of fiscal restraint, the selling-off of assets.

We heard the great phrase and claim that the Liberals
[ Page 1307 ]
"refuse to mortgage the future" — that they want to ensure they secure the future for children. I don't see how that squares with this Liberal government's pattern of selling off our public assets and really squandering these assets that have been built up by generations and are meant to be something that is enjoyed for future generations. That's a big disappointment as well, and to add to it, government ads wasting taxpayers' money.

We see a pattern that lends a different picture when we hear about fiscal restraint. Indeed, it's fiscal restraint for everyone else, and it's fiscal recklessness, fiscal irresponsibility and fiscal failure from the Liberals.

We also heard about the Pacific Carbon Trust and hoping that the revenue that's raised from our public institutions can go back to fund the programs that they've been forced to cut under this mismanagement of the Liberals.

We look forward to really seeing some action and seeing something substantive in backing up this claim. Otherwise, unfortunately, it seems to just lend…. There's a hollowness that reverberates when I hear the claims of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility from this government.

Deputy Speaker: I assume the member wasn't referring to the member for Delta North in her list of members by name.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington very much for her response. I, too, was going to point out that the individual mentioned…. I happened to travel with him, and I noticed that he was actually an MLA representing Delta North.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond. I can't say any more than the policies and procedures that I think that I have the opportunity to bring to this House. I'm a staunch fiscal conservative. I try and bring my ideals into the government to work with those members that sit on this side of the House, to work with the members in caucus and also extend the opportunity to work with the members on the opposite side of the House.

British Columbians — from what I've heard in every corner of this province on the tour and, also, what I heard as being the mayor and a chair of a regional district — want their governments to look after those hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to the best of their ability. I think it's incumbent on any government or any opposition or anybody that works inside this incredible institution to ensure that we spend those dollars very, very wisely.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

In closing, I would just like to say this again. The message that we heard from every corner of this province was crystal-clear in the election, in ongoing conversations with constituents and throughout the budget consultation process. We were sent here to balance the budget, to practise fiscal restraint and — more importantly, and what I would like to see — to work together to create a strong economy for a secure tomorrow for each and every one of the people that we represent.

Hon. M. Polak: I call private member's Motion 2.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 2 — ABOLITION OF
SENATE OF CANADA

B. Ralston: I move the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House supports the abolition of the Senate of Canada.]

Abolition of the Senate is a policy that the New Democratic Party has advocated for a long time. Increasingly across the country, this is an idea whose time has come, and there is growing public support for the abolition of the Senate. The province of Saskatchewan has, by a motion, passed a motion calling for the abolition of the Senate. Similarly, the province of Manitoba has also passed a motion calling for the abolition of the Senate.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[1100]

The Senate — its reputation as a public body, as a deliberative body has plummeted in the esteem of Canadians in recent years. Certainly, the ongoing scandal of expenses involving Senators Duffy and Wallin and others has reduced public approval and support for any continuing role for the Senate in the constitution of Canada. The indictment of Sen. Mac Harb and Sen. Patrick Brazeau for alleged fraud involving their expenses certainly adds to that downward spiral of public opinion in its support for the Senate.

As I've mentioned, other provinces have stepped forward and moved motions to abolish the Senate. It's important that we recognize that this motion here before this House is one part of a growing movement across the country and part of a constitutional process that would have to take place in order to abolish the Senate.

Other Houses — certainly, other countries, even ones that are parliamentary democracies — have abolished their Senate, their Upper House. New Zealand abolished theirs. Denmark and Sweden, while they operate under a different system, also have abolished their upper houses, and significantly, there's no record of any jurisdiction that had an upper house and abolished it that ever went back.

In fact, here in Canada, Quebec until 1968 had an upper house, the Legislative Council. When you go to the National Assembly in Quebec City, there is what was formerly the Red Chamber, where the Legislative Council,
[ Page 1308 ]
the Upper House of the province of Quebec, sat. It was abolished by motion in 1968 and now serves as a rather splendid setting for committee meetings.

So there is even constitutional precedent within Canada at the provincial level for abolishing an upper house and proceeding without any impairment of the ability of the province to make its decisions according to democratic principles. Those institutions have not been missed in any way whatsoever.

I suppose the more interesting question here, though, is that as support grows…. I know the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is here, represented by Jordan Bateman. They have come out recently supporting the abolition of the Senate. While we don't always agree with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, on this particular issue, it's a measure of the breadth of support for this notion of abolishing the Senate that we join together with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in calling for the abolition of the Senate.

The real question here is: what will be the position of the Liberal members opposite? The Premier, since she assumed her present role as the Premier of the province, has had a number of different positions on this issue.

During the leadership campaign in January 2011 she stated that she supported the abolition of the Senate. In June of 2011, while visiting the Prime Minister in Ottawa, she suggested changes to the Senate that involved increasing British Columbia's complement of senators and leaving vacancies in Ontario and Quebec unfilled in order to better balance the regional numbers within the Senate. That's a position far from abolishing the Senate. That's a specific proposal to allegedly reform the Senate.

In March 2012 a former MLA for Chilliwack, John Les, introduced a private member's bill to legislate Senate elections in British Columbia. The Premier's office then said that they would support that. That's a different proposal to elect senators.

So you have abolition, you have increasing the number of senators and other provinces abstaining from appointing their full complement, and you have an elected Senate. Indeed, there was money appropriated in the budget over the course of 2012 to provide for a Senate election at the time, to coincide with the provincial election.

M. Hunt: I find it interesting that as we gather here today…. The NDP are the ones that have been screaming for this Legislature to be sitting, and the first motion that they bring up is in fact a federal issue which has very little to do with the day-to-day interests of most British Columbians.

[1105]

I find it interesting that what we have to do is go and lift a motion out of Thomas Mulcair's playbook, from the federal government, in order to keep this House going and these members going.

But I think it's instructive for us to actually listen to the comments made by the members of the opposition, previously. I will quote from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who said in November 2011:

"I'm really troubled by the fact that this government" — and I would turn that to the opposition — "has chosen what could possibly be a standard-bearer for divisive political discussion for the last 15, 20 years as something to be discussed in a provincial legislature. This points directly to the mentality of this government" — and I would say opposition — "looking for ways to find division and not actually dealing with the important issues of the day."

This is a federal jurisdiction, and I know that the member probably doesn't want to hear this, because he's probably too concerned about what others call him, but this is a provincial legislature, and this is where we should be discussing provincial issues.

So I would simply like to take…. Let's look at another example — of our cousins to the south, to what in fact they've done over the years. If we go back to the 1620s, almost 400 years of history and democratic processes, we find colonies that had all kinds of different governance programs.

In 1776 they rebelled against dictatorship, the dictatorship of a king. I want to make sure we understand that they did not replace the dictatorship of the king with another simple dictatorship.

As a matter of fact, I would quote another member of the members opposite, one David Zirnhelt, who was the Minister of Forests in September of 1976. He came to this wonderful conclusion….

Interjections.

M. Hunt: Or '96. My apologies, thank you.

In September 1996 he said: "Government can change the law. Don't forget that government can do anything." That to me, I'm sorry, sounds like the concept of: "Now that we're here, and now that we have power, we can do anything in a dictatorship."

That is not what we have with our cousins to the south. In fact, they looked for checks and balances. When they created their federal government, they put in a trinity to have checks and balances: the executive, where the president appointed cabinet ministers who were experts in their field; the House of Representatives represented population; and the Senate represented the regions, with two seats for each one of the states.

Again, checks and balances, urban versus rural, large versus small. In fact, in the United States' states we have 49 out of 50 of them that are bicameral, which means they have a Senate for 49 out of the 50.

What we have in Senate is the concept of sober second thought. Again, going back to Minister Zirnhelt's comment, do we really want to have elections where we simply vote four-year dictatorships — the war of the regions versus the big cities?

Actually, if we look at this Legislature, 46 out of the 85
[ Page 1309 ]
receive urban travel allowances. I believe that concept of sober second thought is a wonderful concept, because the composition of the Senate is better than the composition of the House, where you have more women represented; more minorities; more athletes, for that matter; as well as regular folks who are experts in their areas.

It is the place where we've found all sorts of thought-provoking discussions have been — for example, the study on the veterans charter. The concept of how we deal with the Canadian–U.S. price gaps: is it something that is artificial? Is it something that is real?

The state of health care throughout Canada, making recommendations for reform…. Out of the shadows of the past, we see the whole concept of transforming mental health, mental illnesses and addictions. They came with this, looking at the services throughout Canada, reforming First Nations education — all great work done by a senate working for the citizens, looking at things outside of the political atmosphere of this area.

So I personally think that what we should be doing is we should be constantly working to improve our systems, make a better system. Let's fix it and make it better for all citizens of Canada.

[1110]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and support the motion to abolish the Canadian Senate.

I'm a little surprised. I thought perhaps this was a motion that we could all come together in this House and have great agreement on and bring a unified position, like has happened in Saskatchewan, to go forward and be persuasive in Canada that it is indeed time to abolish the Senate.

I'm surprised that the member for Surrey-Panorama doesn't think that discussion about whether or not we have a senate in Canada anymore or whether it's the right time to abolish the Senate is something that is worthy of debate in this province. I think it absolutely is worthy of debate here, as it has been in other provinces.

I am supporting this motion. While the Senate scandals of both Conservative and Liberal senators would probably be persuasive reason enough by themselves for many Canadians — perhaps most Canadians, depending on what poll you read — to get rid of the Senate, that is not the only reason. The fact that it is so badly broken and the apparent culture of entitlement which has bred these scandals — that in and of itself is not the real reason why I think we need to get rid of the Senate of Canada.

The Senate is clearly undemocratic. It is non-accountable, and it is non-representative. The suggestion that it is a House of sober second thought is unbelievable when we consider what it actually has become. We have politically unaccountable senators — except accountable, for the most part, to the Prime Minister's Office — blocking or vetoing legislation; entering that place with a sense of entitlement, which has led to the scandals; and costing taxpayers of the country over $90 million a year.

I've got to say that I noticed, when I was looking at something to do with the public accounts federally, that among the annual expenses list in Canada's public accounts related to the operation of the Senate are those for the Senate Ethics Officer. We paid over $700,000 as taxpayers for that. So there was money well spent on the Senate.

But I do think we can work together. I think we should be able to work together on this issue, particularly given, as pointed out by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the fact that the leader, the Premier, has repeatedly said, at least a few years ago, that the best thing for British Columbia would be to abolish the Senate.

She said: "I think that people who support an elected Senate in British Columbia better give their heads a shake, because it's not good for B.C." Then she said it just needs to be abolished. Certainly, the leader, at least at one point in her career, said that the Senate should be abolished, so I thought we would come together today and have great agreement on that.

When she abandoned that and flip-flopped on that policy, she then said that the best thing to do would be to have an elected Senate and did bring in legislation just in the dying days of the past parliament and then let it die with the election.

You know, I was appalled to read, when we talk about waste of money, that the average number of working days for the average senator in 2011-12 was 56 days. I was absolutely appalled. Oh, and then I remembered that after our fall session was cancelled, we only sat in the Legislature for 36 days in 2013. So by comparison, the senators are doing pretty well.

There has been a federal reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. We don't know what the bar is going to be like — whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada is going to say that there need to be seven provinces with 50 percent or perhaps unanimous support. Whichever case it is, if there is any reform, it is going to need support from all across Canada. It is going to need a certain amount of support.

One thing that we do know, though, is that it does not require the permission of or the support of the Senate of Canada.

[1115]

In summary, I'd say it is time. I fully support this motion, and it is time to get rid of this unelected, unaccountable and under-investigation Senate. We would be most pleased to work together with the government to accomplish that.

S. Sullivan: In the 1860s visitors to British Columbia marvelled at the multiculturalism and racial harmony that they found here. Is it any wonder? Our founder, James Douglas, was the son of a black woman, and his wife, Amelia, the daughter of a First Nations woman.
[ Page 1310 ]

They feared the racism of American-style democracy. The year after they were married, the American Senate and Congress voted to forcibly remove all native people from the entire southeast U.S. Thousands of people like Amelia and her mother died. American democracy supported slavery in the south and legal racism in the north against people like Douglas and his mother.

It was the establishment of our fully elected Legislative Assembly that brought state-sponsored racism to our province. At its very first session the Amor De Cosmos faction succeeded in removing the right of Chinese and First Nations people to vote. Our first Premier, John McCreight of the Douglas faction, appealed to the federal government, but it failed.

For the first 60 years our B.C. Legislature churned out the most vicious and obscene racist legislation. There were three groups that opposed our racist assembly: the judiciary under Judge Begbie, the monarchy and the Canadian Senate — interestingly, all non-democratic bodies.

Victoria Sen. William Macdonald took a lead in opposing our democratic assembly. He and his fellow Canadian senators were able to moderate but not stop the discrimination against First Nations, Chinese and other ethnic minorities promoted by this House.

Amor De Cosmos, the father of institutional racism in British Columbia, derived his support from the first organized labour group in British Columbia, the Working Men's Protective Association. They advocated for full American-style democracy and racism, and De Cosmos championed its proposals, like the head tax.

The Knights of Labour, the umbrella union organizing group, was the main advocate of racism in this province. Well over 100 Chinese and other non-white people were murdered through riots it instigated in the late 1800s on the west coast.

The Knights of Labour gained control of democratically elected governments. The first mayor of Vancouver hosted its meetings at city hall, which led to the 1887 race riot. In 1907 a riot by the Knights of Labour in Bellingham against East Indians inspired a riot days later in Vancouver against Chinese and Japanese.

When I read the statements made by Canadian senators against what was going on here, I am filled with pride for my country. From democratically elected politicians, there was only silence. The Canadian Senate took courageous leadership against the racism of our democratic bodies and has championed other unpopular issues.

Conservative Senator Nolin's initiative in the 1990s concluded that marijuana should be made legal. The Senate has moderated the terrorism legislation, recommended legality for same-sex marriages and has been a force to support the kind of health care we have in Canada.

It has taken on many issues that no elected body would want to touch. Senator Kirby led the mental illness file, and British Columbia has benefited by its Chez Soi initiative.

The Senate reviews all legislation, and hundreds of amendments are recommended each year. Almost all of them are accepted.

The Senate of Canada makes us different from the United States. We are less racist, more inclusive, have a more intelligent health system and are less inclined to extremes because of the influence of our Senate.

Today the inheritors of the legacy of Amor De Cosmos have the gall to come to this House and call for the abolition of the Senate. In my opinion, this goes well beyond bad taste. It is repugnant.

Does the Canadian Senate need reform? Should the power of appointments be removed from democratically elected, partisan people? Absolutely. Do I want to live in a country where the majority is always right, can make rules for the minority and there's no legislative body to stand up to them? Absolutely not. I oppose this motion.

[1120]

M. Elmore: I'm pleased to rise in support of the motion to abolish the Senate.

There are many arguments in terms of justifying why we should abolish the Senate. This year the cost for the Senate will be in excess of $92½ million — certainly a large amount that could go towards needed programs and services. As well, we heard the fact that senators work a very limited number of days. But maybe we won't go there, given our record of sitting here in the B.C. Legislature.

I want to also reiterate the nature of the Senate. We've heard it's unelected; senators are appointed. It's unaccountable. And certainly, we're all familiar with the corruption scandals and the charges that have been laid against senators — and the need for investigations, which are ongoing, to ensure that taxpayers' money is accounted for with regard to the corruption and cover-up that have plagued the Senate in recent months and years. We've heard, as well, that it's an undemocratic institution.

Some of the arguments may be that it's a place for sober second thought. We hear that it's independent from elections. But if we look at what the reality is of the role of the Senate, it's has been shown to be basically a rubber stamp — to provide rubber stamps for legislation that's coming through.

When we look at the historical evolution of the Senate…. My main point, my main argument that I put out to the House is that it's an institution that's outdated, that's obsolete and no longer relevant. The reason is this. Now senators are required to have $4,000 in holdings in private property. That's the same amount that they were required when it was first established — which represented a very significant fee. And the purpose of that was actually to ensure that the upper class and the wealthy were represented and to ensure, as a minority, that their
[ Page 1311 ]
interests were looked after.

We see that in terms of the role of the Senate, it has changed from the 19th century to the 21st century, and it no longer plays a needed role in our democracy. Not only in terms of a historical perspective but also looking at what it is also held up to do…. The argument is that it represents a regional interest, that it allows for regional perspectives to be upheld and for regions not to be run roughshod over in the House of Commons. But we see, as well, that that doesn't play out — the representation.

Besides B.C. having the lowest ratio of senators per capita, we do not see senators upholding their regional interests in terms of decisions. Also, the Senate votes pretty much run along party lines.

In terms of looking at upholding the tensions between federal and provincial or regional interests, we see that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually provides recent and up-to-date checks and balances against any government, provincial or federal, that tries to run roughshod over the rights and freedoms of Canadians from any area or sector.

The evolution of the constitution's divisions of powers, in the present day, between the federal and provincial governments also protects. This is the evolution of our constitution. That protects our regional interests in the areas, for example, of health care, education and social welfare.

So in terms of the initial arguments to establish the Senate, we see that those principles don't bear out today and really don't serve any purpose. This is my main argument to consider. I also hope that we can achieve a unanimous decision, similar to Manitoba and also Saskatchewan, which have passed resolutions, and that we can join — there's a long list that the member for Surrey-Whalley mentioned — some of the countries that have abolished their second chambers.

[1125]

There are many more as well, including Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Peru, Portugal, Turkey, Venezuela, India, Egypt, South Korea and others, and provinces as well. In addition to Quebec, there are Ontario, Newfoundland, Manitoba, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. So we see that it is an institution that's on the way out.

J. Tegart: On behalf of my constituents of Fraser-Nicola, I'm pleased to rise on this motion. However, I'm rather perplexed as to the reason why the hon. member feels the abolition of the Senate is first and foremost among the priorities of British Columbians. I'm rather perplexed because, as the member well knows, the notion of abolishing the Senate would plunge the country into yet another lengthy constitutional debate that would consume the attention of the country for years to come.

This motion comes at a time when people are far more concerned with the economy, their jobs and providing a better future for their families. I think most members can agree that the Senate is a mess right now and that British Columbia has always felt under-represented in the Red Chamber, but there is a time and a place, and I can assure you that the constituents in Fraser-Nicola did not send me here to talk about an endless constitutional debate when their future prosperity ranks far above what the opposition is proposing here.

I also question the timing of this motion, especially since the federal government has introduced a Senate reform bill that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely the hon. member would be interested to learn the opinion of the court before taking what could be a haphazard and ill-advised course of action that would eventually end up on the doorstep of the Supreme Court anyway.

Would it not be smarter to let the court offer an opinion on the potential impact of a significant constitutional change, rather than blindly swinging in the dark at an issue without knowing the potential consequences for Canadians and British Columbians?

By my reading, no national consensus currently exists on how best to proceed with the Senate. This motion is simply intended to stir up a national debate without an examination of what would not only be in the best interests of British Columbians but the country as a whole. I, for one, feel our time in this House is more productively spent on issues that truly matter to British Columbians, like jobs and the economy. I oppose this motion.

G. Holman: I'll be supporting this motion for a number of reasons I'd like to speak to, but before I do this, I think the following statement would be of interest. "An appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century." That, of course, was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, quoted in December 2005. I think we'd all agree that Prime Minister Harper is an expert in the application of 19th century policies.

With regard to the hon. member for Vancouver–False Creek's statements about the great work of the Senate, I would also agree that they did great work 60 years ago.

As pointed out by other colleagues, our Premier has taken a number of sometimes contradictory views over the past couple of years about what to do with the Senate, but not too long ago the Premier stated that the best thing for British Columbia would be to abolish the thing.

In the spirit of non-partisanship, I'm happy to state that I agree with these previously stated views of our Prime Minister and Premier. Since his 2005 statement, the Prime Minister has converted on the road to Ottawa, as he came to understand how the Senate could be used to block the democratic will of parliament. You will recall the disgraceful way in which Conservative senators used a procedural trick and blocked NDP-proposed legislation on climate action, legislation passed by the minority parliament over the objections of Prime Minister Harper.

[1130]

The Prime Minister has appointed nearly 60 new senators since 2006, 51 of whom have donated to the Conservative Party and whose total salaries over their lifetimes will cost taxpayers $116 million.

B.C. has one senator for 764,000 citizens in this province — the poorest representation of all the provinces in Canada. There are some other jurisdictions in Canada that have one senator for 37,000 people.

How much did the Senate cost Canadians in 2013? Almost $90 million. Yet even though the Senate meets only for a few months, as pointed out by my colleague earlier, 31 senators missed more than one-quarter of their work days.

According to an Ipsos-Reid poll done for CTV on January 1, 2014, almost 80 percent of British Columbians don't think the Senate is useful. Electing senators to a body that most British Columbians view as not useful is no better than appointing senators to such a body. Alberta has held four Senate elections, costing about $11 million. Of the 12 elected senators, three have actually been appointed by the Prime Minister.

Is it really worth the money? Can we not imagine a better use of $11 million? I recall the comments just made a few minutes ago by the member for Penticton about the need for fiscal prudence in British Columbia.

Of all the priorities we have, or should have, as a province — like health care and education, climate action and poverty reduction — shouldn't spending millions on Senate elections really rank that highly on the list?

Abolishing the Senate will require a constitutional amendment. Our constitution has already been amended a number of times since 1982, showing that provincial legislatures and Ottawa can work together when they find a common cause. At worst, abolishment may require substantial provincial agreement. This is not impossible, but B.C. needs to show leadership now.

At this time Saskatchewan, led by a small-c conservative government, and Manitoba, an NDP government, have supported measures that would lead to the abolishment of the Senate. B.C. should be the third western province to support this.

We have better use for our tax dollars than to fund an undemocratic Senate that was originally founded as an institution of privilege. It has now evolved into a repository for Conservative and Liberal Party supporters and donors. It is the furthest thing from a chamber of sober second thought that one could imagine.

The proposed fixes for the Senate won't work. Justin Trudeau's ploy to turn Liberals who are senators into senators who are Liberals doesn't fool anyone and still begs the question about whether Mr. Trudeau will continue to appoint card-carrying Liberals should he become Prime Minister.

Electing senators won't change the fact that B.C. is the most under-represented province in the Senate. It won't change the partisan nature of the institution, because Prime Ministers ultimately have the authority to make appointments. If we elect senators, can't we expect them to exercise what they may feel to be their mandate? Just look south of the border to see how that scenario might play out.

The final word on the merits of an elected Senate should go to our Premier. "I think that the people who support an elected Senate in British Columbia better give their heads a shake," stated our Premier in Metro Vancouver, January 11, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take the lead with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to encourage other provinces to abolish this embarrassment.

S. Hamilton: I think it's no surprise that I rise to speak in opposition to this motion.

I'm shocked that the member for Surrey-Whalley would even suggest, as was mentioned a little later in the debate, that we were going to embrace this, that we'd all be dancing in the aisles here. It's farther from the truth.

The issues here to me are very straightforward, and it's an issue of jurisdiction. This House has no business debating what's going on in the federal government with regard to an elected and non-elected Senate. It doesn't make any difference, Mr. Speaker.

We're here to deal with the issues of British Columbia. By the way, we've been dealing with the issues of British Columbia for some time now. It has been mentioned what we've been doing with this vast amount of time off we've had. Let me say for the record: I've been in my constituency working on behalf of my constituents. I've been working hard on behalf of the people of British Columbia, with the exception of a little bit of private time off. I've been there.

[1135]

I also was working fairly hard with members on the opposite side of the aisle, as well as members on this side, on the Finance Committee, spending a number of weeks on the road, travelling and listening to the issues British Columbians want us to address. Not once in those travels did I hear a single person say: "I need you to abolish the Senate for me." No one said it. I didn't hear it; I'm not sure if anyone else did. I might have been listening to someone different, but it just wasn't there.

Regardless of your position, Mr. Speaker, on the Senate…. I have positions on the Senate, sure. The Senate is broken, probably needs a little bit of tweaking and some fixing, but in the meantime, it's not up to us to fix.

This is a throwaway motion. It makes no sense debating it here. Let's move on to the business of this House, the things that we can deal with. We've got a myriad of legislation that we've been tabling. We've got LNG. We've got the budget coming up this afternoon. We're going to debate that. We're going to have estimates on that. We're going to have several new pieces of legislation introduced into this House — something that we can deal with,
[ Page 1313 ]
something that British Columbians want us to deal with.

It's very important for us to move on with those issues. No one on this side of the House has suggested for a minute that the Senate actually needs to be abolished. But again, I mentioned a little earlier that there are certain reforms, certain changes, that could be made. Fine. Let that all happen in Victoria. I'm not prepared to work together on this issue. I'd rather spend the time on behalf of British Columbians.

If the members opposite really, really want to abolish the Senate, then can I suggest that they work with their federal counterparts and actually form government in Ottawa? Then, possibly, you could do something about the Senate. It's not the business of this House.

By the way, I'm glad that we've been chatting. We've been quoting a few people back and forth across the aisle. Here's a quote. I've got a little nugget in my pocket here too. This came from the member for North Island. Not long ago she said: "I think in our limited time we would be better spent discussing issues that really do relate to our province and what we can do here in this Legislature, not spend an hour of private members' time talking about something over which we have no control." Guess what, Mr. Speaker. We've spent the last 35 minutes discussing something that we have no control over.

She also said: "Whatever is decided in Ottawa will be decided by the government. There will be opposition voiced there. There will be discussion, I'm sure. There will be a…healthy debate there. But that's where the decision is made."

Finally, let me conclude. If their federal counterparts, with whom they're so intimately associated, were ever to form government in Ottawa, there would at least exist a stone wall to protect this country from what's been proven to be bad public policy and legislation, especially in this province during the 1990s.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise in this House and speak in favour of this motion. I've listened with interest to some of the comments from my colleagues across the way, and I am absolutely quite shocked at some of the rationale for not supporting this resolution. The idea that it is not the business, or provincial jurisdiction — have they not read the Constitution Act?

Have they not been familiar with constitutional conferences in this country over the last 20 years where Senate reform has been on the table, in part, driven by the provinces? Are they not aware of that? Charlottetown, Meech Lake, just to name two examples?

They say that the public doesn't care about the Senate, that it is a chamber of sober second thought designed to improve things. Well, I'll tell you what the attitude of most Canadians is when it comes to the Senate and the idea of a chamber of sober second thought. It's not a chamber of sober first thought, never mind second thought.

We have seen over the last several decades how the Senate has become a repository for patronage. It is not based on merit. It has been based on connections and donations and as a place to put party fundraisers. It has long since lost whatever relevance it had in this country.

We have been debating different types of Senate reform — triple-E, for example. Well, hon. Speaker, I'd like to remind you of something Mark Rose said many years ago: that we've had a triple-E Senate in this country for a very long time — "elderly, expensive and expendable."

If you ask most Canadians, that's what they see. They see a Senate that has been rife with abuse. They have seen a Senate that has been brought into disrepute — that has, in fact, tarnished our whole electoral system.

[1140]

It brings elected people into disrepute as well, because they look at the Senate, and they see what has been going on there, and they say: "Well, I guess the House of Commons is like that too." Other jurisdictions have done just fine by doing away with their unelected second Houses.

I must admit, I take really great offence at the last comment that was made that we need the Senate as a stonewall if a party neither Conservative nor Liberal gets office. The mere suggestion that you would legitimize the idea of an unelected body being able to block and stop the will of an elected body in this country is an anachronism that was done away with in most other jurisdictions in the 19th century.

The time has come to do away with this repository for trough-fed glitterati with a sense of entitlement. To give you an example, I was at a function several months ago, at a table with a senator. He came in with his wife, talked how wonderful the business-class flight was and wasn't it nice to be here in Vancouver for a few days, and then they would go back to Toronto. They served no purpose. They accomplished nothing, other than a nice weekend for him and his wife.

They talk about fiscal probity — the biggest waste of taxpayers' money at the federal level, the Senate, and they want to defend it. You know what? It's time for the Senate to go. That's where most Canadians are. That's where this side of the House is. I just wish that that side would follow the lead of the Premier on one of her days when she said the idea of an elected Senate is ridiculous. Let's get rid of it, once and for all.

L. Larson: As a Canadian citizen, I have watched with concern the issues that our Senate has been plagued with over the last year or so. I have been as embarrassed as many of you by the media circus that has surrounded one of our oldest institutions of Canadian government.

However, this is not an institution that should be tossed aside lightly. It has proved its worth in the history of Canada.

Our government has made it clear that any changes to
[ Page 1314 ]
the Senate should only be made after consulting with not only British Columbians but with all the provinces and people of Canada. We do feel in British Columbia that we are under-represented in the Senate, and perhaps an elected Senate would create fair representation. But any changes to the Senate is a debate that needs to happen in Ottawa with the Members of Parliament that we have elected to represent us. This is a federal issue and for debate in Ottawa.

In this British Columbia Legislature we are charged with representing the people of British Columbia on issues that pertain to the mandate of this provincial government. Our job is to create a strong economy for the people of British Columbia, and that is what we will continue to focus on. It is what we were elected to do.

Therefore, I oppose this motion.

J. Horgan: I thank members on both sides of the House for their sometimes thoughtful interventions this morning. I do think, though, I'm going to have to make some copies of the constitution and send it over to my friends on the government side. They don't seem to have a grasp of the role that the provinces played in the formation of Canada — a confederation, a collection of states that came together in 1867, and we joined in 1871, with certain characteristics that we held to be true. One of those was that we would be well represented in the institutions of parliament.

We've had debates in this place about the number of Members of Parliament we should have versus other jurisdictions. They have on occasion done redistributions to try and balance that in a fair and equitable way. We are still under-represented when it comes to Members of Parliament, but as some of my colleagues have said, we are wildly under-represented when it comes to the Senate.

[1145]

I want my members on the government side to pay close heed to these numbers and then reconsider their comments about the value of this moribund institution we call the Red Chamber.

If you live in New Brunswick, you have one senator for every 75,000 citizens — one for every 75,000. There are ten senators for the great province of New Brunswick. If you live in Saskatchewan, you have one senator for every 184,000. We only have six senators for Saskatchewan. So I can understand why the Legislature — not the government, but the Legislature — of Saskatchewan voted to abolish the Senate in its current form. Manitoba — they have one senator for every 210,000 citizens, only six in total. Again, I can well understand why the province of Manitoba, through its legislature, passed a motion to abolish the Senate.

Let's look at British Columbia: the worst — the worst in the country. For every 763,000 citizens — those are your constituents, members on the other side — you get one senator. You don't get to pick them; you just get one. That seems to me to be something that we as legislators here in British Columbia should try and address. And that's why my colleague from Surrey-Whalley brought this motion forward today.

I heard the indignation of some of the newer members. Bless them, they've only been here for a short while. They haven't had the idealism crushed out of them by sitting on the back bench. That time will come, Members.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: As I look down at my friend from Langara, that time will come. Where is my friend from White Rock? He'll be here to talk about that as well.

The challenge for us is that these are issues of public concern. I had the good fortune and the privilege, many, many years ago, to work in Ottawa. I worked on a thing called the Beaudoin-Edwards committee to reform the Senate. I was a researcher there at the time, and I recognized probably better than most how challenging this issue can be for our Confederation and for our country. But that doesn't preclude us from taking an opportunity that's before us today — as legislators, not as partisans but as legislators.

How can you sit in your place, Members, and say it's okay to have one senator for every 763,000 citizens when our good friends in the Yukon have one senator for every 36,000? That's not equitable. That does nothing to ensure that the interests of British Columbia are represented in the so-called Senate of sober second thought.

I believe this is an important motion. We on this side of the House brought it forward in a spirit of cooperation, because we felt that the Premier, having had multiple positions on this question, would probably alight on one that was put before her in a way that was readily accessible — such as this one, supported by Brad Wall, champion of the Right, supported by the province of Manitoba. Why not add British Columbia to that?

Why not say to Ottawa, say to the Confederation right across this country, that British Columbia no longer wants to accept an unelected, under-representative institution representing us in Ottawa. That's why we put this forward, and that's why I move closure of the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I have been advised as to one more speaker.

S. Gibson: One thing I'm discovering here as a new member is how valuable our time is. Time is fleeting, and I worry that the amount of discussion we're spending on a federal issue is really squandering that time. I regret to see that, and as one person that values the contribution of all the members, I think probably what we're doing is spending so much time on a federal issue that really should be discussed in Ottawa. It's going to have a lot of good discourse.
[ Page 1315 ]

We elect Members of Parliament to look after federal affairs. Provincially, our residents elect us to look after provincial affairs. As a former city councillor from Abbotsford and a regional director on the Fraser Valley regional district board, there were times when people would bring in frivolous things to discuss. They were interesting, they were anecdotal, they were even worth discussing a little bit, but they would go on and get a life of their own, even though they weren't any of our jurisdiction.

[1150]

I know some colleagues have experienced that as well. Somebody has a little pet project, and it gets whipped up like cotton candy into a swirling pink concoction when it really doesn't have any application to what we're discussing here. I worry about that.

Our people — they are watching us. Are we using our time well? Yes, some of the points have been well made. Yes, I may even agree with some of them, but not here, not right now. Let's let our federal officials look after it. Let's use our time well. I think we won't regret that, frankly.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I would like to take this opportunity…. I note that the hour is getting late, and so I move adjournment of debate.

J. Horgan: I thank the member for Abbotsford-Mission for his contribution, but I, at the conclusion of my remarks, moved a motion that we close the debate. I'm wondering why we went right by that.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, I have been so advised that there were additional members wishing to seek the floor. Under standing rule 46, that is permissible.

J. Horgan: Noting the time, although I understand there is a motion before the House, we have other members who are prepared to speak. If it's not yet noon…. The time is apparently very precious to members on that side of the House. I'd hate to leave seven minutes on the clock. If that's all right with you, I would say we continue the debate — or vote on that.

S. Simpson: I had come in to listen to this debate, and I'm happy now to have the opportunity to add a few minutes of comment to this.

Certainly, I stand to support this. I guess the comment I want to make is…. I've now heard from two or three members on the government side trying to say that this isn't provincial government business, about the value of our time — all of those things.

I would remind those members over there that it has been about 200 days — more than 200 days — that we didn't sit here. We passed on sessions, and we didn't sit. The members should know — and maybe they should talk to their Premier and talk to their cabinet — that the reality is that we should in fact have been sitting here dealing with a number of important issues. But it wasn't important enough for the government to bring us back to do that. Otherwise, we'd have had some time in the fall to deal with a number of these critical issues.

As regards this matter in particular, it's clear. It is an important issue for provincial representatives. It is an important issue for provinces. We know the constitution is about this partnership in this country. It is about the federal-provincial partnership.

This issue of the Senate is clearly part of that debate. We should be engaged in it, because we know that there is no shortage of important issues that we deal with here that we cannot advance and move forward without federal participation.

When you have a Senate that is moribund and when you have a federal House that is absorbed by the disaster, the train wreck, that is happening in the Senate instead of other things, it raises questions about the legitimacy and the validity of that institution in today's time. It raises questions about whether, in fact, the Senate is impeding and impairing our ability to have the kind of relationship we want to have with the federal government because of where time goes there.

Also, as we'll all know, the conduct of certain senators in the House has been very problematic. We now know there are investigations. There are criminal investigations. There is a whole range of issues that are going on.

[1155]

What we know, of course, is that that brings into disrepute the situation for all politicians. We have a lot to be accountable for, but it's pretty troubling when all politicians get broadly painted with that brush about the kind of conduct that we've seen with some senators. We're all waiting, of course, with bated breath for this audit to see how many other senators will be captured by similar kinds of conduct.

This is a critical issue. The people of British Columbia do not support the Senate. The people of British Columbia believe the Senate should be gone. We, as their elected representatives, should be standing with other provinces that share that view and saying to the federal government: "Enough is enough. It's time to end the Senate and to just put it out of its misery and move on."

Hon. Speaker, with that, I will move closure of debate.

R. Sultan: I wanted to add my remarks to the wisdom, which has already been articulated in this chamber, about the importance of having a body of sober second thought and yet the scandalous conduct of our current Senate, which has brought the entire institution into disrespect.

Indeed, my personal complaint about the conduct we've observed in Ottawa is that thanks to the imagination with which certain members have claimed residence in provinces they hardly ever visit, I now find that the
[ Page 1316 ]
$8,000 a year of discretionary money that comes to my riding office for such important things as postage stamps is being accounted for at a level of detail which would do credit to any auditor general. It wouldn't be hard for me to conjure up that we're spending an increment of about $8,000 a year just to keep track of every taxi chit.

So it is. We must be custodians and accountable for all taxpayer money. I suppose that lesson learned from the Senate is worthwhile for all of us.

As has been pointed out, this is really beyond the jurisdiction of this House. I agree with the members opposite who have pointed out it's outrageous that we have three-quarters of a million people in this province represented by only one senator. I think most of us would agree that it makes sense to have a chamber of second thought.

My friend Gordon Gibson wrote a very erudite column, as he usually does, analyzing what might happen — it was not a happy scenario he sketched — should the Senate be abolished, but indeed, that issue is moot because there does not appear to be any mechanism by which the Senate may be abolished.

With that thought, I will move adjournment of debate.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak 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 11:58 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada