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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 6

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I guess this is the first time in 18 years that George Abbott isn't here to introduce interns, so I take it upon myself. It's a very heavy yoke to carry, but I certainly, with the help of the Government House Leader, will be introducing some interns today to the Legislature.

Joining the opposition side in the hardest-working part of the building are five fresh-faced graduates from British Columbia universities, at least two-thirds of them from the great University of Victoria. They are Elyse Goatcher-Bergmann, Esther Rzeplinksi, Ethan Plato — and I want to leave it at that, as I know that my friend from West Vancouver will want to talk about Ethan Plato, but we'll leave that alone — Johanna McBurnie and Carly Aasen are joining the official opposition. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have a special guest to introduce today. It is my pleasure to advise that we have a visiting Clerk from another jurisdiction on attachment to our House this week — Mr. Greg Reckseidler, Clerk Assistant/research officer, Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. This is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions. Please join me in welcoming Greg Reckseidler to British Columbia and to our House.

In that I have the floor, I would also wish to recognize that my nephew and his wife have given birth to their first child. I'm not anywhere near the numbers of other members in this place. She was born on Thursday late afternoon — Elise Marie Greig, born to Leanne and Liam Conway-Greig.

G. Kyllo: I have two very important introductions to make to the House today.

My first introduction is a beautiful young girl from Salmon Arm, British Columbia. Not many people know of this young lady or have yet had the chance to meet her. However, I am most certain that all will be taken aback with her beauty, her fine features and her ability to soften the hearts of men both young and old. I may be a bit biased in my glowing accolades, due in part to my close family relationship with Miss Kylie Angela Plock, my first grandchild, who is one year old today. Weighing in at a lean 6 pounds 9 ounces and 21 inches tall, Kylie is sure to command an enormous amount….

Some Hon. Members: One day old.

G. Kyllo: One day old, yeah. Oh geez. Well, there we go.

So weighing in at a lean 6 pounds 9 ounces and 21 inches tall, Kylie is sure to command an enormous amount of love and attention in the years ahead. Kylie's parents, our daughter Angela and her partner Aaron, could not have shared a more special gift with Georgina and myself and her other grandparents, Sean and Laurie Plock from Blind Bay.

I ask the House to provide a very jubilant welcome to my granddaughter Miss Kylie Angela Plock.

My second introduction today is another beautiful lady from Salmon Arm — mind you, with a wee bit more life experience under her belt. I'd like to introduce Petronella Peach. Nel exemplifies kindness, generosity and dedication to community service.

Diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 30 years ago, Nel has used her experience to become a passionate advocate for people with diabetes. Nel is an active and passionate volunteer with the Canadian Diabetes Association, has served as a regional chair for the interior B.C. region and has been a recipient of the Canadian Diabetes Association's Regional Inspiration Award and the Regional Service Award.

[1340]

I ask the members from both sides of the House to provide a very warm welcome for my friend, Nel Peach.

Hon. B. Bennett: Unlike the previous speaker, I actually look old enough to have grandchildren. I've sat in this House….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: The opposition agrees with that statement.

I've sat in this House over the years so many times and listened to people like John Les — I can say his name; he's not here anymore — announce their grandchildren and been quite envious of that and wondered how it felt. I've been told that it's great.

It is great. I met my first grandchild in Chile — her name is Isabella; I met my daughter-in-law — her name is Francisca; I met my new Chilean in-laws over the past couple of weeks and, really, a wonderful experience. Being a grandpa really teaches you what's most important in life and puts all of this in a somewhat different context, which probably won't last past five minutes into question period. But nonetheless, for the moment I am glowing.

A. Weaver: I'd like to introduce 29 students from Bonar Law Memorial high school, from Rexton, New Brunswick, who were in the building today and I'm told will be visiting us either now or sometime during the proceedings later this afternoon. They're visiting a
[ Page 1318 ]
school, Lambrick Park Secondary School, in my riding, and their teacher, Mr. Turnbull, a man who I played hockey with when I was six or seven years old, is their leader here today.

The school, Bonar Law Memorial, is part of an exchange with Lambrick Park funded by the Society for Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, SEVEC, a non-profit organization that's been in operation for 76 years, benefiting over 350,000 youth exchanges at schools across Canada. Please join me in welcoming again these students from Bonar Law Memorial high school in New Brunswick.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise today to introduce seven very special friends of mine from Christian Life Assembly in Langley, British Columbia: Peter and Arlene Pollock, Vince and Sandra Loreno, Brian Kirkwood and Steve and Ruthie Nicholson. They came to the House this weekend, they wandered around, and they wanted me to let all members know that people of faith pray for us in leadership, and they are praying for every member of this House.

Then I have the distinct pleasure of introducing the most important person in my life, my wife, Charlene. She and I are going to be married 47 years this May, and she's here to wish me well as well. So let's give them a great introduction.

H. Bains: A couple of introductions today. A good friend of mine, Darryl Walker, who's also president of the B.C. Government Employees Union, a great champion for the working people; and Mike Eso, who's the president of Victoria and District Labour Council. Please help me welcome both of them to this House.

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned by the member for Shuswap, we had an opportunity to meet with members of the Canadian Diabetes Association today. Nel is certainly a tremendous advocate and one of the many advocates that we met over lunch today, so I want to introduce the Canadian Diabetes Association that's here in the House today. They'll be meeting with our ministry.

They are passionate advocates on behalf of the 400,000 people in British Columbia that manage diabetes, both diabetes type 1 and type 2. They've been at the forefront in the fight against diabetes, helping people lead healthier lives while working to find the cure. Would the House please make the members of the Canadian Diabetes Association and their advocates most welcome in the House today.

[1345]

Hon. S. Bond: On that note, we don't often have the pleasure of having visitors from Prince George, but today I'm delighted on behalf of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself. We are thrilled to have two advocates here in the House as well, Dave DeVore and Richard Lefebvre. Richard's wife, Louise, is not here, but she's a dietitian.

Both the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and I can assure this House that they do a fantastic job of educating families and supporting them in their journey with diabetes. We're thrilled that they're in the House today, and I would ask all of my colleagues to give them a warm welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce Darrell Burnham and Buz Knott. Darrell is the executive director of Coast Mental Health and provides great programs and services to many with mental health issues, both in my community and throughout the Lower Mainland. I hope that the House would make them both truly welcome.

D. Donaldson: I'd like the House to make welcome today an infrequent visitor to the Legislature, not because she doesn't want to come but because she's executive director of Storytellers Foundation in Hazelton as well as keeps the farm going, and that's my wife, Anne Docherty, Nox mii leks, Wilp Gyologyet, Lax Gibuu. That's her Gitxsan name and clan. I would like the members, as well as thanking my son for taking care of the farm today so that she could be here, to make Anne welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House is my lovely and long-suffering wife, Marlene. We have been married for 28 years. Growing up she was in good hands. She was actually babysat by the Minister of Education and his lovely wife. This was prior to them even knowing each other, so she brought them together, I'm sure.

Also with her is Terri Rainey. Terri is a former neighbour of ours and a good friend. Many may know her from the B.C. Liberals, from her involvement with the party. Would the House please make them both feel welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I were George Abbott, before I whistle the theme song from Hinterland Who's Who and before I introduce the interns who are working for the government through this session, I would point out with pride that I — George Abbott, not I — had been an intern serving the government of Sir Richard McBride, Duff Pattullo, W.A.C. Bennett.

But there are some very talented people, as my friend the Opposition House Leader has pointed out, assigned to duties with the government through this session, and we are thrilled to have them — Beaudin Bennett, Simran Lehal, Sarah Griffiths, Renae Sinclair and Adam Walter.

I know that all members on both sides of the House hope that all of the interns find this experience partly academic and partly very practical — and as fulfilling for them as it will be helpful for us. I know that all members will want to make these interns welcome.
[ Page 1319 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M201 — FALL FIXED ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

V. Huntington presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2014.

V. Huntington: I rise once again to reintroduce a bill that will move B.C.'s fixed election date to the fall, beginning 2017.

As we all know, the fixed spring election date is inherently flawed. Every four years British Columbia goes into an election without passing the budget for the coming fiscal year. Opposition members and media alike are unable to scrutinize the budget before heading into the election. The result is that B.C. voters go to the polls without knowing the state of the provincial finances. The very fact that government ministries and agencies have no spending authority until halfway through the fiscal year is an embarrassment, given that the problem is so easily corrected.

Seven provinces have fall election dates. Were B.C. to follow suit, the Public Accounts would come out in the summer, and the quarterly update would be released in September.

[1350]

Political parties' candidates and media could separate political promises from fiscal realities, voters could cast their ballot with confidence, and our ministries would benefit from increased financial certainty.

The legislation I am introducing will move B.C.'s fixed election date to October, starting with the 2017 election. Last year we heard support from both sides of the House for moving to fall elections, and I'm further heartened by the Premier's comment: "The best time to change how the Legislature functions is when an election is right behind you."

We have a government with a new mandate, the tacit agreement of both sides of the House and 44 sitting days left to pass a five-line bill. Surely, the time has come to act together to restore confidence in the provincial budgeting process.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Madame Speaker: The first motion is first reading.

Motion approved.

Bill M201, Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Laboratory Services Act.

Hon. T. Lake: Madame Speaker, I move that the Laboratory Services Act be introduced and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Here in British Columbia we are indeed fortunate to have an exceptional clinical laboratory system that supports the health of families across the province, but we know that this system will be challenged to meet the growing demands of the future.

That's why we are introducing the Laboratory Services Act, which sets a framework to strengthen and standardize B.C.'s clinical laboratory system. It will ensure that we can provide these services now and in the future in a sustainable manner.

We expect these changes to occur over the next three years, and the changes are aligned in what is called the Triple-Aim approach. This term was coined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a non-profit group that improves health care services around the world. Triple Aim focuses on changes that improve the population's health, enhances patient experience and outcomes as well as achieving the best value for the dollar.

The legislation allows the provincial government to meet these goals, streamlining and integrating the system to take advantage of emerging and improving medical technologies. It also enables us to better coordinate services and provides greater opportunities for cost savings.

The act enables government to strengthen patient services and ensure that resources are deployed efficiently and where they're most needed. The legislation brings under one framework the laboratory services that are provided in hospitals and in the community.

By moving all laboratory services under one piece of legislation, we are also strengthening governance, accountability, audit, benefits and billing of the services we provide. We expect these changes to be implemented over the next three years and plan to consult with stakeholders as it develops the strategic direction for future service delivery.

I move that the introduction of the Laboratory Services Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Laboratory Services Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 1320 ]

BILL 6 — PROVINCIAL CAPITAL
COMMISSION DISSOLUTION ACT

Hon. C. Oakes presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that Bill 6, entitled Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act, be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased to present the Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act. This legislation proposes to dissolve the Provincial Capital Commission and transfer its existing properties, assets, liabilities and staff to provincial ministries, except for the Bellville ferry terminal properties, which will be transferred to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, a Crown corporation under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The commission has done a great job connecting British Columbians to their capital through strong outreach programs and property management services.

[1355]

However, over the years governments have evolved to the point where these services can now be provided directly within governments. Dissolution of the commission will support government efficiency by eliminating duplication and saving the taxpayers money. For these reasons, the cabinet working group on core review recommended dissolution of the Provincial Capital Commission.

I want to recognize the commitment and hard work of everyone on the commission's board and their staff. Government will ensure that the legacy of their work continues to benefit British Columbians.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PROPOSAL FOR WORLD HERITAGE
SITE DESIGNATION IN STEVESTON

J. Yap: It's fitting that I rise in the House today to talk about an exciting initiative underway in my riding during Heritage Week. What do the great pyramids of Egypt, the Great Barrier Reef and the Great Wall of China have to do with Steveston? For now, not much, but if long-time Steveston resident Loren Slye gets his way, Steveston will join these three sites on the United Nations World Heritage Site list.

This list, maintained by a United Nations agency known as UNESCO, is a collection of 981 sites around the globe that have cultural or natural significance. World heritage is a designation for places on earth that are of outstanding universal value to humanity and, as such, are to be protected for future generations to appreciate and enjoy.

There are criteria to be met for this designation, criteria which are regularly revised to reflect the evolution of the world heritage concept. Loren Slye and his colleagues in the local Steveston community group known as 20/20, who are championing this cause, believe this designation would offer the village much-needed heritage protection and increased revenue from tourism.

Like many quaint villages near urban centres around the world, Steveston is feeling the pressure of increased densification and development. Preservation of its long history and heritage as a fishing village and home to 42 canneries and processing plants has been challenging. Although some buildings are protected, to ensure preservation of the whole of Steveston a UNESCO designation would help place it on the tourism map.

Canada has 17 sites, and it's time to add another one. Thanks to Loren Slye, the process to achieve this designation has begun.

FISGARD LIGHTHOUSE

M. Karagianis: As the previous speaker mentioned, it is Heritage Week in B.C., and in keeping the theme of "Heritage afloat!" I'm happy to share the story of a beacon to the past in my constituency.

Since 1860 the Fisgard Lighthouse has stood at the entrance to Esquimalt Harbour, lighting the way safely for passing ships. Fisgard was the first lighthouse on Canada's west coast and was built, in fact, in British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, before it was part of Canada. It has guided mariners for generations and is still operating.

The 47-foot-high structure is topped by a light that is visible for ten nautical miles. Today the white tower and the red-brick keeper's house are a national historical site. Visitors from all over the world come to take in the beauty of the location and the exhibits that tell the story of shipwrecks, storms and the life of light-keepers who lived there until 1929.

The view across the Strait of Juan de Fuca is the snow-capped Olympic Mountains and is very splendid. The lighthouse is part of Fort Rodd Hill National Park, which preserves three historical coastal gun batteries that were built in the late 19th century as part of the coastal defence system. The fortress remained in service for more than
[ Page 1321 ]
50 years and was decommissioned in 1956.

Today the fort is one of the best preserved and most complete of its kind in the world, and all structures are original. Visitors can explore the barracks, look down the barrels of original guns and descend into the underground magazines. A visit to Fort Rodd Hill and Fisgard Lighthouse is a great adventure, and I encourage everyone here to go and take a visit. Just take Highway 1A to Colwood and turn off at Ocean Boulevard.

[1400]

SPENCER O'BRIEN AND
2014 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

C. Trevena: The Olympics were brought alive and brought home for people in Alert Bay a week ago when snowboarder Spencer O'Brien took to the slopes.

In the kindergarten, children were singing a song of support, students strung pennants from the ferry dock along the street, and community members gathered with drums, regalia and a lot of energy at the big house. And on the day — or, in our time zone, night — of Spencer's Olympic performance, people met at the Legion to watch as a community, supporting one of their own with pride.

Spencer spent her early years in Alert Bay, off the north end of Vancouver Island. She started her life in winter sports at three, on the community-run Mount Cain, just south of Woss. Like many people of her age, she moved from skis to snowboard when she was 11. She also moved from Alert Bay to Courtenay and continued to train at Mount Washington while studying at the Mark Isfeld Secondary in Courtenay. She said: "I'm fortunate that I had Mount Cain so early — and later Mount Washington. I have always loved the mountains."

Spencer, who is 26, won gold last year for her slopestyle snowboarding at the FIS World Championships and a bronze medal at the X Games last month. She told the Olympic committee that she loves cooking, baking, fashion and hiking, and says the worst part of being on the road is not having her own kitchen.

Despite being a star in her world of sports, she's not forgotten the community she came from, donating equipment to the First Nations snowboard team and getting involved with a program to promote health and wellness in aboriginal communities. She says inspiring aboriginal youth and being a good role model are very important to her.

While she cried after coming in 12th at Sochi, her community, the community she's lived in, and Canadians across the country sent her messages of support. Her response? "Thank you all for the love and support. It means so much. I am disappointed in myself but so proud to be Canadian," she tweeted.

MEN'S HEALTH

S. Sullivan: In the immortal words of a 1980s hair band, many of us don't know what we've got until it's gone. This turns out to be very true when it comes to men and their health.

Consider these statistics. Over 90 percent of workplace deaths are men. Men are 50 percent more likely to die of diabetes than women, and 80 percent of successful suicides are men. In fact, when it comes to health conditions that men and women share, it's not a case of share and share alike. Heart disease, obesity, many common cancers, addictions, accidents are all areas where men outpace women in numbers and severity. Men will spend, on average, nine years of their life in poor health before they die — far more than women.

About 70 percent of the time this state of ill health is caused by poor lifestyle habits and is preventable. This is the missing piece of the family health puzzle, and it is the one we need to address because of the high cost to family, society and our health system.

Our Premier recognized this — the first Premier in the country to do so. Last year she provided a five-year, $5 million grant to Dr. Larry Goldenberg, the founder of B.C. Men's Health Initiative. Those of you who know Dr. Goldenberg know that he is an innovator and a leader when it comes to health care.

Since receiving this grant 11 months ago, he's raised more than $1.5 million in donations and is getting set to launch his groundbreaking nationwide campaign this June with support of some of Canada's leading athletes, corporations and personalities.

Dr. Goldenberg and his team will be in Victoria over the next few months to work with all of us to ensure this campaign is as successful as possible. I encourage you all to meet with him. It isn't a simple problem to fix, but we need to find a way to help men change their behaviour and value their health long before it's gone.

BOATING HERITAGE IN
KOOTENAY LAKE AREA

M. Mungall: We all have a story or two to tell about how boats have shaped our lives. In the Kootenays boats have played a major role in shaping our modern day, and this Heritage Week we get the opportunity to honour those boats with the theme "Heritage afloat!"

For the Kootenays, first, it was the unique sturgeon-nose canoe distinct to the Ktunaxa and Lakes Nations. For millennia they travelled their traditional territories north and south of the 49th parallel by water, fishing salmon and living off the land. Learn how these boats were made at the Nelson Touchstones museum this Sunday where they are offering workshops for kids of all ages interested in making their own replica of a sturgeon-nose canoe.
[ Page 1322 ]

[1405]

Also on display at Touchstones is how change came to the Kootenay Lake waters when the European explorers and voyageurs arrived in the region, often using what is now known around the world as the Canadian canoe.

Not long after they arrived, gold and silver were found, and along came colonists — with them, larger boats. In 1898, the SS Moyie sailed out of the Nelson shipyard to begin her 60-year tour of duty plowing the waters of Kootenay Lake. She had 11 sisters on that lake. Although all have since retired, you can still find the SS Moyie on display in all her finery in Kaslo, while the SS Nasookin is now a home, looking over the water she once treaded.

Today boats continue to play an important role for Kootenay Lake. Whether recreationally or with the longest free ferry ride in the world — which, of course, didn't come without a fight — travel by water remains a reality in our region. Part of our past, present and most certainly our future, boats play a defining role in Kootenay Lake's heritage.

2015 CANADA WINTER GAMES
IN PRINCE GEORGE

M. Morris: Today, as Canadians, we're cheering our Canadian Olympic team as they perform in Sochi. In less than one year Prince George will have the honour of co-hosting the 2015 Canada Winter Games with the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation designated as an official host First Nation by the Canada Games Council. This is the first time in Canada Games history that an official First Nation designation has been given to a First Nation.

Our government has invested more than $11 million in this event. Provincial funding has been matched by the federal government. With additional contributions by the host city and the city of Prince George, the total budget for the games is approximately $46 million.

British Columbia has previously hosted the 1993 Canada Summer Games in Kamloops and the 1973 Canada Summer Games in New Westminster but has never hosted a Canada Winter Games. The next time British Columbia will host the Canada Games will be the Canada Summer Games in 2041.

The games bring with them a significant economic benefit to the region, expected to be close to $90 million. The 2015 Canada Winter Games will feature 19 official sports, including Paralympics and Special Olympics competitions. More than 3,400 athletes, coaches, staff and officials will participate in the games from over 800 Canadian communities. Up to 4,500 volunteers will be involved. More than 10,000 visitors will experience Prince George and the north-central Interior.

British Columbia will field a team of 350 athletes, coaches and mission staff. Team B.C.'s goal is to finish in the top three medal count of the games. The games will leave a positive legacy that includes new and improved sports facilities and community pride for everybody in the region to enjoy.

Madame Speaker: May I thank all members.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO
TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AND RELEASE OF COURT DOCUMENTS

A. Dix: These last years and, indeed, these last weeks have seen on display the chasm between the Premier's words and the government's actions with respect to the education of children in our public schools. In April 2011 when the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Bill 28 case, the Premier said she had learned. She said: "You want to get it right, and that time we didn't get it right."

They didn't appeal. They set about introducing legislation that was virtually identical to the law that was struck down as unconstitutional. Within months, two months, they were setting in motion — according to the evidence provided to the court, as early as June 2011 — a strategy of a combined legislative response to an expected teachers' strike in Bill 28. They were putting in place a strategy to provoke a teachers' strike by September.

Why? According to the evidence provided by the government, in documents and testimony, because it would give the government a political advantage. By September, quoting from the court judgment: "When a full strike did not materialize, so important was a strike to the government strategy that in September 2011 Mr. Straszak planned a government strategy of increasing the pressure on the union so as to provoke a strike."

[1410]

Why shouldn't the public be able to read the evidence that was put forward in open court by government witnesses?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Last week in this House we talked about the facts. I want to repeat those facts. This government clearly showed that in light of the BCTF taking job action — not providing report cards, not providing the opportunity for parent-teacher interviews, not providing extracurricular activities — and in spite of that job action, we stayed at the table throughout that period.

Then when in March the BCTF announced a full-scale strike to throw the school districts into disruption, we initiated a cooling-off period. We worked very hard. We appointed a mediator with one intent only, and that was to reach a negotiated settlement, which we did in June of that year.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a supplemental.
[ Page 1323 ]

A. Dix: Here we have the three legs of the government's strategy. Leg 1, the government denies the public its right to know what happened in open court — evidence that shows, contrary to what the minister said, that the government's political strategy was to provoke a strike.

The second leg is for the government to continue to act in court to deny the right of the people to see the evidence and the truth.

Thirdly, we have the Premier of British Columbia going around saying something completely different. This is actually worse than it can possibly be: the government covering up the evidence and then testifying to something different. This is what is happening.

My challenge to the Minister of Education — he has his point of view; I have my point of view: release the documents, release the evidence, and let's let the public judge the truth.

Madame Speaker: Please state your question.

A. Dix: My question, very simply, to the Attorney General — or to the Minister of Education, if he'd like to see it — is just that. It's just that. It seems to me that the Attorney General and the Minister of Education can't have it both ways.

Madame Speaker: Please state your question.

A. Dix: They need…. We need…. The public has a right to know. Why shouldn't they see what he's seen — that the government was conspiring to provoke a strike?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's willingness to discuss sealed documents in the House. We choose not to do that. We also don't put out videos dealing with sealed documents, which the Leader of the Opposition has done.

Again, the facts are that this government worked tirelessly during that period to continue negotiations, even in light of disruptions in schools. We worked very hard to bring in a cooling-off period to avoid disruption. We brought in a mediator. The fact, which is in the public domain, is we negotiated a settlement at the 12th hour that kept schools working, that kept the security of their education, which is absolutely what this government is all about.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: This 12 years of misleading the public about what's going on in public education, about the government's intentions, needs to end. It needs to end. The government's right to spin and mislead doesn't supersede the public's right to know when it comes to….

[1415]

The Attorney General could speak out for the public's right to know right now by intervening in court and allowing the public to see the evidence presented in open court — evidence that anyone who attended those trials…. It's evidence that the Minister of Education has seen — all of the cabinet ministers over there have seen — that shows what the government was doing: trying to provoke a strike. I understand they want to cover that up. I understand they want to cover the truth up in this case, but I say: let the documents and the evidence speak.

Will the Attorney General take action to ensure that the public's right to know is protected and supersedes the government's right to spin?

Hon. S. Anton: As this House well knows, the matter is in front of the Court of Appeal. It is for the Court of Appeal to hear the arguments and the debate on the evidence. It's not for it to be debated here. That's their role. Our role is a different one. We stick to our role; they stick to their role. Those documents, the evidence, are under court order and sealed under court order. It is not for us to breach that court order.

There is an argument in front of the Court of Appeal for an extension to that court order. That argument will be heard by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal will decide accordingly. That debate is heard in court, not here.

R. Fleming: Well, thanks to an open court and thanks to this democratic chamber, we know that by June 2011 the Premier's deputy minister and her chief negotiator were in the midst of developing a strategy to lead to a full-blown strike in B.C. schools. That's what we know.

We know that cabinet was subsequently briefed about this plan, and as head of the cabinet, the Premier was part of this briefing. The Premier, of course, refuses to say anything in this House, but on a daily basis she's happy to be out there in the media attacking the court and attacking the ruling every single day. She says that the court was wrong on the facts at the same time that she's legally preventing the public from getting the facts.

So I ask the Attorney General, using her responsibility to put the public interest ahead of partisan interests, to allow parents in British Columbia to get the answers that they seek and that they deserve. Will the Attorney General agree to make application for the release of documents from trial and let the public decide the facts for themselves?

Hon. S. Anton: The discussion on the facts, the ruling on the facts, the ruling of the justice of the Supreme Court, the documents themselves — all of those things are in front of the Court of Appeal. The debate on those, the argument on those, the legal discussion on those — that happens at the Court of Appeal. That does not hap-
[ Page 1324 ]
pen in this chamber. That's where it should remain, and the Court of Appeal will make its decision accordingly.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I would ask the Attorney General to understand the gravity of this situation. She's in charge of the court system, the justice system of this province. The sworn facts from the Supreme Court exposed what her government was up to.

They wanted a full-blown strike and were frustrated when they couldn't get one. They deliberately torqued up pressure to get a strike by docking pay, by ending professional development, by holding back funds from school districts. They tried to get before the labour board to help assist in shutting B.C. schools down. That's the evidence the court heard under oath. Those are the court's facts.

[1420]

We haven't gotten any answers in this place from the Premier, so I' again ask the Attorney General. We've had enough of a government that puts its political interests first and the needs of parents and kids dead last in British Columbia. So will this Attorney General finally put the public interest first and apply to release the documents related to the Premier's school strike strategy?

Hon. S. Anton: The House has its role; courts have their role. It's interesting that the hon. member from the other side believes that government dictates to courts, but in fact, that is entirely incorrect. The foundation of our democracy is an independent court system.

May I read from Mr. MacMinn's book, which I read the other day. "The sub judice convention exists for the equally good reason of protecting the separation and mutual respect which must exist between the legislative and judicial branches of government in order that parliament not interfere with the judicial proceeding by constituting itself as an alternative for debate on the same issue."

The matter is before the court. The debate is heard before the court.

C. James: In April 2011 B.C. courts ruled that the education legislation brought in by the Premier when she was Education Minister was illegal. Then the Premier told the public that she would adhere to the court finding. She actually said that she would get it right this time. She signalled that she would show respect for the public, for classrooms, for teachers and for students. Now we know that, instead, she pursued a strategy to provoke a full-scale strike so that she could circumvent the ruling.

The Premier won't answer questions about misleading the public. The Premier, in this place, won't answer questions about her role in negatively impacting education for hundreds and thousands of students. But the Attorney General can.

The Attorney General still has the opportunity to stand up for the public and their right to know. I heard the Attorney say that we should listen to the independent court system.

Well, let's listen to Judge Griffin. Judge Griffin ruled that documents that show how this government planned to shut down schools with a full-scale strike should become public. She noted that the government "relied on assertions of fact regarding its conduct, alleging that it had consulted in good faith."

Madame Speaker: Member, state your question.

C. James: The fact is that the government didn't act in good faith.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will she uphold the principle of open court by making application to release the documents so that British Columbians can see for themselves what role the Premier played in shutting down B.C. schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The Attorney General has been clear. We are not going to debate the items that are before the court. But what I will do is clarify for the members opposite the facts again.

The facts again…. When we brought in the legislation, we worked very hard with the BCTF to bring in some measures to meet the first ruling. And what were those?

[1425]

The learning improvement fund of $210 million. The fact that we have hired, through that, 500 new teachers. The fact that we have hired 400 new special education assistants. The fact that we've extended hours for 7,400 special education assistants in this province. And probably the most important fact: in the past decade this government has increased the number of education assistants by 60 percent.

L. Krog: The Attorney General talks about her role. The only role that this government seems to be performing is the farce of this political scandal.

She knows it to be true that she has an ancient and serious obligation to the public of British Columbia to put the public interest ahead of partisan political interest. She continues to rebuff this responsibility. She could take legal steps to ensure the public got the information they deserve, instead of trying to manipulate public opinion by causing a provincewide strike like the Premier did. It's up to the Attorney General to do the right thing.

The Premier's continual assertions that the courts got it wrong only vindicates what Justice Griffin said: "Where the courts are tasked with the role of determining the constitutionality of government conduct, it is even more important for there to be transparency so that the public can have confidence that the result was reached in fulfilment of the court's duty to be independent and impartial."
[ Page 1325 ]

Madame Speaker: Member, state your question.

L. Krog: The Attorney General has that opportunity. We've even provided assistance. The opposition, with the assistance of counsel, has prepared a notice of application. She can sign it. She can file it. She can serve it. It will enable the court to release the documents and the transcripts.

My question is simply this, to the Attorney General. Will she do the right thing — defend the public interest, not the Premier's political interest — and sign the notice of application and let the people of British Columbia have the truth?

Hon. S. Anton: I think we can all be relieved to know that the member opposite wants us to do the right thing. The right thing is, as I read earlier….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Anton: The right thing is to protect the separation and mutual respect which must exist between the legislative and judicial branches of government. We have an independent court system. The discussion is to be debated in the courtroom. That's where the discussion happens. That's where the debate happens. That's where the decision is made, not in this chamber.

INVESTIGATION INTO BURNS LAKE
MILL EXPLOSION AND
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

H. Bains: In January of this year the Premier made yet another commitment to the workers and families of Babine Forest Products sawmill in Burns Lake. She said this. She said that justice must be done and that it must be seen to be done. Yet two years since the explosion that killed two workers and injured 19, no charges have been laid. None are forthcoming. No one is being held accountable for what they deemed to be a preventable incident — no one.

Kathleen Weissbach, the wife of one of the victims of the explosion, has given up hope that the Liberal government cares about justice. She said this: "The guys have lost faith, and they no longer trust the Liberal government, because they keep them from getting justice, any form of justice."

To the minister: where is the promise of justice? Where is the justice for those workers and those families that was promised by this Premier?

Hon. S. Bond: There is not a single MLA in this House that does not feel absolutely saddened by what happened. The lives of those families have been altered forever. Communities were devastated.

[1430]

That's why when charges did not proceed, the Premier moved very quickly to assign to a highly regarded professional public servant the job of putting together the fact pattern.

That report has been released, and the Premier and I have made it very clear to WorkSafe that we expect there to be changes. We expect the recommendations that have been brought forward to be implemented. In fact, the Premier didn't stop there. The Premier has retained an independent adviser, one of Canada's most well-known lawyers, Len Doust, QC, to ensure that the recommendations are completed and also to act as an independent adviser to government.

No one can erase the pain and the loss, but this government certainly intends to ensure that the recommendations that have been brought forward are implemented.

Madame Speaker: Member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The government keeps on holding up the investigation by the Premier's political appointee to argue that somehow justice has been done. The empty words will not restore the faith that these workers and their families have lost.

Kathleen Weissbach doesn't think it is adequate — that investigation. She said that the Premier had big words, but she couldn't back them up with actions. That's why the families have lost faith, the workers have lost faith, and the community has lost faith.

A report by a politically appointed aide won't fix that. That's why the minister could do the right thing now and call for a truly independent investigation so that we can restore the faith that they have lost in this government and the system.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't know about the member opposite, but there are very few words that can erase the pain that families and communities have experienced. I live in Prince George. I know many of the families that were involved, the workers that attended that night, the paramedics, the nurses. I can assure you that the words that we share are not empty words.

In fact, there are a series of recommendations that are far-reaching. It is absolutely essential that we move forward quickly. In fact, when Mr. Doust was asked about whether or not an independent inquiry would change the outcomes in terms of Crown's decision, his answer was no.

We need to move forward and ensure that each recommendation is carried out. It will include a review of the underlying processes, the personnel. The most important thing is to ensure that this does not happen again. That is what we're working to. That is what is important
[ Page 1326 ]
at this point in time.

D. Donaldson: The government's response on this issue has been totally inadequate. Two local men from Burns Lake lost their lives at the Babine Forest Products mill explosion two years ago this past winter. Other workers, including a constituent of mine, were badly burned and are still trying to put their lives back together. Two years this man hasn't worked.

Last week the Premier passed the buck on this issue, saying that she was deeply disappointed with WorkSafe B.C., an agency governed by a board directly appointed by her government. The Premier needs to stop finger-pointing and take some responsibility. The buck stops at her desk on this terrible tragedy.

To the Jobs Minister: how does avoiding accountability and shifting blame improve worker safety in this province?

[1435]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how the member opposite can characterize the fact that the moment the explosion happened, this government made sure it was there to provide support in that community and in Prince George. Following that, a large team of individuals from across ministries went to work with those communities, went to look at fibre supply and look at issues to ensure that we could actually rebuild a mill and put people back to work.

This is about accountability, and the report clearly, absolutely clearly, lays out a series of recommendations that speak to process, to protocol, to looking at how this happened. The best thing we can do, as difficult as it is — and we have unbelievable empathy for families who've suffered loss — is we need to make sure those recommendations move forward. We need to make sure that WorkSafe does deal with the issues related to the investigation. They need to be fixed. The Premier made that clear to WorkSafe, and we expect it to happen.

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: Even though no economic impact studies were done ahead of the savage cuts to B.C. Ferries, we know that B.C.'s provincial economy will take a hit. The Minister of Transportation didn't bother going to hear from the affected communities, so I wonder whether he's bothered to read any of the dozens and dozens of letters from chambers of commerce, from tourism operators and from businesses decrying his decision.

I quote from one sent to the minister from German tour operators. "We still cannot believe that this really is a serious plan of the B.C. government…. At this point, we can only urge you to intervene immediately in order to avoid serious and lasting damage to British Columbia's tourism from Europe."

To the Minister of Transportation, can he quantify the hit to the provincial economy that cutting the Discovery route will mean?

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the hon. member for her question. As I said, back almost three months ago…. The announcement on B.C. Ferries was made November 18. At the time, I said this was a very difficult decision. Tough decisions lie ahead if, indeed, as a province we want to ensure that B.C. Ferries is sustainable, affordable, efficient and, most importantly, there for generations to come.

Now, we have seen rounds of consultations for the last three years. The B.C. Ferry Commissioner was out meeting with communities in 2011. The Ministry of Transportation was out and met with thousands of individuals in 2012. In late 2013 there was yet another round of consultations.

For the eight months that I have been the minister, I have met with many mayors. I have met with regional district chairs. I have met with ferry advisory committee chairs. I have met with small business owners. I have met with chamber representatives, and indeed, I have met with representatives of the tourism industry. We will continue to do so, because at the end of the day, we're going to do everything we can, working with B.C. Ferries and ferry communities, to ensure that the ferry service is there for generations to come.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

L. Krog: I rise to table the notice of application I referred to during question period.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

[1440]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. Routley: I must say that it's really great to be back and once again have an opportunity to speak out on behalf of the fine people who live in the Cowichan Valley.

I want to focus today, the limited time that I have, on one throne speech item that's critically important to people in the Cowichan Valley, and that's the modernization of the century-old Water Act. This is an issue that is absolutely critical to a lot of my constituents, and we're very concerned about the future of our water and
[ Page 1327 ]
our watersheds.

Hon. Speaker, did you know that without water you will start to die within 72 hours? We must have water. Without water, no food is grown, no energy is captured, no activity can be performed. We actually need water for life, yet we humans go around threatening our own life-giving water.

Did you know, hon. Speaker, that in Canada on any given day of the year, public health authorities are reporting more than 1,500 drinking water advisories that are enforced in communities throughout Canada?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In the Cowichan Valley we have serious concerns about the pollution of drinking water — contamination that is being rained down on us by this Liberal government, contamination delivered, ironically, by your own Ministry of Environment. Government has the authority to dump contaminated soil in the Shawnigan watershed. They've given that authority.

I see that some of that dumping has begun already, even though most people generally believe that water is a shared public asset, that water must be protected and managed for the public good. And yet this Liberal government has adopted a kind of global economic fundamentalism.

As stated in the throne speech, they intend to be focused on getting to yes. They are all about getting to a profitable yes, even if it means dumping contaminated soil in Shawnigan Lake's beautiful watershed. The Liberal yes, therefore, believes that community rights are not as important as profit-taking as a principle — or even as a core value to this Liberal government.

I believe this is totally unacceptable. This government has clearly ignored all of the positions taken by political parties. Across the spectrum we were unanimous during the last election that we had no interest in seeing a dumping-of-contaminated-soil plan go ahead — in the beautiful Shawnigan Lake watershed of all things.

Even the Liberal candidate said in this last election, "Not only is the site above a major aquifer that supplies drinking water; it is also right beside a stream that flows directly into the Shawnigan Lake. This is lunacy," he declared. He was right. There's one Liberal, for sure, I can agree with. Absolutely right that it's lunacy, and it has begun.

All of the Cowichan Valley municipal groups that the CVRD represents, and those are communities all over the Cowichan Valley…. In fact, it goes beyond the boundaries of the Cowichan Valley.

[1445]

The majority of the CVRD and the Shawnigan residents were all ignored by this government, all treated as not as important as getting to yes. And yes for who? For one for-profit company, South Island Aggregates.

I'm not against business having the opportunity to get into business and do what they've been doing for years, and that's providing gravel. But now they've been granted a permit, of all things, by this Ministry of Environment to dump up to five million tonnes of contaminated soil over the next 50 years in the Shawnigan Lake watershed.

It is quite simply a nightmare, the fact that this government could actually condone and support a plan to dump tonne after tonne of contaminated toxic soil with chemicals in this soil like furans and dioxins — dioxins are a cancer-causing chemical — petroleum hydrocarbons like benzene and styrene, just to name a few of the long list of contaminants approved to be dumped in the Shawnigan watershed.

This government says in the throne speech that they're going to modernize the Water Act, yet by their actions they seem to have no focus on protecting the waters so critical to the people of the Cowichan region and the Shawnigan Lake region specifically.

What will happen to all of the toxic contaminants that are left on the truck tire treads? Has anybody thought about that? This may ultimately be spreading poisonous leachates throughout the trucking and transportation corridors as they travel over and over again, in and out of the contaminated soil-dumping sites throughout the Shawnigan region, over the Malahat to Victoria and beyond.

This is not far-fetched when all you have to do is drive to the little community of Youbou. Look what happens when the logging trucks, which are busy exporting logs, drive through that community all summer long, all winter long. In the summer it's just dust clouds, and in the winter it's mud sometimes right up to people's ankles. Actually, the company, to their credit, finally put in a truck wash to wash some of the trucks.

Just think about this. We're going to have tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemical dumped in our watershed, and then they are going to be trucking it in and out and up and down the road with all of those great big truck tires dragging it all over the community and up and down the highways.

To add more concern to this matter, these contaminants are to be brought into and dumped close to community wells and aquifers and right upstream to our pristine Shawnigan Lake, right in the very heart of our beautiful Shawnigan watershed. The residents have formed groups, such as the Shawnigan Residents Association, to try and stop this from happening. They had to do fundraising, if you can imagine this, to provide funds to try to protect themselves from the actions of their own government.

Even the Cowichan Valley regional district has tried to get this government to listen and to stop this from happening.

To date, the wishes of all of the communities in the Cowichan Valley that I represent have been completely
[ Page 1328 ]
ignored. Government has clearly failed to act to protect the community interest when it comes to the water in Shawnigan Lake. There is no Liberal action plan to allow communities to stop this kind of risk-taking behaviour with their community watershed.

Yet I would remind the hon. Speaker that this government talks about an earthquake plan, earthquake preparedness. What do they think is going to happen? How are we going to prepare, in the event that there's a catastrophic earthquake? Everybody, all the scientists, are talking about how it's going to happen one day, and they're busy trucking up and down the road all this toxic chemical right into the Cowichan Valley. It's totally unacceptable.

Sadly, there's nothing in this throne speech that gives any hope that this government has any interest in these kinds of community concerns, and that, to me, is very disturbing and regrettable. Communities ought to have the right to stop individuals from profit-taking when putting an entire community's water at risk.

[1450]

What about them impacting the community land values? Any of the Liberal ministers that are here, what would you think about your land values? Any of the Liberal ministers that are here: what would you think about your land values and what would happen to them if they were moving a toxic dump into your neighbourhood, eh? What would you think that would…? That's a very serious consequence indeed. Everybody else gets to have their property values decrease as a result of one profit-taking, putting-the-community-at-risk kind of venture.

You look at the environmental and recreational opportunities in the community. What are you going to start up? Are you going to start up a canoeing or a kayaking venture right next to the toxic dump? I don't think so. I don't think too many people are going to be excited about setting up that kind of thing. I don't know.

Is the Green political friend here? Are you going to want to make a special trip up and do a tour of the beautiful Cowichan Valley and have a look at the lilies and the flowers that grow right next to the toxic chemicals? I don't think so. Somehow I just don't think it's going to happen.

I would like to ask this government further. I would love to ask a question. What do you think tomorrow's children would want to say to you about the incredible mess that you will have left behind for them? What do you think they would want to say to you if they could look you in the eye and take you by the hand up to this great big hole with 50 million tonnes of toxic chemicals, some kind of stew rolling around in their area? You're going to tell them: "Oh, it's all very fine. We've made an incredible mess for you, but oh well, it's not in our backyard." It's not in the minister's backyard — no.

Government should be able to…. They should be busy enabling communities to defend themselves, to defend the sustainability and protection of their communities' water and watershed. This is important to communities. I don't think, other than a roof over your head, having the basic necessities of life, like water…. That is pretty serious, when you start threatening that. That's what this government has taken on.

I don't understand how they don't get it. All of these people rallying and protesting. I guess they get so used to it and their hides get so thick that it just runs off like more contaminated soil. I don't know. The government should be listening. Instead, we get this Liberal dump-and-run policy, an "it's not there in their backyard, so they just don't care" attitude.

It's clear for all to see that this government's idea of moving ahead on this plan is to steamroll over any community interest, no matter what the risk to the environment or to the communities' most basic of all needs. All they want is a little pure water.

Another great concern for the Cowichan Valley not addressed in this throne speech is the state of our world-class rivers, such as the Cowichan River, which is a Canadian heritage river. In the fall of 2012 the water was so low in the river that Cowichan Tribes First Nations and other community groups had to bring fish upstream in dump trucks in a desperate attempt to help the survival rate of our wild salmon stocks. It was deemed the trap-and-truck strategy. They even had a strategy, the trap-and-truck strategy, to haul fish upstream in dump trucks.

The Liberal government, I would add, had refused to listen to the community concerns regarding the need to hold back a little water at the weir in Lake Cowichan. We, in fact, ended up having a crisis in water levels that required this plan for rescuing fish. While I had communicated my support to the minister…. I'm sure you wouldn't want to miss a page of this, so I'm just going to go back a little bit.

[1455]

What was incredible to me was that Cowichan Tribes, the mayors and Cowichan Valley regional district had all tried to talk to government in the spring of 2012. We even had the mayors, and all these mayors knocked on the door and said: "Could we get MLA Routley out in the hall to talk to him?" They were there with a member from Cowichan Tribes, and they said: "Lookit, we want the opportunity to hold back a little water. There's not enough snowpack. We're concerned at the low levels in the river at this juncture, and we want to just up…."

It's like a ferry boat ramp, the weir is, and it just lifts up. They would have been able to save back a little rainwater in the lake so that they could dispatch it later. However, as a result of not listening, we ended up with this crisis in water levels that required this plan for rescuing fish.

While I had communicated my support to the Minister of Forests…. All the community leaders and even myself as MLA had put forward political capital in the community. By that I mean…. All of you know, as politicians, that
[ Page 1329 ]
if you stand up and say, "This is my position," there are always some folks, believe it or not, that are not unanimous in their thinking of what they would like to see happen.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue became more of one…. All these mayors, First Nations, all unanimous — this was a no-brainer to me that it should be supported, so I supported them. The issue in the end is about what was more important for the community: the survival of fish and the Cowichan Valley river habitat or where we would be moving deck chairs on the beach if we hold back water for the weir.

I lived on Lake Cowichan. I lived in Marble Bay, had two hectares of land and it was all raked lowlands. I actually had about 190 feet of waterfront. When the summer…. When it went down, yeah, we liked it, because then we had more beachfront, and we got to move the deck chairs down the beach a little bit. But really, when it comes to preserving our wild salmon stocks…. To me, I don't understand those folks who were upset about holding back a little water at the weir.

In the end, what happened to the salmon was that the salmon were stuck there in Cowichan Bay in the big, deep pools right down in the bay. They were sitting there as a breakfast, lunch and dinner buffet for the seals. The seals were even using one of the booming grounds as a kind of floating island to hang out on. That allowed them to stick nice and close by the salmon buffet.

Now, this wasn't working out too well, though, for the salmon. Their numbers were going down pretty dramatically and pretty quickly. That's when people decided we had to act. The fish and their future chance in the spawning grounds were all at a very elevated risk because of the low water levels in the river.

That brings me to the point that all of the Cowichan Valley community saw the problem; however, the provincial government — who actually had the power to act and to instruct the powers that be to hold back a little bit of water — chose not to do so. I'm sure the minister has reasons, but I do find it shocking to have all the mayors, the Cowichan Valley regional district chair, the MLA — everybody — stepping forward and saying, "Can we hold a little water back?" and it didn't happen. And then our worst fears were realized.

Now, I want to illustrate the continuing frustration we feel in our communities regarding the government's lack of actually listening to the concerns of the community, whether it be Cowichan Tribes or the Shawnigan community's concerns for the contamination of their watershed. All of this is only magnified when you look at the position Cowichan Tribes have taken and shared with the community regarding their concerns and their representations to government on the upcoming Water Act modernization process.

[1500]

Please, if you do anything, just listen a little bit to what First Nations say in their submission to government regarding the Cowichan River and all that it means to them:

"Water is an integral part of the livelihood and existence of the Cowichan people. To us it is sacred. We have relied on water since time immemorial, and we take on the responsibility to look after it with the objective of keeping it clean and pure. Our water is essential to our cultural and spiritual needs, particularly related to traditional sources of food. Cowichan people have always fished and harvested from the rivers and the sea in our traditional territory."

And they want to continue to do so.

It was really striking. In fact, a lot of us just stopped for a moment. We were at a watershed conference just weeks ago with people from all over Canada, actually from all over the world. All kinds of biologists and specialists and scientists who knew about water and watersheds were at this conference.

The former chief of Cowichan Tribes, Lydia Hwitsum, really had everybody awestruck in her point that, really, they had some very simple principles in mind. They said at the watershed conference that they wanted one day to see the First Nations and Cowichan Tribes be able to harvest the seafood like the clams that were once abundant and once available in Cowichan Bay. It's been closed since the 1970s as a result of pollution and fecal coliform levels being so high that they can't eat the contaminated fish.

It really was stunning to stop and think about what we have done to our water and to our watershed — that this chief had grown up as a little girl and remembers the day that they once used to be able to actually harvest the seafood. They can't do it anymore, and she'd really like to live long enough to see a day where they could once again harvest the seafood.

"The current Water Act" — which was put in place back in 1909 — "is based on the colonialist approach of the time," they point out, "with First Nations' interests dismissed outright. Revamping or modernizing the Water Act is long overdue, and Cowichan Tribes want to express our concern that this process needs to be based on aboriginal rights and title to the water in our territory. Therefore we take the stand that this process needs to be based on 'duality of ownership' and that the province does not assume it has jurisdiction over water, nor is it the sole authority to delegate management of water in our territory."

I pause there to make the point that it's interesting that back in 1909 they established some principles, the kind of first in, first rights principle that gave people continuing rights. Even today some of those rights have been sold and are treated as…. I mean, they are like gold to whoever had the rights to water, and water in areas….

It's unfortunate that the First Nations are claiming that even today there doesn't seem to be any rights of the duality of ownership for First Nations who live in areas that they've been assigned — "Water Issues in Cowichan Traditional Territory":

"Cowichan people and culture have always been intimately connected to the watershed. Because of the placement of reserve lands by the federal government, most of us live in the floodplain of the Cowichan or Koksilah rivers."

Well, that was convenient of them, eh? The feds thought that it was the right thing to do to give them the floodplain.
[ Page 1330 ]

"Every year a large portion of the reserves are flooded and our members are forced to leave their homes. Much of this flooding is caused by unchecked activities in our watershed" — urbanization, poor logging practices. "Not only does the flooding affect our homes; it also further increases the contamination of our wells and our rivers.

[1505]

"Cowichan Tribes reserves have a total of 50 wells, including ten community wells. There are boil-water advisories on approximately 90 percent of these wells. Clearly, Cowichan Tribes needs more control over activities in the watershed that affect our culture and the well-being of our communities."

Cowichan Tribes apparently is currently in litigation — I guess along with the teachers; they're in line for the courts — with the province over a water issue.

"We took this step because the province was not listening to us" — oh, there's a familiar theme — "by way of many letters and phone calls, specifically with regard to issuing land tenure on Crown land for the access to a well. Despite our pleas to not issue this tenure and the fact the Crown land is on the treaty table, the province denied our aboriginal rights and permitted tenure to the proponent. Cowichan Tribes is confronted with water issues now" — the pressure is on the resource in a very heavy way — "and we simply cannot wait for a stalled treaty process to accommodate our need to protect the sacred resource.

"In 2004 Cowichan Tribes initiated a project to develop a strategic recovery plan for fish and aquatic resources within the Cowichan watershed, which includes the Cowichan and Koksilah rivers and the Cowichan estuary. The Cowichan Recovery Plan was completed in 2005, and in 2007 the Cowichan basin water management plan was developed by a partnership consisting of Cowichan Tribes, the Cowichan Valley regional district, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Catalyst Paper Corp."

They, by the way, have a large say in the river. They have rights to almost a third of the water in the summertime.

"The partnership resulted in the Cowichan Tribes–led Cowichan Stewardship Roundtable, which includes all the stakeholders from the Cowichan Valley interested in watershed management issues….

"The advisory board is a model for what is working with respect to water and watershed management in the Cowichan Valley. It is also a model for what will work as a future governance model under a modernized Water Act.

"Cowichan Tribes has always had involvement in numerous restoration and stewardship activities. This year our aboriginal fisheries department is working to develop a 'vision document' for the purpose of clarifying the role that Cowichan wishes to take in rebuilding the Cowichan River chinook…."

I might stop here and add that Cowichan Tribes are the largest First Nations group in British Columbia — the largest band, group of bands. There are six major bands that are involved in Cowichan Tribes.

"At a recent community meeting Cowichan members were asked 'what was their "vision" for the watershed and its fisheries.' Comments included Cowichan Tribes having more control over their traditional territory and greater power over decisions involving development, land use, water quality and quantity.

"The Cowichan community strongly expressed the desire to see a clean and healthy watershed in the future to allow for the preservation of spiritual and ceremonial uses as well as to provide access to clean and healthy food. A Cowichan elder stressed the importance of protecting the watershed through partnerships and shared stewardship. The only way that this partnership can work is to begin dialogue around the duality of water ownership….

"As outlined in the opening caveat of this submission," we believe that "the process by which the Water Act is being modernized is flawed. There are also underlying assumptions that must be discussed with First Nations."

I see that the clock is running out, and I want to talk about the community, the CVRD. The watershed put forward a group of recommendations which I'll be expounding on later.

One of them that's critical is the fundamental concern of the whole-of-watershed planning and management. There is a serious concern that we're still going back, in the 1909 amendments, to the thinking that is outdated and antiquated in that we're not planning and managing on the basis of the entire watershed, or whole-of-watershed planning and management.

[1510]

"We believe" — in Cowichan — "that the legislation is...flawed because it does not empower whole-of-watershed management. Although water sustainability plans would be allowed for, at its core the primary focus of the legislation continues to be water allocation. We respectfully submit that in order to ensure adequate flows, good water quality, sustainable fish populations, other ecosystem services and a sustainable economy, we must plan and set clear objectives at the watershed…level."

J. Yap: I am honoured to take my place in this debate on the Speech from the Throne.

I appreciate the very passionate comments of my friend from Cowichan Valley. I was listening very carefully, and I do appreciate…. I was listening for any allegations of jiggery-pokery; there were none. He did focus a lot on a theme that obviously is very important to him and his constituents, and I look forward to his support for the water act when it comes forward to this House this session.

I also heard the member talk about listening. He referred to that a number of times in his presentation. Our government, this side of the House, listened carefully, and we provided a positive vision to British Columbians. In May of 2013 they responded and endorsed our vision for British Columbia. I'd like to focus, in the time that I have, on the vision that is laid out in the throne speech, a speech which lays out our government's plans for the coming months. I will be speaking in enthusiastic support of this vision and this throne speech.

I first of all want to make a series of thanks. I know all members share the same obligation that I do to people who work with us, who support us, who care for us. I have a list here, as other members do, to say thank you too. I want to start out by thanking my constituency office staff, Paige Robertson, Po-Wah Ng and Hagan Dietz-Rosales, who toil daily in my constituency office and work to represent me and to help solve problems that constituents from time to time bring to our office.

I also want to thank the staff here in Victoria who work so hard for all members — in particular, my legislative assistant Janta Quigley, research staff Gurpreet Vinning and communications officer Monika Weatherly. These are just some of the people that work so hard on our behalf. In my
[ Page 1331 ]
riding I have so many people that I really have to thank, but I will want to single out two in particular: my riding association president and vice-president, Ray Holme and Michael Chiu, for their great support and hard work and volunteerism on behalf of myself and our team.

Last but not least, I certainly want to thank the people who are most important to me, my family — my wife, Suzanne, and my two adult children, Lisa and Michael, who I'm so proud of. They have given me their unconditional support and love, and give me the strength to do the work that means something on behalf of the constituents of Richmond-Steveston and the people of British Columbia — the work that we do, not just here in Victoria in this House but in Richmond-Steveston and throughout the communities.

[1515]

My constituents expressed very clearly to me before and after May of 2013 what was truly important to them. As all of us were embarking on that grand undertaking of reaching out to the people of British Columbia, I heard at the doorstep…. When I went throughout my riding, I heard loud and clear that the people of my riding, Richmond-Steveston, wanted a government to look after the economy.

They wanted a government to ensure that there were opportunities not just for themselves but for their children and their grandchildren. These were clearly the comments, these were clearly the dreams, and these were clearly the requests of the people of Richmond-Steveston.

Going closely along with that, in addition to providing the framework for great economic opportunities for British Columbians, the people of my riding wanted us to contain government spending, to keep government affordable for British Columbians. That was clearly what people were asking for. This government, this throne speech, lays out a plan that will deliver on these commitments. It's economic development that will provide the opportunities that will sustain communities, that will allow us to have the revenues as government to provide the needed public services that we all value.

My riding, Richmond-Steveston, includes a beautiful portion of our west coast. Richmond is a microcosm of the multicultural population that is our beloved province, British Columbia. Lots of activities happen in my riding that reflect a pride in what we have and what we need to continue to work towards. I spoke earlier today on the desire of a number of my constituents to work towards achieving a designation of world heritage site for the village of Steveston. That's something that reflects on how people feel about our community and the volunteerism, the real feeling of community and pride in what we have.

All of this ties back to the need for us to have a strong economy. B.C. is now leading the way in Canada. We have an enviable record of achievement. I mentioned government spending, keeping government affordable. As we know, B.C. is one of only two provinces — two provinces in Canada — that will achieve a balanced budget this fiscal year.

Now, I know for some, including perhaps members on the other side, a balanced budget may not be, you know, the thing to talk about. But when you think about the challenges that other provinces are facing, provinces that are struggling to control spending, provinces that are struggling to achieve what we have through the vision of our government, of our Minister of Finance, our Premier, members of the government side, we will achieve a balanced budget, and that will allow British Columbia to be well-positioned for a great economic future.

Part of this future involves reviewing regulations and laws that have been in place for some time, and the throne speech talked about the work that I had the privilege of being involved in as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform. That work was a comprehensive review of the liquor laws and regulations that have been in place in British Columbia for many years.

This was a comprehensive public engagement by government that truly was unique. The website attracted over 76,000 visits. We received 3,500 e-mails, over 4,000 blog comments. People were engaged. Whatever the topic, people were engaged on the aspect of looking at and modernizing liquor laws in British Columbia.

I had the opportunity of travelling through regions of the province to meet with stakeholders on the entire spectrum of liquor policy. There were 75 in-person stakeholder meetings and presentations. As a result of this review, we came up with a series of recommendations, 73 in total, and a report that has been made public that will modernize liquor laws, regulations, in a balanced way, recognizing that while there are economic opportunities, opportunities for communities, there is also the imperative of balancing these opportunities with the social and health aspects of liquor reform.

[1520]

The reforms will support manufacturers: our wonderful wine-producing industry, our emerging craft beer industry and craft spirits throughout the province, and the hospitality sector and tourism, which touches virtually the entire province — opportunities for continued economic development. I'm proud that the government has accepted these recommendations to move British Columbia forward with modern liquor regulations to reflect the lifestyles of British Columbians in today's world.

The Speech from the Throne is a blueprint, a blueprint for moving British Columbia forward. One of the crucial strategies laid out in the throne speech — which we've been focused on and which we'll continue to work on — is that great opportunity provided by liquefied natural gas, a new industry that will take advantage of the great natural gas assets of British Columbia. It's an opportunity to create investment and jobs, jobs that will support communities throughout the province — not just in the areas where the industrial activity would take place dir-
[ Page 1332 ]
ectly, in the northeast section of the province and on the north coast.

This imminent development of a new liquefied natural gas industry will help all British Columbians continue to grow our economy. We've heard numbers. This is a generational opportunity. While some will take potshots at the good work that's being done by our government and, in particular, the minister responsible for liquefied natural gas, it is forecast that LNG development would add $1 trillion to GDP over the next generation. LNG would create 100,000 jobs for British Columbians over the next number of years.

This is a great opportunity to receive the kind of economic development and opportunities for tax revenues that will allow us to eventually retire the provincial debt.

I mention that this is an opportunity for British Columbians throughout the province. Our government is working hard to ensure that there is opportunity for entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized businesses, to have a chance to win some of the business throughout every aspect of the liquefied natural gas industry as it develops. Buy B.C. That will be the mantra of our government, to give B.C. companies — small and medium-sized companies — a chance to be suppliers to the LNG industry as it develops.

One such company that is really looking forward to this is a company owned by a constituent of mine. Ari Burstein owns Marcon metal fabricators, a company that started from humble beginnings. It started in the marine industry and diversified into metal fabrication for transportation-sector assets. It's really looking forward.

Right now they employ 75 people and are already in discussions with potential major contractors that will develop some of the infrastructure for LNG. This company, owned by my constituent, will have an opportunity to bid on that business, and without a doubt, as this progresses, he will need to hire more employees — more job opportunities for his company because of this LNG opportunity.

Liquefied natural gas will also help address the effects of climate change. We know that the demand for liquefied natural gas is drawn from our Asian trading partners — in particular, from China. As we see the opportunity for our cleaner-burning liquefied natural gas being transported to those parts of the world to displace other fossil fuels, this will have a positive impact on climate change.

[1525]

There's no doubt this won't be easy. Nothing worthwhile is easy to achieve. There will be a lot of hard work that will need to be done. Again, the throne speech lays out a vision for us to work towards to achieve great things for British Columbia.

We are an open trading economy here in British Columbia. The throne speech talks about the great opportunities for us to continue to build our economy by increasing trade opportunities. Our Premier has led four successful trade missions to Asia. These trade missions have led to billions of dollars in new investments and opportunities for our province.

One of the major infrastructure assets for British Columbia and indeed Canada is YVR — Vancouver International Airport, located in Richmond. It's one of the most important employers and economic generators for Richmond, for my community. As a gateway to British Columbia — as British Columbia is a gateway to Canada and, indeed, North America — it is so important for us to continue to build on those opportunities.

Our Asia-Pacific priority strategies include developing and attracting more people with the kinds of skills that will help position B.C. as the premier destination to do business, to invest, to settle, to raise a family.

As we work on achieving this vision, I can see that my community of Richmond is well positioned to continue to be a part of this great economic development that is British Columbia.

The throne speech lays out a great vision, but it also touches on a number of important issues that all of us support.

The issue of ensuring that we recognize our shared history. I'm very pleased to hear the commitment in the throne speech to move forward soon with an apology to the people of British Columbia of Chinese heritage, of which I'm one. This is a formal apology from this House that will address the fact that a couple of generations ago life was different. Life was different, and people viewed the world differently. There was systematic discrimination against some groups, including Canadians of Chinese heritage.

I'm proud of the fact that a lot of work has been done. I appreciate the work of the Minister of International Trade in working collaboratively with members of the opposition to bring forward a motion to this House that will clearly enunciate a formal apology from the province of British Columbia to the community for what had happened all those years ago.

As I conclude my comments, let me say this. While we may have differences of opinion on how to approach problem-solving, I think we all agree, whichever side of the House that any member should sit, that we do live in a terrific part of the world here in British Columbia, in Canada. We have achieved so much together. British Columbia is one of the most beautiful places, a place in the world where you can come here, you can do business, raise a family. It's something that we can all be proud of.

This throne speech lays out a vision that will ensure that with continued hard work, we will continue to make British Columbia the best place on earth.

[1530]

A. Weaver: With the 2014 Speech from the Throne, the British Columbia government has once again conveyed its goal of creating jobs, controlling spending and building an economy that is not erected on the backs of
[ Page 1333 ]
future generations.

Like the government, I, too, believe this is possible. In fact, I believe that the long-term economic prosperity of British Columbia will ultimately depend on us meeting this goal. It will depend on our ability to transition our economy to one that meets the needs of today without sacrificing the welfare of future generations.

However, with this belief comes my assertion that we are not there, that there is more to be done — a lot more to be done. We need a vision coupled to a concrete plan of action to get us there. In 2008 we had such a vision of this economy. It manifests itself along the climate action plan, and with its inception, we as a province set out on a new path. British Columbians led not only our country but our continent as we found innovative ways to begin the transition to a strong low-carbon economy.

In 2008 we had a plan to transition ourselves to this economy, one that was grounded in evidence and accountable to clear, measurable targets. The goal was to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. We were on track to achieve this goal. However, under the vision of the current throne speech, I'm afraid to say that we will certainly fail.

When I respond to the budget, I'll elaborate on this concern in more detail. Today, however, I'd like to focus on the government's bold assertion that LNG development is "the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change." According to the throne speech, LNG production could reduce China's emissions by over 90 megatonnes a year. Leaving aside the fact that no credible international climate body would offer greenhouse gas reduction credits to a jurisdiction for producing greenhouse gases, let's still look at the overall numbers.

In 2011 British Columbia emitted 62 megatonnes of carbon pollution. Our legislated goal is to reduce our emissions to 43 megatonnes by 2020 and to 13 megatonnes by 2050. If LNG is to decrease Chinese emissions by 90 megatonnes per year, we will have to produce it. What this means is that while China could decrease its emissions, we will certainly increase ours. The question is: how much will our own emissions increase? And how will this affect our own provincially legislated climate targets?

Let's take a look at the numbers. According to the Pembina Institute, if we are to meet the government's revenue projections from LNG, we would need at least five LNG plants. These plants would emit roughly 73 megatonnes of carbon pollution per year. That's nearly double our 2020 target and more than five times our 2050 target.

What does this all mean? It means that selling LNG to China so that it might decrease its carbon emissions means that we in B.C. will have no choice but to throw our own targets out the window. Forget the laws. Forget the rhetoric. The science says it's impossible. We will be throwing away the certainty of our own climate targets for the possibility of them meeting theirs.

If we are to walk away from leadership, if we are to turn our backs on our climate targets and ignore the laws we set for ourselves, what does that say about our resolve in the face of adversity? In 2008 we boldly committed to address one of the greatest challenges of our time. In 2014 it would seem we have boldly committed to perpetuate it, if not even accentuate it.

Just this past week John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, was in Indonesia, where he described global warming as perhaps the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. He further stated: "Terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — all challenges that know no borders. The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them."

As Britain dealt with historical floods across its nation last week, the Guardian newspaper celebrated Valentine's Day with a front-page story by Sir Nicholas Stern, the esteemed economist. It was entitled: "Climate Change Is Here Now. It Could Lead to Global Conflict. Yet the Politicians Squabble."

[1535]

Floods in Calgary and Britain, record droughts in California and Vancouver Island, record-breaking heat and fires in Australia, devastation in the Philippines from Typhoon Haiyan and in New York from Hurricane Sandy — the list is growing, and the problem is getting more and more serious. I reiterate: yet the politicians squabble.

Look around this chamber, and ask yourselves what you and your caucuses are doing to address this, the greatest challenge of our time. Are you cheerleaders for the fossil fuel industry and the B.C. LNG pipedream? Are you so busy playing the game of gotcha politics that you've lost touch with the reason why you are here?

Coming back to the LNG plan outlined in the throne speech, there's another issue. If we are to double down on LNG exports and consider them for their impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, what about our other exports that increase global greenhouse gas emissions? Will they be counted, as well, or will they be conveniently left out of the calculations?

Let me offer just one specific example: thermal coal. Right now British Columbia exports 20 mega tonnes of thermal coal each year. The vast majority of this coal is shipped in from the United States and Alberta and does not contribute to B.C. jobs the way metallurgical coal does here in our province.

Washington, Oregon and California, our partners in the Pacific coast action plan on climate and energy, have so far said no to thermal coal exports. With their export limits in place, American producers are looking for new export ports, and so over the next two years we will see a 20-mega tonne increase in thermal coal exports through British Columbia. That's a total of 40 mega tonnes of thermal coal each year, between the existing and the proposed expansion of exports.
[ Page 1334 ]

If we are to boast that LNG exports would be "the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change," that they would decrease, somehow, Chinese emissions by 90 megatonnes a year, then we must also consider how much our other exports increase global carbon emissions. If we look at reliable scientific estimates, the 40 mega tonnes of thermal coal we will be exporting will add over 100 megatonnes of carbon pollution to our atmosphere each year.

The fact is that while we could possibly reduce Chinese emissions by 90 megatonnes, we will certainly increase emissions from coal exports to 100 megatonnes. Forget 90 megatonnes in savings. We will have just increased net emissions by ten megatonnes from coal exports alone.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we ban coal exports or in any way limit our metallurgical coal industry in British Columbia. I'm talking specifically about the expansion of thermal coal exports that originate outside our province. When those are factored in, the numbers just don't add up.

I therefore stand today to introduce an amendment to the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do not introduce this amendment as a matter of confidence in the government. I introduce it as a contribution to the debate about the consistency of the government's vision of an economy that does not unnecessarily burden future generations.

[Be it resolved that the motion "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:

"and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest issues facing our Province and that this government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the current expansion of United States sourced thermal coal exports coming through British Columbia harbours, and therefore calls upon this government to follow the lead of our Pacific Coast Action Plan Partners, Washington, Oregon and California, and explore all means by which the government may halt the expansion of thermal coal exports in British Columbia."]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: For the government to claim credit for their LNG export emissions, the government would have to undergo a massive effort to systematically account for all emissions from exports, whether increasing or decreasing global emissions. If the government wants to persist with this approach to global emissions reductions, then a starting point would be to halt the increase in thermal coal exports.

Deputy Speaker: The member is speaking to his amendment now, is he?

A. Weaver: Yes, I'm speaking to my amendment now.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Proceed.

A. Weaver: Anything short of this would be inconsistent and irresponsible. The government could try and hide behind claims that coal exports and rail transport somehow fall within federal jurisdiction, but the reality is that there is much that the province can do.

[1540]

The vision laid out in this amendment could be incorporated into the Pacific coast action plan on climate change and energy, within its mandate to harmonize 2050 targets for greenhouse gas reductions and cooperate with national and subnational governments around the world to press for international agreement on climate change in 2015.

Our partners in the action plan are already leading the way on thermal coal expansion. We could join them in their leadership.

Building a strong economy that meets the needs of today without sacrificing the welfare of future generations isn't easy. It asks of us the audacity to find new ways to build our economy by investing in low-carbon sectors. It requires of us the resolve to meet our legislative targets even in the face of adversity. It calls on us to be consistent from one sector to the next, from 2008 through to 2050 and beyond.

Let us demonstrate that audacity, that resolve and that consistency here today, and let us take our next step together and begin with a conversation about thermal coal before it's too late.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to congratulate the member opposite for the innovation of his amendment. The fact that he has taken the time, made the effort to understand the rules of this place enough that he understands the opportunity to do what he's done today, I think is admirable. However, I do rise to speak in opposition to his motion.

I am with him, and I think that most members of the House are with him, in spirit in terms of his comments about the reduction of carbon emissions. But from a practical perspective, we on this side of the House just cannot support the suggestion that we should start to pick commodities that we're going to allow to pass through our province.

It's thermal coal in this case, and the member mentioned that there is thermal coal currently passing through the ports here on the west coast. Actually, about 30 percent of all of the coal that passes through our west coast in B.C. is thermal coal.

Coal has been shipped out of B.C. for well over 100 years. It's one of the most important industries that we have in the province.
[ Page 1335 ]
It's one of the oldest industries that we have in the province.

One of the reasons that I'm standing here today speaking to the motion is because I come from a region of the province where there are five large operating coal mines. Every day about six or eight trains come from the Elk Valley, all the way over on the Alberta border, all the way down here to the Lower Mainland, out to the ports where they off-load their coal. Most of that coal — not all of it but most of it — is shipped to Asia.

There are literally — no exaggeration — thousands and thousands of very high-paying jobs, union jobs, that are associated with that coal industry and also with the transportation side of the industry, the railroad side of the industry — an amazing number of family-supporting jobs associated with CPR and CN Rail participation in this coal industry and, of course, some very high-paying, again, union jobs at all of the ports.

The member didn't say this in his statement today, but I was doing a little bit of research on this. He mentioned the other day to the media that he didn't think the job impact from allowing U.S. coal to go through our B.C. ports was significant. I would suggest to the member that it is significant. Those jobs at the ports that we have here on the west coast are important jobs to the families who have them. And if we can have more family-supporting, high-paying union jobs here on the west coast without doing anything that's irresponsible, then we should be looking to do that.

I think one of the troublesome aspects of the member's motion for me personally is picking a commodity that we decide should not pass through our jurisdiction. I suspect that there's Canadian uranium passing through our jurisdiction. I actually don't know that, but it gets to Asia somehow or other. We've sold our Candu reactors to some Asian countries, so I suspect there's been Canadian uranium passing through our ports for many, many years. Should we stop that?

[1545]

Should we stop the potash that comes out of Saskatchewan? Potash is a valuable commodity, but put in the wrong place, used in the wrong way, it's actually quite dangerous and quite harmful. Perhaps we should stop shipping potash through our ports as well.

I don't want to take it to the ridiculous level, but maybe even B.C. wine…. Some people think alcohol is bad for you. Perhaps we shouldn't allow it to be transferred through our ports here in British Columbia. I don't mean to insult the member, who is highly intelligent, unlike some folks. I just want to make the point that I think it's dangerous to just pick a commodity and say: "Okay, we're not going to allow that to pass through British Columbia."

We have a set of rules. We have hundreds of different pieces of legislation in this province, thousands of regulations that maintain public safety, that make sure the things we do are safe and responsible for the public and for the workers that come into contact with those processes. I think we should allow our rules and regulations to govern what happens and not start picking winners and losers.

I also would suggest — and I know the member who made the motion understands this very well — that innovation and technology have found solutions for all kinds of things that we once thought were impossible to do.

For example, ten years ago I don't think that anybody thought it was going to be possible to extract the natural gas from the shale seams that exist in the northeastern part of this province and, in fact, seem to exist in many places around the world. We didn't have the technology to do it. We've known that the gas was there for 100 years, but we didn't know how to get it out of the ground.

The parallel here is that recently, in Saskatchewan, SaskPower announced that they have developed a process to remove the carbon dioxide from their thermal coal such that when they generate electricity with that coal, it's done in a way that's actually even cleaner than natural gas. What I'm suggesting is that before we pass judgment on this one particular commodity, we should give science and technology and innovation the opportunity to teach us whether, in fact, we can use that fuel in a way that is more responsible.

There is no question on this side of the House about our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint in this province. All experts, certainly that I'm familiar with, have indicated that the best way that a small jurisdiction like British Columbia can do its part in the world to reduce carbon emissions is to start getting our natural gas exported to countries like China and Korea and Japan. World energy folks have said that. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

I think that to refer to the LNG opportunity as a pipedream, as clever as that is in the play on words, is actually naive and disrespectful of all of the people who are going to benefit from this industry. The LNG opportunity in this province is not a pipedream; it's real.

There are companies that are spending upwards of a billion dollars today to improve their site. This money is spent. They're doing this. There are companies that are acquiring land in the northwest to put their LNG developments on. It's not a pipedream. It is the most glorious and most important opportunity that this province has had in probably 100 years, and I think to turn your back on it is actually irresponsible.

It is a complex challenge, and the member makes good points in terms of what the various jurisdictions can do to reduce their carbon emissions. We are proud of what we've been able to accomplish here in British Columbia. We are reducing our carbon emissions. We're proud of the leadership position that we have.

It's an exaggeration to say that somehow or other we're behind California or Washington or Oregon. They have not made decisions that U.S. thermal coal will not pass through their ports. Those initiatives are underway, are
[ Page 1336 ]
being heard as we speak, and they will make decisions on their own.

I'm certainly proud of what British Columbia has done to reduce its carbon emissions. As well-intentioned as the motion is, I believe that it is impractical, and this side of the House will not be supporting it.

[1550]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I didn't even say a word, and the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was already applauding. I think we're starting well. It's good to be back in the House. I'll take credit even if it's not due me, but he was applauding his friend. There you go.

I just wanted to thank the hon. Speaker for having me speak and the member for his amendment, because it's sparked a debate here in this House — a debate we need to have more often, a discussion we need to have more often — which is about climate change and the climate crisis which is plainly staring us in the face. Maybe because it's been staring us in the face for so long now, we've just gotten used to it.

Unfortunately, I don't think this throne speech and the amendment which tries to fix it do the job justice. I think, as we've seen, that this government mouths platitudes. They say they feel our pain about climate change and then do nothing — in fact, work hard in some ways to actually exacerbate the problem. And that is a crisis. That is a problem for our generations today and our generations to come.

The member has put forward an amendment. He's offered his suggestion of one way that we could address climate change. He's also, of course, in his other life and here in this House spoken about other ways. But I think that if we're going to amend the throne speech, we need to amend it in such a way that we can support it, and amending this throne speech with this amendment will not make this throne speech supportable.

A bad throne speech, a bad vision, is still a bad vision, even if you amend it with one small change which may address one part of climate change in the discussion but doesn't deal with the reality that B.C. should have a plan, needs a plan, must have a plan but doesn't have one.

We need real action to reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions, and that should have been in the throne speech. We need real action now to do that, because it's a cost which is costing us more and more each day.

But of course the throne speech can't be amended just to address one aspect if it's so vacant and bare in others. Child poverty — the worst province in Canada for years upon years upon years which, of course, means selling out our future opportunities, selling out the kids of today and our future economy. We also have other challenges, whether it's health care and the fact that it's getting harder for some people to access it, social services not getting the attention they need to make sure we have communities that work for everyone, and so on.

Madame Speaker: Member, can I draw you back to debate on the amendment?

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

A real plan for climate action in B.C. is needed because the realities of climate change are hurting our economy today. They're hurting our society today. I think you look at the pine beetle, something that we've talked about here many, many, many times, and it affects many of our communities. What caused it? The pine beetle, you'll say, but what caused the pine beetle to continue reproducing through the winter so that it could expand throughout such vast swaths of British Columbia, killing tree after tree after tree? Well, that was climate change. That is a real impact today.

Sometimes people say we should act now to address climate change for our grandchildren. Well, we should act now to address climate change for us today, because the reality of it is here. Thousands upon thousands of jobs lost because of climate change. Alberta hit with the worst environmental disaster in its history because of climate change, spending billions upon billions due to storm damage. Our neighbours to the south in California, of course, a drought of historic proportions; and to the east an ice storm of historic proportions.

It seems you turn on the news today and you hear about weird weather just about everywhere and often described as the worst storm in known history — all because of climate change.

So when people say we need to act to fight climate change and we hear back from the other side, "Oh, that'll cost money," well, it's costing us money doing nothing now. It's costing us way more now and way, way more in the future unless we act today. Hurricane Sandy on the eastern seaboard — they say the damage from that one storm is up to $65 billion. This is not a problem for the future but for today.

What does that look like? The House will remember that we voted to cut our emissions by 33 percent of 2007 levels by 2020. A 33 percent cut — that's a sizeable cut. The initial plan identified that as a big goal to reach but one that we could reach if we put our minds together and if we collectively acted. Yet when I ask for a plan today, when I ask the government today, "What's the plan to do that?" — nothing. There is no plan. You search for it through freedom of information. They have no plan beyond today, aside from stepping on the gas.

[1555]

A plan to fight climate change would invest in transit. Yet this government refuses, costing us $1.5 billion annually, according to the board of trade, and untold costs to our health and, of course, the climate.

A plan to fight climate change would invest in green energy retrofits to help people reduce their own gas consumption, insulate homes and public buildings, and save
[ Page 1337 ]
power. Yet the government largely cut that program.

A plan to address climate change, and this is happening down in the United States now, would actually have the environmental assessment and the environmental impact assessment processes consider the cumulative impacts of industrial development, including the results of climate change in industries where there are high emissions. Yet for project after project, including projects which are being considered for implementation now, this government refuses and passes the buck. We need to know the costs of development, not just the purported benefits.

A plan to fight climate change would take into account the real cost of pollution. If you talk to people in the oil and the gas industry, they've been talking about how they know that there will have to be a price put on carbon. They know there'll have to be a price put on pollution. They know that they should be paying their fair share, because they're putting pollution and the cost of that on our children. Yet this government refuses to even consider actions which other governments have taken in that regard.

Now these are just a few items, a few possibilities we should debate, discuss and consider if we're serious about addressing climate change, if we're serious about creating a prosperous future and if we're serious about creating thousands more jobs for British Columbia. So I'd invite the other side to take action, to consider a plan, to actually bring a real plan that invites British Columbians to get their best, not a plan which is myopic and forgets the future.

I thank the member for raising his amendment and for raising the big gaping hole in this Legislature, which will be looked back by our children and our children's children with concern, with the question of: "You started to act, but then you stopped. Why? Why are you selling out our future?" It's a future that needs a stable climate, not a climate of crisis, not a climate where we burn and burn and burn and lose the species and many of the habitats and the agriculture and the forests and the things that we all hold so dear — our salmon, of course, impacted by climate change as well.

These are all realities that we're facing. I urge this government to act, and I urge this government to bring in a real throne speech which has a real suite of policies, a real plan to address climate change.

One amendment, while I appreciate the spirit, doesn't quite do it. We need a real plan to address climate change, and we need it now.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to address the motion put forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I want to thank the member for his thoughtful motion and to allow this debate to happen on a very important topic. I want to congratulate the member, who's a recipient of the Queen's Jubilee Medal largely in recognition for his work on climate change and his involvement with the international panel on climate change.

This is something that is a serious problem for not just British Columbia but the entire world. As a former Minister of Environment, I certainly know and appreciate how important this is to British Columbians and to citizens the world over.

It is something that I'm very passionate about — someone who wants to ensure that our future is bright for our children and grandchildren, that in fact we do leave the world in a better place than we find it now and that the actions we take today don't impair the ability of our children and grandchildren to enjoy the future.

But it is very interesting to note the sheer hypocrisy of the member for Vancouver–West End, who represents the opposition — a member whose party campaigned in 2009 against the carbon tax. "Axe the tax" was the message from members of the opposition in 2009, campaigning against the first real tax on carbon pollution in the western world, something that we have been a leader in here in British Columbia.

[1600]

We have demonstrated to people around the world how to put a price on carbon. What has happened since that occurred, since that policy was put in place, is that the CO2 production in the province of British Columbia has decreased 6 percent since that time while our economy has increased, which puts the member's comments in perspective — the member from the opposition who said that our economy will suffer. Our economy has not suffered with our climate policies in place. Our economy has grown.

The member for Vancouver–West End talked about pine beetle. There is no question that climate change has an impact on parasites like the pine beetle, but it was that member's party who refused to take action at the early stages of the pine beetle. That allowed it to proliferate across the province, wreaking havoc on forest communities all over the province.

Then the member goes on to talk about storms and surge events as if there is a direct link to climate change. There very well may be an impact on CO2 emissions and storms and short-term climate incidents like Hurricane Sandy, but that evidence is far from settled. Yet the member speaks as if it's a foregone conclusion, which is just more evidence of the decision-making by the NDP, which is: "We will just make our minds up without any evidence to lead us to a proper decision."

This government has been a leader on climate action — $14.5 million in our clean energy vehicle program is but one of the programs that has demonstrated leadership. I was at the Tournament Capital Centre in the beautiful city of Kamloops last week, opening a DC quick-charging station allowing electric vehicles to be charged in 30 minutes, allowing electric vehicle owners to travel the breadth of our province without having to use any fossil fuels whatsoever.
[ Page 1338 ]

As a proud owner of a clean energy vehicle, an electric vehicle, I can tell you this is the technology of the future. This is the technology that this government has supported. This government, not the opposition, has supported the development of clean energy in the province of British Columbia. That member's party is opposed to clean energy in the province of British Columbia.

We met last week with a company that has over $1 billion of clean energy projects in the province of British Columbia, partnering with First Nations throughout the province to bring clean, green electricity and, also, economic development to many of those communities. We are proud of that record, and we are going to continue to address climate action.

If you read the International Energy Agency report, it will tell you that responsible development of shale gas will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The numbers have shown that with hydraulic fracturing and responsible development of natural gas, global greenhouse gas will fall, not rise. We are part of that solution, by developing our own natural gas resources here in the province of British Columbia.

It is only through natural gas that the largest drop in CO2 emissions in the history of any developed nation has occurred, in the United States, because natural gas is displacing thermal coal for the development of electricity, as it will in Asia, with British Columbia's clean natural gas available to them.

While I appreciate all that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has done on this file, and I congratulate him on his passion and his unswerving dedication to the health of the planet, I will not support this amendment, because this throne speech shows leadership in developing the true way forward to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will now put the question on the amendment.

[1605-1610]

Hon. Members, the question is on the amendment "that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest issues facing our province and that this government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the current expansion of United States sourced thermal coal exports coming through British Columbia harbours, and therefore calls upon this government to follow the lead of our Pacific Coast Action Plan Partners, Washington, Oregon and California, and explore all means by which the government may halt the expansion of thermal coal exports in British Columbia."

That is the question.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

D. Bing: It is an honour to return to this House. I speak in support of the Speech from the Throne.

Before I do so, however, I would like to recognize some of the people in my life who are responsible for my being here. I would first of all like to thank my wife, Helen, my partner for 36 years who has supported me, even knowing that my new career would have profound implications for her professional and personal life. Change is never easy, and I know my new role has been challenging for both her and her dental office staff.

I would like to recognize and thank my constituency assistants, Cheryl Ashlie and Gay Conn. As all MLAs know, we are only able to do what we do in Victoria because of our outstanding assistants back home who look after the needs of our constituents on our behalf.

I would also like to recognize the outstanding help of my legislative assistant, Heidi Scott, and my communications officer, Monika Weatherly, here in Victoria.

Finally, I would like to once again thank the people of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for the privilege of representing them in the Legislative Assembly.
[ Page 1339 ]

[1615]

That being said, I am pleased to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne is about building a better British Columbia for all of its citizens, controlling our spending, keeping taxes low, earning top credit ratings, attracting investment into our beautiful province, keeping life affordable so that our communities can continue to grow. It is about developing and maintaining a balance across all sectors of our economy.

Controlling spending means taking on fiscal responsibility, opening new markets, attracting new investments or acting on the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of LNG. We are making sure British Columbians are first in line for jobs. Our government prioritizes and makes choices. We have debated and passed a balanced budget. This plan must have all British Columbians in mind.

Nestled in the mountains outside of Vancouver are two picturesque communities, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. I'm proud to represent this riding. Both are ideal places to raise families. Sports, outdoor activities, arts, theatre, music — there's something for everyone.

Both communities have many small businesses. Working as the owner of a private dental practice with my wife for 33 years, I understand the concerns of small business. Small business fuels job creation, productivity and helps grow the economy. There are over 385,000 small businesses in B.C. This makes up 98 percent of all businesses provincewide.

By reducing our province's small business tax by 40 percent and lowering our corporate income tax by 10 percent by 2018, we are creating a favourable environment for job growth. In British Columbia small business plays a large part in the private sector. We're talking about companies with less than 50 employees, yet small business drives almost 55 percent of B.C. exports.

To further support small business, part of our strategy is to slash red tape and reduce the regulatory burden placed on companies. Excessive paperwork and making business jump through too many hoops creates a drag on the economy and ultimately costs us jobs. In the past 13 years the B.C. government has cut more than 154,000 regulatory requirements.

Our goal is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We are achieving this by working closely with local government in expanding the mobile business licence program. This past December both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows were two of nine Fraser Valley municipalities that agreed to extend the mobile business licence pilot program for two more years. This extension means it will continue to be easier for mobile businesses to provide services. Trades and businesses that can take part in the program include plumbers, electricians, architects, general contractors and mechanical engineers.

The three-year Maple Ridge town centre investment incentive finished in December 2013. This program has brought more than 40 projects and approximately $140 million in private investment to the town centre. The commercial components of the incentive have been extended until December 2014. This extension means that even more development projects can take advantage of program benefits, including reduced fees and up to six years of municipal tax exemption. A businessSTART program has been introduced that helps both new and existing businesses grow, connecting them to invaluable resources.

Communities need to be safe and secure in order to succeed. Safety and security come through developing a strong economy. Strengthening our economy comes through investing in our communities. British Columbia faces the same choice that the rest of the world faces: grow the economy, or manage decline. British Columbians chose economic growth. That is our focus.

Careful planning and a long-term perspective are crucial to strengthening our economy. To make sure British Columbians are first in line for the new job opportunities that are coming, we are launching a ten-year skills-training strategy.

There are lots of reasons for tourists to come to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Both are picturesque communities with majestic mountains, gorgeous lakes and streams, and picture-perfect farmland. Tourism is one of the backbone industries of my riding. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are a B.C. jobs plan pilot community working to create jobs in four primary industries: technology, education, tourism and agriculture. These sectors are all interconnected.

The True North Fraser is an excellent on-line resource that helps local agriculture and business promote their products and services.

[1620]

Agriculture is a major sector upon which my riding's local economy is built.

This past fall I was pleased to have the Agriculture Minister join me in touring some of the local agriculture businesses. We were joined on the tour by Mayors Deb Walters and Ernie Daykin to meet local farmers and discuss issues in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. While visiting, the minister learned about local concerns, including flood risks, the need for a new pumping station in Pitt Meadows and parrot's feather, a new invasive species infecting our waterways.

We also toured the Golden Ears Cheesecrafters, Hopcott Premium Meats and Hollandia Greenhouses. We learned more about how the agriculture industry contributes economically and culturally to both communities. The Buy Local program offers successful applicants matching funds of up to $100,000 to launch or expand local food marketing campaigns as part of a $2 million B.C. government effort to promote B.C. foods and agriculture products.
[ Page 1340 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Building the local market for B.C. foods is a key commitment of our government's agrifoods strategy, a component of the B.C. jobs plan to lead the agrifoods sector into a $14-billion-a-year industry by 2017. That comes from people staying in the community and helping build it, nurture it, contribute to its livelihood and contribute to its well-being. Furthermore, it helps keep money in our community and helps unify our community.

Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are proud to host over 80 festivals every year. From Pitt Meadows Day to the Caribbean Festival to the Santa Claus Parade, there is something for all ages. The bluegrass music festival is another fun summer highlight, with fiddles, banjos and acoustic guitars.

The annual country fair is another fantastic tradition. On our agriculture tour we met with the manager, Lorraine Bates, who organizes the fair every year. This is a free local event that has been running for 112 years. Country Fest gives people the chance to come out and celebrate agriculture in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

A significant birthday is occurring this year as the district of Maple Ridge turns 140, which will make it one of the oldest municipalities in the province. In 1874 a group of settlers met at John McIver's farm and decided that they should incorporate and become a municipality. At that time, there were less than 50 families living there, but these early pioneers saw the potential of their new home as a place to raise their families. With a vote of the assembled citizens, one of British Columbia's first municipalities was born.

The choice of the name came from the trees and the topography of John McIver's farm. There was an impressive stand of maple trees along the ridge that ran along the edge of the farm that followed the line of the Fraser River.

This new municipality officially became the district of Maple Ridge on September 12, 1874. Maple Ridge is planning to mark its birthday by changing its designation from a district to a city and soon will be known as the city of Maple Ridge.

This nicely segues to the other significant birthday in my constituency, the 100th birthday of the city of Pitt Meadows. Pitt Meadows is a warm and welcoming community. On behalf of Pitt Meadows, I would like to extend a warm welcome to everyone to come and visit during our centennial year.

Once a part of Maple Ridge, a dispute arose in 1914 over diking costs, and the citizens of Pitt Meadows decided to separate from Maple Ridge and form their own municipality. On April 26, 1914, the district of Pitt Meadows was incorporated, with a population at that time of about 500 residents. Today, nestled between the mighty Fraser River and the majestic Golden Ears mountains, Pitt Meadows is a dynamic community with a growing population of just under 19,000 people.

In celebration of Pitt Meadows' 100th birthday, there'll be lots of extra-special events this year, including a giant community birthday party on April 26, followed by a gala with guests wearing period clothes from the time. Traditional festivals such as Pitt Meadows Day, Canada Day, and a Pitt Meadows Christmas are expected to be the biggest and the best ever this year.

In addition to these events, commemorative and community art projects are planned. I wish to thank the curator, Leslie Norman, of the Pitt Meadows Museum, and the historical society for help with these projects. I'd also like to thank Rick Higgs, with the Pitt Meadows Day Society; Michael Hayes, of the Pitt Meadows Community Foundation; and Kathryn Baird, the parks and leisure services coordinator of special events; and Lorna Jones, communications director for the city of Pitt Meadows.

Finally, I would like to thank Erin Mark, the centennial coordinator, and her crew of volunteers, who've done a stellar job of organizing and creating community interest in all of these events.

[1625]

As a city councillor for Pitt Meadows, I have been able to witness local economic development and to be part of the decision-making process. There's been a number of outstanding projects I've worked on and have seen come to fruition. We've had a pedestrian-friendly civic centre built, an award-winning and LEED-certified South Bonson Community Centre and a new artificial turf field. We've also renovated our ice arenas, built a new library, a new seniors centre and a youth action park.

It has been a privilege serving on council for the past eight years, and I've enjoyed helping to build a better community. I'd like to thank the citizens of Pitt Meadows for their support over the past eight years.

While the agriculture industry is a natural industry that contributes to the health and the economy for British Columbians, it is also important for us to keep up with the digital age. Technology is already B.C.'s third-largest industry, with major hubs in Victoria, Vancouver and Kelowna. Technology is also one of Maple Ridge's main industries. The B.C. Technology Industry Association Centre4Growth has expanded to Maple Ridge.

The technology industry can provide significant advancements in many sectors of our economy. In health care, technology will improve patient care and health outcomes and reduce costs. In natural resource development, technology will improve safety and productivity. In education, it will allow us to build a personalized education for every single student. British Columbia has a thriving technology ecosystem today, with the potential to become an international leader.

While technology can help us compete on a global scale, face-to-face conversation and interaction is powerful too. Through my time on city council and during my time as an MLA, I have learned how effective it is to con-
[ Page 1341 ]
sult with people and to hear what is important to them. The more people are consulted, the more they will feel a part of the solution, rather than becoming upset because of misunderstanding or lack of receiving correct information.

We are consulting with British Columbians to reflect how British Columbians live today, to serve them better or to educate each other on what went wrong in the past. These include the disability white paper, the liquor policy review, the apologies for the Chinese community for historical wrongs.

The official apology which the Speech from the Throne announced will be introduced in the Legislature in the coming session and is also an area of interest to me. As a Canadian of Chinese heritage, whose grandparents came to this country over 100 years ago and experienced firsthand the historical wrongs which took place, I have been asked by the Minister of International Trade and Multiculturalism to be part of the conversation on this issue. Consequently, I have attended four of the seven official apology forums which have been held throughout the province, and I have followed the discussions with great interest.

It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. Canada today is regarded as one of the best countries in the world because of our reputation for tolerance, compassion, diversity, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Sadly, this was not the case 100 years ago, as evidenced by the legislative mistreatment of its Chinese citizens. That is why, when the apology is made, it will be a significant moment in the history of this province. The apology has been over 100 years in the making and is long overdue.

Standing up for human rights and against bullying, racism and discrimination is always the right thing to do. I am proud to be part of this Legislative Assembly, one that recognizes that misdeeds have occurred and which has the courage to apologize for our predecessors' historic wrong. An apology is a unique Canadian quality, in that few other countries ever say they are sorry for past misdeeds.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The apology is our way of saying that this province values diversity and respects the contributions of every single citizen. It is important. It connects community. One of my goals as a city councillor was to build a balanced municipality where every citizen felt valued and a respected part of their community. Diversity is one of our province's strengths.

In closing, moving forward is important. If you aren't moving forward, you're moving backward. Economic opportunity means creating more opportunities for all British Columbians.

[1630]

The road to a strong economy is not an overnight process. A strong economy comes from the day-to-day grind, working hard every day as we work towards securing tomorrow for our children and our grandchildren. That is why I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak in favour of the Speech from the Throne.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the throne speech.

Simgigyat, sigidim hanak, gan kubawilsx. That's an honorary greeting in Gitxsanimax, which is the Gitxsan language, one of the traditional territories on which I live and one of seven First Nations traditional territories the constituency of Stikine is overlaid upon.

Ax jabits. That's my Gitxsan name, the house group Dawamuxw that I was adopted into, part of the Fireweed clan, Gisgaast.

I would like to also acknowledge Nox mii leks, Sagytmuxw and Mus qui'in buhn — my nux, my wife, Nox mii leks, Mother of Red Berries; my oldest son, Sagytmuxw, One Who Knows the Fruits of His Labours; and my younger son, Mus qui'in buhn, which means Red Belly, and we all know that's the best part of the fish, best part of the salmon. They're all members of Wilp Gyologyet. Like all Gitxsan and many members of traditional First Nations in the northwest, the Gitxsan are a matrilineal society.

I just wanted to let the Speaker know that, just to alleviate any rising anxieties with the Hansard staff or members in the Legislature who might not understand the Gitxsanimax I spoke, I'll be providing a full translation and spelling to Hansard after my response to the throne speech today.

I'm very pleased, as I said, to take my place responding to last week's throne speech, especially after more than 200 days of this Legislature not sitting — a decision made by this government. I have lots to say about accountability of this government based on topics the constituents of Stikine have brought to me in that time and from my role as official opposition critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Today I'll demonstrate how the throne speech delivered by this government was a missed opportunity by the Premier, her cabinet and her backbench MLAs to put some substance in the slogans they continue to trot out so that they could attempt to garner at least a little trust that they intend to put into action the words that we heard.

The throne speech was full of slogans but absent of even a smattering of specifics. It's a reminder that the Premier and this government are still in campaign mode. She seems incapable of a governing mode, and that's what the people expect of the Premier.

Madam Premier, can you show that you can govern? One way is to provide details, not just slogans.

I've always taken a positive approach to work in this Legislature. During this response to the throne speech, which is supposed to be an outline of the vision of this
[ Page 1342 ]
government, I'll provide some suggestions about actually taking action to support the words they spoke last week.

First, I'd like to provide a little background on why people of Stikine have a healthy skepticism when it comes to megaprojects promoted by government over the years. Stikine was created — and many people might not know this in the Legislature — in 1862 by the governor of the colony of B.C., James Douglas.

It was an area more in the northern part of my constituency, but that's what they called Stikine. It's a Tlingit word meaning "a great river." The Tlingit are one of the seven First Nations whose traditional territories the current Stikine constituency is overlaid upon. There's Tlingit, Kaska, Tahltan. A little further south there's a little bit of Nisga'a territory, Gitanyow, Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en — so seven First Nations.

Even back then, the south — the areas of Victoria and Vancouver weren't even in existence then — had an eye on the resources of the north. I'll quote from a March 12, 1862, article in a paper called the Globe and Mail. I assume it was a paper in Victoria at the time.

[1635]

It says, "Stikine gold fever rages unabated in this community" — meaning Victoria. "Yesterday the explorers started northward with 35 adventurous gold hunters, and the fine schooner Rebecca is now on the berth for the same destination. Should the river be found open by explorers' people, no lapse of time will occur before we have reliable information as to the extent and character of the new diggings."

Stikine gold fever raged in Victoria then, and it still rages today, in that people of the southern regions of the province are benefiting from the resources in the northern part of the province.

Again, Stikine was one of four regions, along with the colony of B.C., amalgamated in 1871 to form the province. That's when B.C. joined confederation. If any of the people watching today make it down to Victoria and onto the grounds of the Legislature, there's a plaque on the fountain at the back of the Legislature commemorating Stikine as one of those four founding regions of the province of B.C.

The mining theme ran along quite significantly in the early stages of the constituency which I represent — again, the healthy skepticism that the people of my area have around government megaprojects.

The Skeena River rebellion happened in 1872. Miners were in the village of Gitsegukla along the Skeena River. They let a fire get out of control. It burned the village and 12 longhouses and the totem poles that were part of those longhouses. The miners refused to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, and neither did the fairly new provincial government in 1872. That resulted in a blockade by the Gitxsan chiefs of Gitsegukla on the Skeena River.

It's an early example of the extent that the Gitxsan had to go to get accommodation. A government-to-government meeting resulted in financial compensation. If you read the records of those times, you'll understand that the government of B.C. at the time really understood that the Gitxsan had authority over the lands and had an intact, very strong governance system, as they do today.

That government-to-government meeting resulted in 1872, and 142 years later, it is difficult even today for the First Nations in my constituency to get a meeting with this government on a government-to-government basis. The Office of the Wet'suwet'en has been waiting for that regarding developments on their territory. So 142 years later, it's still a difficult chore.

In 1866 the Collins overland telegraph was a megaproject in the area that I represent now. There was an entrepreneur who wanted to put in a telegraph line connecting San Francisco and Moscow. It was to make sure the United States and Europe were connected for economic and other reasons. There were 12,000 rations for workers brought up by steamboat to Hazelton.

Again, it was a megaproject, and big things were going to happen. It was abandoned in 1867, because an undersea cable was laid across the Atlantic. So it was the first failure of a megaproject that the people in my constituency, their ancestors, experienced.

In 1914 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was completed — the last spike near Fort Fraser was driven — and so we'll have a 100-year anniversary of that. I had dug up old brochures from Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of the development that they envisioned around South Hazelton in my constituency, depicting that it would become the Chicago of the north — great agriculture, great mining, great factories all portrayed in this brochure, along the banks of the Skeena.

Again, that project, that kind of development, never came to fruition, mainly because of the death of Charles Hays, who was the main backer and motivator behind the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He died on the Titanic. Then World War I came along and more successful routes to the south — again, the promise of megaprojects making a difference and not coming to fruition.

There was a political movement going on at this same time, and the province of B.C. and the federal government banned feasts in my area and across the province from 1884 to 1951. Feasts in my area are the same as potlatches on the coast. They're the fundamental unit where economic, political and other business is accomplished.

[1640]

By banning feasts, the federal and provincial governments were hoping that the First Nations in my area were not going to be able to organize themselves effectively against the incursions of government and miners and put up objections. They had been very successful in doing this.

In fact, in this period as well, the provincial and federal governments made it illegal for First Nations to raise
[ Page 1343 ]
money in legal defence of their aboriginal title actions — 1884 to 1951. Again, during this time residential schools in B.C. came into creation, 1861 to 1983. I think we have to remember that; 1983 was the last residential school in B.C. These were meant to destroy the Indian in the child. That is what Gitxsan people and others have portrayed this episode of our history as.

We are finding out recently that biomedical experiments were done on aboriginal children in these residential schools — evidence, 1948 to 1952, that they took place in the Alberni Residential School. I had people from my constituency who attended that school and had relatives who attended that school during that period. This is fresh history, and I will talk more about that later on.

Forcing people to move onto reserve happened during this period of time. In the Gitanyow, for instance, one of the hereditary chiefs — during this period and right up into the '50s, when his people were being forced to move onto reserve and off their traditional land base — resisted. He was sent to maximum security penitentiary Oakalla for his efforts.

Again, we have to put the actions of the government today in the context of history and why there has to be trust built up with First Nations and why I will point out that the government is not doing a good job of this opportunity.

We had a forestry failure as well in the late '90s, another megaproject with Repap, with mills all the way from Prince Rupert to the Hazeltons and Smithers. It continued through the early 2000s. In the early 2000s contractors got ten cents on the dollar. It was a reminder to us, those days, of what's happening right now with this provincial government on the tenure slot between West Fraser and Canfor in the Houston area — that again, the locals are the last ones to gain from these kinds of government-sanctioned actions.

Against this backdrop of healthy skepticism, I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the slogans that were in the throne speech, slogans that need detail and were not backed up with detail. One of the slogans we heard again, and it was from campaign days, was in reference to the LNG developments and "Debt-free B.C." In other words, the potential revenues could be used to retire the debt in B.C. This is the assertion of the government in their throne speech. But again, no evidence — none.

What could have been forthcoming in the throne speech were details on that, the legislative framework that the government wants to put in place around taxation, around royalties. This is what we have been waiting for, for a long time. We're waiting for a forthright, open discussion on LNG. The government, by not tabling this legislation, makes it prohibitive to even talk about whether "Debt-free B.C." is even in the books. In fact, there is no evidence on that.

What we heard was that the government missed their deadline in November on royalty and taxation, and some reference in the throne speech to, perhaps, later this year. We are going to miss it this session, though. You could have built up a little bit of trust by tabling that evidence right away so we could have had an informed debate about whether their assertion of a debt-free B.C. as a result of LNG is realistic or just a dream.

The LNG reference in the throne speech around reduction of greenhouse gases and the evidence being…. At least, the assertion in the throne speech is that under this government, if we actually can provide an LNG plant, and it actually provides LNG to China, it will make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, because therefore — this was out of the throne speech — China would reduce their coal-fired plants. Again, where is the evidence?

[1645]

In the throne speech, the detail could have been: "This is how we're conducting our discussions with China. We are conducting our discussions to say that if we export LNG to you, you will make an agreement to shut down coal-fired power plants in China, therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions." None of that was in the throne speech — again, no evidence.

There was a positive announcement just recently, just last month, from Clean Energy Canada. They put out a report called Lock in Jobs, Not Pollution. They had done an analysis on the LNG industry, and they said that if we as a province, if the B.C. Liberals as a government, insisted on LNG plants — if any do get built — and they use electricity to power their plants rather than burning gas, it could mean up to 45 percent more regional jobs and cut greenhouse gas emissions by a third.

This seemed to be a very positive aspect of potential LNG plants and Clean Energy Canada in their report: more jobs and less greenhouse gas emissions if the plants are required to operate their facilities on electricity. In fact, Norway, as the report pointed out, has built a plant on solely electric drive, and there is an electric drive LNG plant in Freeport, Texas, that's scheduled to start this year. As Merran Smith from Clean Energy Canada said: "It's not too late. Companies are still making plans and engineering this."

That could have been a good detail to include in the throne speech, just to go along with the slogan. If you want slogans, you have to have details, and it could have been a detail that the government is insisting upon electric drives, electricity providing the energy to these plants that are proposed.

However, and this would be in keeping with…. In 2012 the Premier said, "We have set a goal to have the cleanest LNG in the world. We want our LNG plants to be principally fuelled by renewables"— referring to electricity. The same year the then Minister of Natural Gas Development — and he still is — said: "We're trying to stay away as much as possible from having to use gas for power. We should reduce gas generation by using it to
[ Page 1344 ]
firm renewables."

Again, the government in 2012 was saying that they wanted to use electricity to power these plants. Right after this report came out, the current Minister of Energy and Mines just came out totally against using electricity in the plants. In fact, here's a quote that he had from an interview on CKNW: "If we were to introduce a brand-new condition at this stage of our discussions with these LNG proponents, it would, first of all, be foolhardy. It would be unprofessional. We don't want to mess it up."

Well, what's true here? Is it the Premier asking and claiming that we'll have the cleanest energy in Canada by principally using renewables, is it the Minister of Natural Gas Development two years ago saying that we want to go along this path, or is it the current Minister of Energy saying that would be foolhardy, that it would be unprofessional? No wonder the people can't trust the government on these campaign-style slogans in the throne speech.

I want to talk a little about putting all your eggs in one basket. That's what's happened in this throne speech.

Forestry got one mention, and that was only in connection to exporting our wood. If the province, if this government, really wanted to address forestry as a bigger part of our economic pie, then they could have talked about how they should be reducing raw log exports. They are at an unprecedented rate. They could have been talking about wood fibre and the wasting of it around Burns Lake and along the northern transmission line.

We've been waiting since 2007 for legislation promised by the B.C. Liberals on having better access to that wood fibre in these wood waste piles. They've said they're going to do it. It's been seven years now, and we are still waiting for it.

Diversity of tenure is needed, and we can't be allowing forest companies like West Fraser and Canfor to trade tenures like they're hockey cards. This is what this government has allowed.

They could have put in something positive, more detail about how, one would hope, the forest industry would be supported in reducing raw log exports, in putting wood fibre to better use rather than just burning it.

[1650]

Agriculture. Again, one mention in the throne speech related to export, but nothing…. Again, they could have provided detail on programs — I guess they don't have any programs — and on using B.C. agriculture products in B.C. institutions. That would have been a great detail to provide, but again, nothing.

Violence-free B.C. It's a laudable goal. That was another slogan in the throne speech. It's a laudable goal. The throne speech in connection to violence-free B.C. mentioned aboriginal women.

Well, in 2007 we had the missing women's forum in Prince George. One of their priorities was a public transit system for Highway 16, the so-called Highway of Tears, where many aboriginal women have been found murdered or are missing.

In 2012 the Oppal report listed a public transit system as one of the top two priorities government should tackle. Yet violence-free B.C. was the opportunity in the throne speech to talk and make a commitment to a public transit system on Highway 16, a concrete action to make sure the words weren't hollow — and nothing. We saw nothing on that. So again, more slogans, no substance.

Jobs for B.C.'ers first was another mention in the throne speech. My local college, Northwest Community College, has a School of Exploration and Mining in Smithers. It's award-winning. It's won a Premier's Award. It has a great success rate, and yet they are unable to secure year-to-year funding from the Ministry of Advanced Education for that program and that school.

That could have been something mentioned in the throne speech. I would have looked forward to hearing that. Instead, we just got a hollow slogan — "Jobs for B.C.'ers first."

In the throne speech was the assertion that "every child" — this was especially in relation to First Nations children — "has an equal opportunity for a prosperous future." Again, a slogan. What was it backed up with? Well, no mention of the incredibly positive programs that are happening across the province, especially in my area, around the care of aboriginal children by extended families and the community.

The Stikine Wholistic Working Group, for instance, is a group that works in my area. It's Kaska, it's Dene, it's Tlingit, and they've had unprecedented results, including the largest historical reduction of children protection files, 50 percent, across B.C.'s largest region, with B.C.'s highest aboriginal population, and equally stunning, more than 50 percent decrease in the number of children in care.

ANABIP is also a program, through the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, that's getting those kinds of amazing, positive results.

Again, "every child has an equal opportunity for a prosperous future." These would have been two great programs to mention in the throne speech, because they're unsure now whether they'll be supported by this government after this year's budget is up. They don't know whether they're going to be able to continue the work.

They're linking — both the Kaska, the Tlingit and the Tahltan under the Stikine Wholistic Working Group and the Office of Wet'suwet'en under ANABIP — the issue of caring for their children in these successful programs to the issue of access for resource development. And why not? I mean, you can't be expecting to extract the resources on First Nations territories without reinvesting in the communities by supporting these successful programs.

I know both of them have meetings with the Ministry of Children and Family Development coming up quite soon. I look forward to hearing that they're successful in
[ Page 1345 ]
securing financial resources to continue. Again, it would have been great in the throne speech to hear this, because it would have been putting some meat on the bone of saying every child, every First Nations child, has an equal opportunity for a prosperous future.

Finally, I'm very happy that the government is mentioning in the throne speech that we should all make amends for discriminatory policies of the past, acknowledge them, confront them and learn from them. I can't agree with that more.

That is why I wrote a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on January 16 around the biomedical experiments on aboriginal children in residential schools in B.C. I want to read that into the record as a way of concluding my response to the Speech from the Throne.

"Dear Minister Rustad:

"I am writing to you regarding a recommendation for action that falls within your ministry's and government's stated goal of reconciliation with the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

[1655]

"In June 2013 Dr. Ian Mosby of the University of Guelph published evidence he had unearthed while researching another topic that documented that aboriginal children who were taken from their families and sent to residential schools were unwittingly the subjects of biomedical experimentation. One of these schools from across Canada identified was the Alberni Indian Residential School, where, between 1948 and 1952, malnourished aboriginal children were denied proper nutrition and dental treatments so that their dental health could be compared to other children at the same school who were provided with an improved diet and dental care.

"As Professor Mosby said at the forum hosted by the Tseshaht First Nation and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that I attended in Port Alberni on December 11, 2013, he 'blindly discovered' the evidence by accident while conducting other research which 'begs the question if additional experiments were conducted. Much work is yet to be done to get to the bottom of this story.'"

The B.C. Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution on this topic, saying that there needed to be a provincial and federal strategy and it needed to be highlighted in the provincial curriculum, this part of our history.

I suggested in this letter of January 16 to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that a way to fulfil the strategy, and also, as it turns out, to fulfil the promise in the throne speech to acknowledge discriminatory policies of the past, confront them and learn from them, was to activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, a committee that's been struck continually but has never met since 2001 under this B.C. Liberal government.

What a perfect topic to put in front of that committee. That committee could then hear from experts. It could have public hearings. It could provide detailed information. MLAs on both sides could be on that committee, as is the case, and it could really make a difference on acknowledging and getting to the bottom of how widespread this biomedical experimentation was in the province of aboriginal children in residential school.

I'll conclude with the letter and the quote:

"In the words of Nelson Mandela, reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice. I believe this recommendation to activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on the topic of biomedical experimentation will provide a valuable avenue as one way for the province of B.C. to work together with aboriginal peoples of this province to assist in correcting the legacy of past injustice. It is a critical step in building trust for the future that all in B.C. will benefit from.

"I look forward to your reply."

That was January 16 of this year. It was sent to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I'm sorry to say I have not heard a response. I have not gotten a response to this letter. So again, it throws into question the sincerity of the words in the throne speech when this government says it wants to make amends for discriminatory policies of the past, acknowledge them, confront them and learn from them.

Why, then, in the throne speech, would they not take the opportunity to activate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and respond to a letter from a month ago on such an important topic with First Nations in this province?

I'll finish off by saying there was a positive…. I noted in the throne speech that the B.C. Liberal government mentioned the passing of Dr. Alfred Joseph Gisday'wa, a Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chief who I paid tribute to and we all paid tribute to in this Legislature last week. He passed on since the last throne speech. I acknowledge the government for mentioning him. But again, they missed an opportunity.

Instead of quoting from a First Nations leader in the throne speech, they chose to quote from a United States President. John F. Kennedy might have been a great leader, but what a great way and a lost opportunity this government could have used to quote from a First Nations leader in its own throne speech to show their sincerity around building reconciliation and trust with the First Nations of this province.

A missed opportunity. Gisday'wa has many quotes from his testimony in front of the Supreme Court of Canada on aboriginal rights and title that would have been perfect quotes for a throne speech. But the Premier decided that quoting a U.S. President was more apt, and I think that says a lot about the sincerity of the words in the throne speech around getting on with reconciliation with the First Nations of B.C.

[1700]

I thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to take time to respond to the vision. Once again, I say the vision was all campaign slogans and not enough detail — no substance. I encourage the Premier to show that she can govern and not just campaign, to move out of campaign mode and move into governing mode by providing some details that were absent in the throne speech.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm pleased to respond in support of the Speech from the Throne and the direction set out by
[ Page 1346 ]
this government for the future, a bright future for British Columbia. I'd also like to say, of course, that I'm grateful to my constituents in Surrey-Cloverdale for putting their trust in me in the last election, and I will continue to work hard to make sure they are represented here in this House.

As many members do, as is customary, I would like to thank a number of people, not the least of whom, of course, is my husband, Daniel, who is a tremendous support to me, often my harshest critic and, also, greatest support; my extended family, my nieces and nephews who like to comment and see when I'm on the television; my office team, Sharon and Holly, who keep things moving so well in the constituency and ensure that constituents have access to me even when I'm not able to be at home; and, of course, to all of those supporters and unsung heroes that we all rely on in our constituencies to be there to help us both to get elected but also to keep us apprised of what's happening at home and what the issues are.

The Speech from the Throne sets out a vision. It sets out a vision that we have not wavered from — to balance the budget, to advance the B.C. jobs plan and to strengthen the economy so our kids have a secure tomorrow. It's the mandate that British Columbians gave us in May, and it's one that presents both exciting challenges and opportunities.

I certainly look forward to continuing to work with my ministry staff to ensure that children and families receive efficient and, most importantly, effective social services, services that help them overcome the barriers that stand in their way and services that help prepare them to become active participants in and beneficiaries of B.C.'s thriving economy.

These are long-term goals. We can't achieve them without sticking to a plan, and that's why our efforts are concentrated on the economic fundamentals and the hard work of balancing a budget. We can be proud of the fact that our unemployment rate has decreased to 6.4 percent and continues to track well below the national average. There are also encouraging signs for young people, with the youth unemployment rate dropping to 12.9 percent, considerably lower than the 16.1 percent since the launch of the jobs plan.

In December the Conference Board of Canada released a report predicting British Columbia will lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that British Columbia is getting the fundamentals right and that we're successful in creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish.

By reducing things like the province's small business tax by 40 percent and lowering corporate income tax by 10 percent by 2018, we're creating a favourable environment for job growth in British Columbia and, certainly, in Surrey-Cloverdale, where the small business sector is such a large segment of our private sector economy.

It's important that we do not forget that. We're talking about companies with less than 50 employees, yet small business drives about 55 percent of B.C.'s exports. They also employ about one million British Columbians. It's a part of our continued strategy to support small business that we continue to slash red tape and reduce the regulatory burden placed on companies. Excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops creates a drag on the economy and, ultimately, costs jobs, and that's what really matters to individuals in British Columbia.

Our goal is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We're achieving it by working closely with local governments and expanding the mobile business licence, for example. Since September of 2012 the program has expanded, with two pilot projects in 12 Lower Mainland communities. In my own region, Surrey, we are actually a participant in two intermunicipal business licence agreements, one in the Fraser Valley and one with Metro West.

[1705]

The business community knows that we're working in their best interest, and for the third year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Business awarded British Columbia an A rating for continuing to slash red tape. We were the only province in Canada to receive that designation this year. That's important not just to small business but to all of the individuals who rely on small business for their incomes.

The purpose of the B.C. jobs plan isn't just about today. It's about tomorrow. It's about our young people today preparing for the jobs of tomorrow. Of all the job openings projected for B.C., 43 percent will require trades or technical training. In order to fill these jobs, we have to ensure that training is aligned with the needs of employers, and we have to anticipate the needs of emerging industries.

I'm very proud that in Cloverdale, Kwantlen's trades and tech campus offers a couple of programs that are…. One, the farrier training, is the only program in the country, and the appliance maintenance program one of only two in the country. They're seen as leading edge, and they're working in partnership with industry to ensure that the people that we turn out are prepared for the jobs that await them.

But filling the jobs of tomorrow isn't something that government could do or should do alone. We need continuing cooperation not only from industry and small business but from labour as well. We all have to want it to work. When investors see a high level of cooperation between the major players in industry, in labour, in First Nations and in government, it becomes a tremendous competitive advantage for British Columbia.

One of the major features contained in this Speech from the Throne is a commitment to fiscal responsibility by government, as I've said. The Premier has made balancing the budget a top priority, and in doing so, we are
[ Page 1347 ]
demonstrating leadership to our fellow provinces.

Balancing the budget is not easy. It would be a lot easier to say yes all the time. But it requires courage to make tough decisions, and a strong commitment to live within our means. We have both. It's for this reason that government is committed to a balanced budget over the next four years.

It's also because we need to relieve future generations from a financial burden. We are dedicating at least 50 percent of future surpluses to paying down debt so that, eventually, we can leave our kids with a clean slate. It's like my parents told me when I started to earn money for myself: you have to save for later, and to do that, you have to pay yourself first.

Furthermore, we're recommitting to the balanced budget law, which entrenches tougher penalties for ministers who miss their budget targets, because again, we are all in this together, and we are all committed. These strict measures are critical to maintaining our triple-A credit rating.

I believe in planning for the future, but I also believe in living for today. So at the same time as we are making the investments in our future, we have to make sure that we are able to provide for those who need today. In order to provide for those in need today, we have to have an economy that is thriving.

Many of the public services that are required by the citizens of British Columbia are offered through my ministry — those citizens that are most vulnerable. Those citizens, too, deserve to lead their lives with dignity, knowing that they're being supported by a strong social safety net.

We will continue to work to raise awareness about the many supports and services available to children in British Columbia. Raising awareness and working collaboratively with other ministries, levels of government and community organizations are all key factors in addressing a very complex issue like poverty.

Our government realizes that legislated poverty plans aren't a cure-all. The reason I say that is that in Quebec…. Quebec has been implementing a poverty plan since 2005, yet between 2004 and 2011 B.C. had a greater reduction in the percentage of children living in low-income households than Quebec.

We know that addressing the issue of poverty means getting at the root causes of why people can't make ends meet, and what makes a real difference for families is enabling them to become part of a growing economy. We know that there will be more than one million job openings in British Columbia over the next decade, and the success of our province and of our people lies in ensuring we're ready to deliver.

[1710]

Providing British Columbians with the skills they need to find sustainable employment will be the best support that families have to achieve their goals. Ultimately, we want British Columbians to be ready for the many opportunities coming our way through things like LNG, through skilled trades and other key sectors around the province.

Some of that means helping people access the range of government programs and services that are already provided by government. A full suite of employment services are offered through our Work B.C. employment service centres around the province, centres that have served more than 120,000 people since opening in April of 2012.

It's also about affordable housing. This government has invested $3.6 billion over the last decade to provide affordable housing. That means that more than 98,000 households will benefit this year from provincial social housing programs and services.

Skills training and educational programs are also available and essential. Funding is available from multiple sources to provide skills training, apprenticeships and retraining for a variety of in-demand jobs. Whether you're an older worker or a young person just starting out or somebody who needs to build their skills on the job, government and many partner agencies can help provide those programs that people need.

It's often talked about — and it's often talked about because it's true — that B.C. families have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. An additional 400,000 people don't pay any income tax compared to 2001. That's true, and it's real to people. That means that there's more money back in their wallets. Low income taxes allow British Columbians to spend the money they earn the way they see fit to benefit their families.

Government believes in investing dollars in people, not in processes. These programs are a few of the many that demonstrate that — our commitment to building a better B.C., one person at a time.

These programs are there for some of our most vulnerable young people, many of whom don't have family who could help them pursue their dreams and aspirations. By providing programs needed by children and families and improving access to services, we help give children the best possible start in life and keep families healthy and strong. We need and want the funding to go to those who need it most, through programs that provide direct services and the best possible outcomes for families.

Working families need barriers removed so they can participate in the economy, knowing their children are getting a good start. I'm not a parent, but I do understand a parent's need to ensure that their children receive the building blocks that will lay the foundation for a successful life. I know, through talking to parents, that they want better for their children than they themselves had. That's why we believe so strongly in programs like StrongStart B.C.

There are currently 326 StrongStart B.C. programs across the province, because when we invest in a child's future, we invest in everybody's future. It's that goal that
[ Page 1348 ]
powers the B.C. early-years strategy. It's a strategy that's about using resources wisely. Our aims are quality, access, affordability and choice for families with young children.

The B.C. government will spend $290 million on child care in 2013-14, a 37 percent increase since 2000-2001, and I expect we will spend a similar amount next year. Over 100,000 licensed child care spaces are funded by government in communities around the province.

We started this year off with the official opening of a provincial office for the early years to ensure that services across government and across B.C. are coordinated and effective. The office will lead the development of a network of community-based early-years centres, centres that give parents and caregivers one-stop access to practical advice, support and links to child care and early development services in their community.

We will also develop a provincewide child care registry to provide parents with better information on what is available in their communities.

More child care spaces are on their way. We're investing $32 million to create 2,000 new spaces in the next two years, with the goal of 13,000 over the next eight.

[1715]

Child care is not inexpensive, and in order to make it a little more affordable for B.C. families, we're introducing the B.C. childhood tax benefit, providing $146 million to 180,000 families with young children. To be eligible, though, we need to remind people that they're going to need to file their 2013 personal income tax returns. This will allow eligible families to receive up to $660 annually for each child under the age of six.

The early childhood tax benefit has a higher income threshold than what was set for the Canada child tax benefit so that more B.C. families will qualify to receive the funds. And we already provide child care subsidies to help low-income families afford child care, helping approximately 50,000 children each year.

Full-day kindergarten is creating new early learning opportunities for young children, at the same time freeing up some of those spaces in child care for families. Our early-years strategy is backed by a strong funding commitment that will improve support for families and ensure that young British Columbians are indeed enjoying the best possible start in life.

B.C.'s greatest strength has always been its citizens, and government is committed to supporting strong, healthy families. Helping to ensure the safety and security of all family members is an essential part of that commitment.

Through our new three-year provincial domestic violence plan we're going to work across government and with community partners to deliver focused investment in direct services. The $5.5 million plan includes the creation of additional specialized domestic violence units, programs for aboriginal families, direct services for perpetrators and improved access to services and social housing for survivors in rural and remote communities.

Under the plan we'll support and enhance awareness initiatives, like Together to Reduce Elder Abuse and the award-winning campaign Be More Than a Bystander, as well as the province's ERASE Bullying strategy. We'll look to strengthen the justice system's response in cases of domestic violence by exploring the development of a framework for domestic violence courts.

Finally, we'll work with the settlement sector to develop resources and training on how to recognize and respond to domestic violence. The specific focus will be working more effectively with women from specialized populations, including aboriginal women, women with disabilities and women from immigrant and refugee communities. Our plan builds on the work of the anti-violence sector and the steps that government has taken to date to strengthen the services and supports available to those affected by domestic violence.

We all know that there is still so much more to be done to address domestic violence against women on a larger scale. The next step in addressing this system will be the introduction of a long-term comprehensive strategy to achieve a violence-free B.C. Far too often, our headlines are dominated by horrific examples of violence — violence on our streets, in our schools and in our homes.

Just last week there were two significant events marking violence against women: the One Billion Rising event that I attended in Surrey and the march for missing and murdered indigenous women in Vancouver, both of which were tremendously moving and remind us of the need to continue work in this area.

When we talk about vulnerable populations, we do always have to acknowledge the continued struggles with some of our First Nations people in British Columbia. We know from working closely with First Nations groups and partner organizations that there are considerations that must be taken into account when delivering supports and services to First Nations and aboriginal communities. So we're taking additional measures to make sure our aboriginal children, youth and families have access to direct services that speak to their cultural needs and experiences.

We'll continue the process of shifting the focus of contracts from governance to where it needs to be: on service delivery. In this way, we can achieve our vision of aboriginal children living in strong, healthy families and sustainable communities where they're connected to culture and traditions. A recent report by the Representative for Children and Youth clearly demonstrated the complexities and challenges that so many jurisdictions face in providing services effectively to aboriginal children and families.

The report also pointed out the need for greater accountability for funding that is provided. That's why we'll be inviting our Indigenous Approaches contractors to apply for funding by submitting business plans that clearly outline the measurable targets for providing ser-
[ Page 1349 ]
vices directly to children. We recognize the importance of the governance discussions with First Nations, and that work will continue elsewhere.

[1720]

All children and youth deserve to grow up in a safe, secure, supportive environment. That's why we offer an array of programs and services to ensure that youth in care also have the support for their ongoing growth and development. Ideally, children are fortunate enough to grow up in a family that provides the nurturing they need not only to survive but to thrive and meet their full potential, like I'm sure all of us did.

But if this relationship isn't possible within their birth families or with their caregivers, the ministry helps these children find a forever home through adoption. In the past five years nearly 1,300 children have found permanent homes through adoption. However, the need for more adoptive families continues. I am not satisfied that we're doing enough in this area, so I will have more to say about this in coming months.

For youth in care, my ministry offers a number of programs to help young people get a post-secondary education. Agreements with Young Adults provides financial support and assistance for about 24 months to allow youth to upgrade their education. Since 2008 nearly 1,700 young adults have benefited from that program. And the youth education assistance fund supports young people to participate in vocational training or post-secondary education. Over 1,300 former youth in continuing care have participated and benefited from that youth fund.

Just recently, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, Strive, a new pilot program that will be delivered through a partnership with the YWCA of Metro Vancouver, will provide youth with hands-on guidance so that they can gain the life skills that are key to living independently, including financial literacy, time management, decision-making and problem-solving — things that most of us at 18 were still developing ourselves.

Our children's future is precisely why we're committed to growing the economy and creating prosperity in B.C., even while the global economic conditions remain fragile. We need to control spending. We need to open new markets and attract new investment, and we need to leverage our strengths if we're going to achieve a debt-free B.C. That's the challenge ahead for this government.

In the last ten years global demand for liquefied natural gas has doubled, and it is expected to increase by another 50 percent to 2020. By making LNG a provincial priority, the Premier has demonstrated to the world that B.C. is serious about becoming a stable, reliable source of energy on the global stage. Furthermore, LNG provides an opportunity to diversify our economy and provide a significant source of public revenue for decades, which eventually can be responsible for eliminating B.C.'s provincial debt.

As the next generation comes of age, we want them to have opportunity, choice, high-quality jobs and sustainable social services. I can think of no greater legacy for the Premier, for us as legislators that we could bestow on the province than to ensure the future prosperity of the people of British Columbia for generations to come.

The throne speech sets out a vision and offers a road map to realizing a debt-free B.C., something that will increase our resilience and economic growth in times of global uncertainty. We want to continue to offer strong public services and programs for the citizens of B.C., programs that are effective and sustainable.

The Speech from the Throne is based on a vision that looks realistically and strategically at our circumstances today but never loses sight of tomorrow. This long-term vision is key to fulfilling my ministry's mandate. We can't do it alone. To quote a popular adage, "It takes a village to raise a child," and it will take more than government to ensure that children have what they need to be the best they can be. Just as children are our collective future, they are also our collective responsibility.

We need to continue to work with First Nations, with community organizations, with our neighbours, with other levels of government, because all together, we provide a solid foundation for children.

We continue to ensure that we do the right thing for our children when our partners stand with us. We are investing in British Columbia's future by investing in the needs, the hopes and dreams of those who will survive us. When our children are supported, families are strong, and strong families need a strong economy just as strong economies need strong families.

[1725]

V. Huntington: What we heard in last Tuesday's throne speech was similar to what we heard last year, and what we didn't hear was also very similar. Where is the vision for this province beyond the potential and, dare I say, dream of LNG? And if the salvation promised by LNG doesn't come to fruition, where is a visionary plan that would at least maintain an acceptable standard of service for the people of this province? That may be the biggest single failure of the throne speech.

What does the province intend to do if the LNG bubble bursts? And that fail-safe vision is so important, especially when we examine how some of the government's previous promises have progressed.

This is a province, a part of the world, that is crying out for stable, committed environmental leadership. If there is anything that drives most of us to distraction, it's the government's mantra that we are world leaders in ensuring rigorous environmental standards. The government members repeat the rhetoric so often that I think they actually believe their own propaganda.

B.C. isn't committed to the environment. We don't have strong environmental standards. In fact, this province does everything it can to avoid, rewrite, remove
[ Page 1350 ]
provincial rigour and downgrade what used to be a proud and outstanding set of laws. Far from being an independent environmental assessment office, the government has recently moved to ensure the EAO is completely within its sphere of influence. It will delay reports, require rewrites, force reconsideration and even overrule its decisions.

The approval of the YVR jet fuel facility and terminal is a classic case in point — an approval of an industrial activity that has the potential to negatively impact the health and prosperity of the Fraser Estuary. That isn't a commitment to environmental standards; that's a commitment to industrialization. Hiding behind dozens of conditions, many of which are already industry standards, doesn't change that fact.

When there are environmental alternatives to industrial applications and assessments, the EAO should be allowed to examine whether those alternatives better balance the environmental-developmental equation. But does the government move to enable the EAO to consider all the facts pertinent to an application? No. Whether it's jet fuel or highways or bridges, pipelines or run-of-river dams or ports, it continues to require the EAO to focus on just the application, just the project as described. What visionaries.

My riding of Delta South has undergone a transformation in the name of expanding Canada's Pacific gateway, but there are no studies that look at the cumulative impacts of these projects as a whole. We don't know the human health and environmental impacts we're facing as a result of these projects or the increased traffic or the increased shipping, because these studies don't exist.

Lower Mainland residents and health officials are rightfully concerned about the lack of an adequate independent human health assessment for the proposed direct coal transfer facility at Fraser-Surrey docks, a study that should also look at existing coal handling in the region. If rail shipping of thermal coal is set to increase, residents have every right to be concerned, and government has a duty to respond. A coal-dust monitoring assessment of metallurgical coal shipments to Delta found unacceptable particulate levels next to the rail line, where current dust suppression measures proved inadequate. Nevertheless, there's been no study on the cumulative environmental or public health impacts of all coal activities in the region.

What does that intellectual hand-tying mean? It means that what is a legislative requirement to consider cumulative impacts means absolutely nothing — each project in isolation of the other, until a valley is absorbed, until a watershed is compromised, until the best agricultural soil in the country finally disappears under rail lines and logistics centres and pavement.

We harmonize. We fail to participate. We remove regulations that frustrate industry, and we call it streamlining. Our Environment Minister gets orders to review, in-house, the environmental assessment process and streamline it even further, all behind closed doors — no public comment. We don't even get to see the results, although I guess we could monitor the Gazette to see which regulations disappear.

But industry will see it. In fact, industry has no doubt already told the government what it wants changed, which is why the minister has been ordered to further water down the most "rigorous standards in the world."

[1730]

That isn't vision. That's bias. That is a willingness to forget the essential balance we so desperately need — the critical, essential balancing of economic development with the health of our environment. This is a government that is refusing to uphold the fiduciary duty it has to the people and to the land of this province.

Perhaps the most amusing and outlandish logic in the throne speech was the claim and the comment that B.C. LNG will be the cleanest in the world. Why does the government declare it to be the cleanest? Because it will reduce emissions in China. Was there ever a more contorted piece of logic?

Of course, the fact that the province is supporting the export of millions of tonnes of thermal coal to China doesn't change their equation. Every single ounce of emission saved by using B.C. LNG will be replaced and more by the emissions that burning millions of tonnes of thermal coal — coal shipped out of B.C. — will add. But this throne speech is nothing if not an attempt to prove that if we don't mention it, the problem doesn't exist.

We all know that the life-cycle emissions of liquefied natural gas are significant. They are emissions associated with exploration, extraction, processing, pipeline construction, conversion to LNG, shipping, reconversion to natural gas, and burning. LNG will never be clean, even after the government passes a bill saying it is.

Yes, it is cleaner. Yes, the potential benefit to British Columbia is enormous. Yes, we hope the prosperity fund eventually materializes. Yes, we hope the province can develop the opportunity without subsidizing the industry, which I have a feeling may be the only way it's going to get off the ground. But for heaven's sake, can't we have the straightforward truth? The people of this province can take it, you know. Indeed, there is nothing more that they want than the straightforward truth from this government.

We're also waiting for the province's ten-year agreement with teachers, which it committed to in 2013. Government says they're fighting for a ten-year deal and says they only want what's best for our children. Meanwhile they know full well that B.C. teachers have said they won't accept a ten-year agreement.

The government says its recent labour agreements demonstrate its commitment to labour peace, but it's impossible to take them seriously when they're appealing a Supreme Court ruling that found they didn't bar-
[ Page 1351 ]
gain in good faith.

The government continues to act in bad faith instead of working towards improved relationships and real labour peace with our teachers. There is such chaos within our educational system that all else should be set aside until these issues that have disrupted the stability of the system have been resolved. That would be a vision worth having.

For the last ten years the government has been streamlining red tape. It has won awards for its attacks on red tape. I support its attack on red tape, yet here we go with yet another core review of government. One would have thought the throne speech would create a vision of what government hopes to achieve with the core review, but nothing, nada, not a word on a policy announcement that has created yet more major instability throughout the province.

Are we considering the elimination of programs? We don't know. One would think so, given that the objective must be to save money. Will the people have a say? Will their comments be listened to? Are we looking at the elimination of ineffective or redundant agencies? Dare I say B.C. Rail might fall into that category? Or are we looking at the removal of regulations and programs that get in the way of government development plans?

That seems to be the purpose of the core review: to remove obstacles to development. In the absence of a public vision, that is the only conclusion we can come to, especially when we look at the government desire to undercut, reduce and thwart the authority of the Agricultural Land Commission.

If any public policy decision has widespread public support, it is the agricultural land reserve. Even the people so badly impacted by the initial decision, our historic farming families, now agree that the ALR is important, essential to the future of the province and worth saving at all costs.

B.C. deserves a vision that protects B.C. farmland, that ensures our ability to produce food into the distant future, that recognizes that the desperate water shortages in the United States create a potential for British Columbia to become the breadbasket of western North America. Talk about economic potential — an absolutely sustainable, renewable economic potential. But there was no vision for the future of agricultural land in the throne speech. In fact, the vision appears to be quite the opposite.

[1735]

The cabinet documents suggest that government may require the commission to give agricultural industrial projects equal weight when considering ALR exclusions. Ministers muse about splitting the ALR into two zones to ease resource and economic development.

Has government so lost sight of the people that it will actively engage in the withering of the Agricultural Land Commission, even as its own policy in the last session recognized that the commission desperately needed an infusion of dollars to exercise its mandate?

Farmland is a sustainable industry, important to local food security, exports and basic jobs. Farmland provides habitat for wildlife, and it acts as a boundary on industrial and urban development. We should cherish this renewable sector, and to do so, we must protect the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission. Our government should be strengthening the ALC, not weakening it.

We do not need two distinct ALR zones in British Columbia, which would suggest that northern farmland is less important than farmland in the rest of the province. Consider, instead, having a member of the land commission sit on the Oil and Gas Commission to strengthen their already good working relationship.

The ALC should also be allowed to continue its ongoing boundary review to determine what adjustments are needed. I am very glad the ALC stood up to the Minister for Core Review on that front. An independent body is essential for the protection of our farmland, not because government isn't capable but because government needs to be protected from itself.

I would be remiss if I didn't briefly touch on the government jobs plan. The throne speech tells us that the government is exceeding economic expectations. In what way is B.C. exceeding expectations? Not in job creation, surely. Since the jobs plan started, we have languished behind eight other provinces in job creation. We are up only around 10,000 jobs since September 2011 when the jobs plan began. B.C. is the only province, apart from Nova Scotia, where the private sector was actually losing jobs through most of 2013.

Our largest gain under the jobs plan has been in part-time work — not well-paying, full-time jobs. B.C. has one of the highest rates of household debt in the country, and current job creation trends would not alleviate that by adding more low-paying, part-time jobs. Last year TransUnion projected that Canadians' non-mortgage household debt will reach a record high of $28,850 in 2014. That's still $8,000 less than the average British Columbian household debt, which was $37,200 in 2012.

The jobs plan has not achieved the results promised by the government, and it's not helping British Columbians.

The throne speech also makes no mention of seniors. How can that be possible? Aging is one of the crucial issues of our time. Last year the government introduced watered-down seniors advocate legislation, but we still don't have the seniors advocate.

The government watched from the sidelines last year as the health authorities levied a wheelchair tax on seniors in long-term care. We have an ethical responsibility to protect the mobility rights of all our citizens, but we fail even in that regard, let alone the fact that there's no consistency across our health authorities, and in Fraser Health specifically, to protect this most basic right.

Also missing from the throne speech is any announcement about finally allowing transgendered British Columbians to easily change the sex designation on their
[ Page 1352 ]
B.C. Services Card. This badly needed policy change is an incredibly important one for many British Columbians.

I have been briefed by the ministry officials, and the plan changes would allow people to easily update the sex designation on their B.C. Services Card by simply filling out a form. But it has been a year since I was first told that the changes were in progress. Even though this policy is on line and it was supposed to be active last November, we have seen nothing, and the forms still aren't available.

This is a policy change. It doesn't involve a regulatory or a legislative change. Why have the delays continued for so long? I can only hope that we'll finally see the changes in place this spring, preferably with an update to the Vital Statistics Act as well. British Columbians deserve to have official documents that recognize their chosen identity.

This year's throne speech does not give me any confidence that the government is committed to legislative or democratic reform.

[1740]

The government has had proposals for fixing our civic elections since 2010. It plans to introduce some controversial changes this session, but the changes that would actually improve our local elections, like banning or limiting corporate and union donations, won't be in place for the 2014 elections — if we ever see them at all. If the government really wanted reform, these changes could have been in place not just for 2014 but for 2011 as well.

There was nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the government would take meaningful steps to improve campaign finance at the local level. Time and again the government has refused to get big money out of provincial politics. Campaign finance bills from the opposition and independents alike have been ignored.

Banning corporate and union donations isn't a wild idea. They do it federally and in Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Nine provinces and territories have donation restrictions, typically including a corporate and union donation ban or donation limits — not so in B.C.

Residents and non-residents, citizens and global conglomerates can give as much as they want, as often as they want.

Our Minister of Finance says: "The notion that people in businesses would be able to make donations to the party and campaign of their choice is one that lies at the heart of our system." To the minister, I say that's precisely the problem. Big money is at the very heart of our system, at the heart of our elections and at the heart of our democracy. As legislators we have the power to change the system and to give our democracy back to the people. I find both the throne speech and the government wanting in this regard.

There was no vision to introduce meaningful legislative reforms either. I currently have a motion before both of the House Leaders that would amend the standing orders and go a long way to improving our committee system. I appreciate the Opposition House Leader's efforts to improve our committees by introducing a private member's bill, but it's an unfortunate reality of our system that it will never be given the full debate deserved in this House — another weakness this building should address.

My current proposals would make our committees permanent for the life of a parliament, instead of being dissolved each session. That's a basic and necessary change that I don't imagine will meet with much resistance from my colleagues. My motion would also require the government to respond to a committee's report after 180 days, upon the committee's request. That's a change borrowed from the federal standing orders, and it would ensure that our committees don't put in hours and weeks and months of work to a report that we would never hear about again.

At a more basic level, it would also require that our committees meet to elect a Chair and a Deputy Chair. Some of our committees don't even do that much.

But most importantly, and likely most controversially, my motion would empower our committees to meet of their own accord, without referral from the House, to study any issue they felt was within their mandate. It will empower not just our committees but our individual members to concentrate on issues that are important to the people of British Columbia.

The throne speech fails to address a number of realities. The government hasn't created jobs. It hasn't completed a framework for LNG expansion or explained how it can possibly be environmentally sustainable. It hasn't found labour peace with teachers. It hasn't protected the sanctity of the environmental assessment office or taken a proactive approach to cumulative impacts assessments.

It hasn't presented its promised vision for legislative or democratic reform. It hasn't offered consultation on core review before drafting potentially devastating legislation, and that consultation that they have offered is required to be confidential. Nor has the government developed sustainable vision for agriculture that protects B.C.'s farmland — surely one of the most important issues that face all of us.

Rather, the throne speech, I feel, is an admission by government that it has no vision. British Columbians deserve and need more from their leaders.

Hon. T. Wat: It is an honour to respond in support of the Lieutenant-Governor's Speech from the Throne.

Last May the people of British Columbia decisively elected a government that promised to focus on three main priorities: job creation, economic growth and controlling government spending. I am grateful to my constituents in Richmond Centre for their trust in me to represent them in the Legislature.

[1745]

Our government will focus on job creation by continuing to seek out new markets and expanding the customer
[ Page 1353 ]
base for B.C. products abroad. We will promote economic growth by continuing to invest in vital transportation infrastructure in order to get our goods to market faster and more efficiently. We will control government spending through our core review of government operations and ensure that every precious tax dollar is used effectively.

In fact, we are building a strong economy and securing the future for B.C. families. In the short time since the provincial election, the government has been working hard to deliver on the economic action plan contained in our platform. We are already getting results.

In December the Conference Board of Canada released a report predicting British Columbia will lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that British Columbia is getting the fundamentals right, that we are successful in creating favourable conditions for our economy to flourish.

I was honoured to travel with the Premier on a trade mission to Asia in November through early December. Vancouver International Airport is the biggest employer in Richmond. It has a huge economic impact on Richmond and is our gateway to the Asia-Pacific.

Our Asia-Pacific strategy includes promoting B.C. as the North American destination for Asia-Pacific and building a world-class supply chain as well as gateway infrastructure. This creates not only a lasting impression on potential customers; it also conveys a sense of economic certainty to potential investors.

Global investment will always gravitate to those jurisdictions that provide stable and predictable environments for business to operate. When investors see a high level of cooperation between major players in industry, labour and First Nations, it becomes a tremendous competitive advantage for British Columbia.

On February 6 Statistics Canada released year-end export figures for 2013. International exports of British Columbia goods totalled $33.6 billion. This is an increase of 6.9 percent compared with 2012. B.C. recorded sizeable increases in the value of goods shipments to China and India, the two key markets as our government continues to diversify markets for its products.

Exports to China, remaining our province's second-largest trading partner after the United States, increased to $6.8 billion, up by 13.6 percent compared to 2012. As well, exports to India were worth $466.6 million in 2013, up by 45.1 percent versus the year before.

Combined export to the four countries identified as priority markets in Canada Starts Here: The B.C. Jobs Plan — that is China, India, Japan and Korea — rose 6.6 percent year over year, for a total of $13.1 billion. Gains in the value of exports to India and China offset decreases to Japan and to Korea.

Diversifying and expanding markets for B.C. goods, especially in Asia, and making strategic investments in the infrastructure that will help get those B.C. products to market, are the fundamentals of the jobs plan. By establishing trade agreements, we will increase investment in B.C. That will help bring more flights through YVR and create more work and generate more economic revenue for Richmond as well as British Columbia.

I'm happy with the report that Ottawa is finally getting close to signing a free trade deal with South Korea. Our government has been urging the federal government to conclude this deal quickly, and we will keep the pressure on.

I'm privileged to represent the constituents of Richmond Centre. Richmond in whole is a vibrant, diverse community, projecting a population growth to over 260,000 by 2036, with more than half of the growth accounted in Richmond Centre as my riding.

[1750]

It is a great city to live and work. Industry chooses Richmond as its base. We are home to five of the ten biggest software companies in British Columbia. Future plans for Richmond Centre include British Columbia's first luxury outlet mall at a 30-acre site on Sea Island, near the Vancouver International Airport, which is set to open in the spring next year. Big-box retailers such as Target and Wal-Mart have also eyed Richmond Centre to strengthen their expansion.

Richmond Oval is a legacy in my riding. It is a great facility for residents and tourists alike. Used for the long-track speed skating during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the oval has been a source of community pride. We should be proud of the 30 British Columbian athletes competing at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia. They are all striving to beat Canada's 26-medal performance in Vancouver four years earlier.

Also in Richmond Centre is B.C.'s first-ever public school of traditional Chinese medicine. It is being launched at Kwantlen Polytechnic University's Richmond Campus. Our government is focused on giving British Columbians more choices and greater options in health care.

With the international airport in my riding, not only does Richmond draw tourists, but Richmond is also a hub for the global aerospace and aviation industry. The British Columbia Institute of Technology's Aerospace Technology campus, located at Vancouver Airport, offers programs to more than 1,000 students each year. Students can choose training programs from all areas of aircraft maintenance, engineering and flight training.

Many industry-leading companies are based in Richmond. This provides highly skilled workers as well as import suppliers and business support services. Richmond's aerospace and aviation sector is made up of small family-run businesses to global publicly traded corporations. It's a niche industry for Richmond residents — a unique economic booster. Our government has supported this industry through the aviation strategy
[ Page 1354 ]
released in December 2012.

Action to improve aviation competitiveness within this strategy includes: establish partnership with the B.C. aviation management and consulting sectors to identify and support global market development opportunities; support the creation of an aerospace cluster that can attract global investment; measure the benefits of eliminating the provincial international aviation fuel tax; identify and pursue immediate opportunities to expand international air cargo and passenger services to B.C.; develop and pursue options, in partnership with industry and the federal government, to improve the Transit Without Visa program; call for the streamlining of visa application procedures.

Furthermore, this strategy has action to expand assets to British Columbia: partner with the Vancouver International Airport to encourage Asian routing through B.C.; strengthen engagement between B.C. and federal agencies to pursue increased capacity in bilateral air transport agreements, ATAs; greater flexibility on international routings and resolution of air transfer agreement provisions that lead international airlines to serve B.C. through the U.S.

Last Wednesday the Premier stood in this Legislature to acknowledge the great work done during the past few months to determine the best path forward as we address historical wrongs by past B.C. governments against the Chinese community.

I attended seven forums throughout B.C. with members of the Chinese community. The idea was to reach out and confront a painful time in our collective history. It was an opportunity to educate ourselves and all British Columbians about a time that we cannot and should not forget, about some bad ideas and bad government policies.

[1755]

I heard more than 160 submissions from presenters — powerful stories from those who were impacted by historical wrongs imposed on Chinese-Canadians. More than 100 others submitted their views either on line or by correspondence. I thank my ministry staff who worked so hard to make this process successful, and I thank all members of this Legislature who participated in this process.

Apologies express regret for actions in the past, but they shouldn't end there. They should also make a difference moving forward. As the forums made clear, we need to educate all British Columbians about that unfortunate time in our history. I will be working with the Minister of Education to ensure that our school curriculum reflects our true history. The curriculum changes will ensure that every child in British Columbia grows up knowing our history, including the mistakes.

Today B.C. is the most ethnically diverse province in Canada. Our province was built by immigrants like myself, and the Chinese community is part of this legacy.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the Premier for her outstanding leadership to develop B.C.'s natural gas resources. In the last ten years global demand for LNG has doubled, and it is expected to increase by another 50 percent by 2020. By making LNG a provincial priority, the Premier has demonstrated to the world that B.C. is serious about becoming a stable and reliable source of energy on the global stage.

Furthermore, LNG will diversify our economy and provide a significant source of public revenue for decades, including the B.C. prosperity fund, which will eventually be responsible for eliminating B.C.'s provincial debt. I can think of no other greater legacy the Premier could bestow on this province than to ensure the future prosperity of the people of British Columbia for generations to come.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Applause.]

N. Simons: Thank you for that welcome from my colleagues.

It's my pleasure, my honour and my privilege to stand and respond to the Speech from the Throne. It's not the first time I've done this, but the content of the Speech from the Throne allows me to use some of the work I had in my previous speeches. It might save us some time.

I would like to start with an acknowledgment of the people who work so hard for the constituents of my riding — that is, my constituency assistants Kim Tournat and Maggie Hathaway. I also want to thank Elizabeth Parkinson here in the Legislature. I think that combined, the three of them keep me fairly well organized.

As is tradition in this House, we often thank our family members. I'd like to thank my pardner — with a "d" — Slim Milkie, country singer, country artist. I'm sure he's glued to the television right now.

An Hon. Member: Watching the Olympics.

N. Simons: Watching the Olympics. That's right. Thank you for that.

I also do want to acknowledge my mother, who retired from teaching this year. She taught long after most people retired. She's taught kids with various diverse abilities, as they say — mostly children who are hearing-impaired.

She's kind of inspirational to me. Her work ethic and her ability to connect with kids is something that I always admired. I think her career in teaching benefited so many youngsters and their families. I just want to say on behalf of all British Columbians that we do respect teachers. We recognize the hard work that they do.

[1800]

I hope that public policy and actions of politicians and policy-makers reflect that appreciation for the profession. I think we should always make sure that we conduct our-
[ Page 1355 ]
selves in a way that gives them the credit that they are due in taking on the important task of teaching youngsters to be good citizens in our society, to know right from wrong and to be critical thinkers. So thank you to the teachers, and my mom especially.

I also like to acknowledge…. The throne speech often speaks of people who've passed on. I think it's important. I would like to recognize an elder, in particular: Theresa Jeffries of the Sechelt Nation, who was a recipient of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and who always gave me the honour of providing me counsel. It would always be in a gentle way that the information was received and incorporated into the way I think.

Theresa Jeffries always wanted to make sure that I remembered to speak on behalf of First Nations and the programs that maintain cultural traditions and, in particular, language. She said: "Always remember: language, language, language." Theresa Jeffries, who passed away and is on her spiritual journey, was a role model for me from the Sechelt Nation.

I should point out that another Sechelt elder and educator, Donna Joe, who was a writer and a contributor to the curriculum of our school systems, was also a leader in maintaining language and maintaining the kids' abilities to speak the language. I know that the Sechelt Nation misses her.

Another elder, if I may…. Marya Fiamengo, a resident of Gibsons, died last year. She was a writer, a professor of writing. She was a poet. She was an activist. She was a vibrant personality and worked at UBC. I think she must have been one of the few women professors at UBC in the '50s who contributed greatly to the world of literature in British Columbia. I'd like to acknowledge her passing as well.

I think, as I'm the critic for the Ministry of Agriculture, that I would just like to add my voice to those who have given best wishes to the member for Peace River North, who's recovering. I wish him, along with all my colleagues, all the best of health. I look forward to him coming back here. We can face off against each other and talk about issues that are important to British Columbians, some of which I hope to get to if I can today.

I'd also like to recognize the chiefs and councils, the mayors and regional district officials, and school district and Islands Trust folks from my constituency. We have many levels of government, and all have very specific and important responsibilities to the constituents they serve. I just want to make sure that they are given credit. We hold our hands up to them for the work they do on behalf of their communities.

Being in public life is not always an easy thing. I sometimes think that the closer you live to your constituents, the easier it is to be a full-time politician. Maybe the harder it is to have any personal life — put it that way, I suppose. But I think we all recognize the important contribution that elected officials make in our communities at every level.

[1805]

Obviously, I was a bit disappointed in the throne speech because of what I think my constituents would have liked to hear. I didn't hear a lot that would cause any deal of glee on the part of the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Let me point out that Powell River–Sunshine Coast is the only entirely ferry-reliant constituency in the province. We have four B.C. ferries serving our communities, as well as passenger ferries privately operated. There are people who commute on a daily basis from Langdale, approximately 400 to 500 people per day. We have hospitals. We have pulp mills. We have aggregate mines. We have schools, high schools, Legions. We have all the things that make small communities livable in our province, but what we lack are stable, affordable ways to other communities. In that regard, ferry-reliant communities have to overcome these issues of isolation.

Unfortunately, what I think the government is…. I wouldn't say they're refusing to, but they seem not to understand that there are 52,000 people on the Sunshine Coast, and they all rely on the ferries for their food. Many of them visit relatives in long-term care in North Vancouver or in Comox and the Comox Valley. There is a significant amount of important commercial trade between those communities, and every single item, every single commodity, costs more because we recognize that the cost of transportation is higher.

At the same time, we also, I think, need to be acknowledged for contributing significantly to the provincial economy. And when you consider the historic contributions of coastal British Columbia, from the entertainment industry, with The Beachcombers, to the forest industry, which has been important for so many generations, to the fisheries…. You know, these are communities that found economic stability because there was a publicly owned system for making sure that goods and services could move at a rate that was affordable.

We are not just a vacation destination where people buy expensive tickets to travel to. We are nurses. We are teachers. We are children. We are grandparents. We have lived there for generations. We have just moved there. We're immigrant families. We reflect what is everywhere in British Columbia. We don't believe that the cost of us living there to teach or to tend to the sick or to serve food in the restaurants…. We don't believe that we should be subject to arbitrary increases in the cost of our roads.

I have trouble imagining what business would think of moving to a community if they knew that the road was eroding and the toll on that road was increasing. But that, in effect, is what this government's policies are doing to our communities.

Now, make no mistake. I believe very strongly in the ability of our communities to persevere with what is a very serious and damaging economic and cultural blow
[ Page 1356 ]
to our communities. I'm not exaggerating when I say that. Sports teams will cease to exist because the schedule changes are inappropriate. Sports teams are already struggling because the cost of travel has increased over 100 percent on at least two of the routes in my constituency. Kids won't be able to attend any extracurricular activity if they live on Texada Island if their dad works in one of the aggregate or limestone quarries.

[1810]

This is a government that talks about, you know, extracurricular activities as one of the reasons they wanted to force a strike. These are things that this government is taking away from constituents of mine, not to mention that this fundamentally changes many of my constituents' lifestyles. If, for example, they want to go into Vancouver and come back on the same day, they will no longer be able to do that because of the sailing cancellations at the end of the day on the Horseshoe Bay–Langdale route. There's no point. They can't get up to the Earls Cove route. These are things….

We've had rallies. Over the years we've had rallies. We've had town hall meetings. We've sent letters. We've written petitions. We've drawn on placards. We've marched up and down the street in an attempt — and I hope it's not a futile attempt — to get the government to recognize that our transportation system is fundamental to our economy and to our social and cultural life.

Critics sometimes say: "Oh, you chose to live there." Tell that to the lady who moved to Texada in her teens with her husband, who was in the forestry industry, and who has lived there for 35, 45 years. Now the house property values are going to change, and her ability to move anywhere else will be significantly impacted. These are just little things that have an impact that may have been overlooked.

Community meetings. It's one thing to say that you've listened to the community, but it's another to actually consider what you've heard. There is a huge difference between listening and hearing. I think that what this government has failed to do is to contemplate what they heard. It's not just me saying it, and it's not just the opposition saying it. This is an issue that unites the citizens of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

We all know that in British Columbia, in this country of ours, our transportation infrastructure is an essential part of ensuring that our economies can work. It's not about building an economy. It's about allowing the economy to work, allowing people to travel back and forth, allowing goods to travel back and forth. People can think about living in a community on the coast of British Columbia. They should be able to think about living in our community without wondering what the next move of government is going to be.

In 2002…. I have it on my computer here. It's a press release from this government, many of whom are here, saying that the quasi privatization of B.C. Ferries would result in stable fares and better service. Now, we haven't seen either of those things.

We've seen exorbitant fare increases, far greater than any increases that occurred under previous governments, far faster. We've seen service cuts, service cuts that we have not seen since 2010.

I'll tell you what happened in 2010. The government, in its wisdom, decided that the first sailing from Langdale to Horseshoe Bay should be cancelled, because it had the fewest riders. But the least used ferry trip is not the least important ferry trip. That's what, sometimes, people who don't live in ferry-reliant communities fail to consider.

Airplanes going anywhere else in this country leave in the morning, and you have to get to the airport early. You may be participating in a youth orchestra, and you have to get into the city early. You may be part of a judo or wrestling team unable to find competition on the coast. You go in early.

[1815]

Within three days a town hall meeting was held in Gibsons, and over 400 people came. Then within a few days Gordon Campbell cancelled that sailing cut. He restored the sailing, and the reason he restored the sailing — this was in the press release when it was announced — was to encourage economic activity.

On the one hand this government, in a previous iteration, restored ferry service in order to boost the economy. Now we have a government that is wilfully cutting service, and it will have an impact on our economy. But we don't know what that impact is going to be, because what this government failed to do was to contemplate that issue, to do a study to determine the impact of sailing cuts to our communities, and I think that's the responsibility of government.

Now, if you were a government that wanted to do it quickly and forcefully and without compromise…. That's what we've seen — a consultation process that defined what was being consulted and pretty much guaranteed a certain outcome. Well, it did, because the outcome was absolutely no different from the proposal that government made. Nothing changed. Except in one Liberal riding, nothing changed.

You know, I hear people tell me…. It's not about my electability, but they tell me. They think that if people in my riding voted for the governing party, they would have a better chance of getting services appropriately for their constituency. Let me just say: I think that is probably the most antidemocratic concept you could possibly possess.

If this government is engaging in blacktop politics the way we used to make fun of other governments that did that…. I remember driving through the country roads in Nova Scotia. The road would be smooth, and it would be straight, and it would be well marked. Then you'd get to a place where you'd think you'd fallen into a crater. Craters — potholes that could swallow a small car. It really was. The government members were getting money for their
[ Page 1357 ]
constituencies and not for others.

I can't believe that in British Columbia we would even contemplate that occurring. But the fact is that close to 90 percent of people affected by these cuts are represented by a member of Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

I'd just like it if the government said they were going to consult and they were going to face people in the constituency and look at them face to face. That is what was promised. It was promised that, because it was the most difficult decision the minister had to make, he would face people face to face. Well, he sent other people to face them. Regular members of our community never had an opportunity to talk to the minister. He chose who he'd speak to.

The people he spoke to — I think, to a person — said: "These cuts are a bad idea." I mean, the chamber of commerce was adamantly opposed, knowing about the economic impact. The ferry advisory committee was shunted aside. Mayors' and councillors' and chiefs' opinions were dismissed. This was a decision that government made, really, without consultation. They haven't changed their plan since they first suggested it.

They gave a little — what do they call it? — opportunity for communities to blow off steam. It's sad, really, because I tell my constituents: just keep writing those letters. I've got stacks of letters, and I've got stacks of petitions.

[1820]

There are so many things that the people I represent are worried about, and they've done everything they could to get this government to listen or to understand. I just find it extremely disheartening. It's disheartening because I have been unable to convince the government of the importance of maintaining stable services.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I knew I wasn't winning on the price war for a while because they just kept going up. The cost of ferries now is just through the roof. B.C. Ferries is an issue affecting all of my constituents. They're hoping, I guess, against hope that something is going to happen and the government will see the light and maybe tomorrow will bring us some news. I guess we'll cross our fingers, and maybe there'll be a brighter day tomorrow.

I do want to end on this note. It would have been a wonderful throne speech if some words were said that indicated government recognized the concerns of ferry-reliant communities and spoke, perhaps, to the importance of maintaining good transportation infrastructure throughout the province. That would have been nice to hear, and it wasn't heard.

Madame Speaker, I note the time and recognize that I hope to hold my place to speak tomorrow. Oh, I can go for five more minutes. Thank you, Madame Speaker. Welcome back to the chair, by the way.

Many people have told me that the amount of money spent on ferries right before the Olympics was quite significant, some $900 million on security upgrades, making our ferry terminals probably about as welcoming as a federal prison. We call it Fort Langdale. We've got higher fences and sharper razor wire, I'm sure, than a lot of medium-security institutions. I think people were shaking their heads then and they're shaking their heads again now, knowing that the government is looking for $18 million, and they spent about 20 times that much on fences around ferries in Langdale.

It's a lot about the priorities of spending in B.C. Ferries, with the exorbitantly high number of management positions and the pay they get. I'm sure that they've given the minister a lot of briefing notes that could explain that away somehow.

The fact is that other ferry services cost less to administer. I understand we have important Transport Canada regulations. But people on the Sunshine Coast have solutions, and given the opportunity, we would provide them.

The only thing the government considered from their consultation was service cuts. There were a number of other recommendations made. There were a lot of other ideas brought forward, including home-porting the ferry between Comox and Powell River in Powell River. That would save a lot of money, and it would be much more convenient. Powell River is the only community in the province that is ferry-reliant where the boat doesn't stay overnight — so that, for one.

Most people would recognize that if the government were to absorb the debt of B.C. Ferries, it wouldn't impact the credit rating. Everyone knows that the company would not be let…. I think the credit-rating agencies would see it for what it is.

I don't really want to start on another subject right now. I think everyone is recognizing that it's….

Interjections.

N. Simons: I know. I would really like to indulge you.

I would like to also thank the member from somewhere in the valley who mentioned me today in his speech, in quoting me and using it against me. It was almost interesting at the time.

N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.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