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 24, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 6, Number 3

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ERASING BULLYING

Michelle Stilwell: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak today on a topic that is important to me both as a mother and a member of this great province, and it's a topic that is of great interest to all British Columbians — to share with you the initiatives that this government has put in place to combat bullying.

In British Columbia we've all worked hard to address this serious issue. In 2007 members of this Legislature passed legislation that required our province's school boards to implement codes of conduct, in all schools, that include standards for appropriate school behaviour.

The B.C. human rights code protects British Columbians from bullying at the workplace based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, age, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation. These classes shouldn't matter. We need to embrace each other and rise up to create a stronger, more unified society.

[1005]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On November 1 of 2013, new WorkSafe B.C. rules came into effect that bullying and harassment were expressly prohibited conduct at the workplace under section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act. This new policy sets out what reasonable steps employers have in preventing workplace bullying and harassment. These include developing and implementing procedures in which workers can report incidents or complaints of workplace bullying, and training supervisors and workers to recognize the potential for bullying and harassment and how to respond and address these incidents.

This Wednesday, February 26, will mark Pink Shirt Day, a day championed by our Premier since before she was elected to this chamber, and the day is also being proclaimed as Bullying Awareness Day in British Columbia. Students and educators throughout the province will be putting a special focus on creating inclusive and supportive school environments for every member of their school community.

In June 2012 the Premier announced the ten-point ERASE Bullying strategy, the most comprehensive anti-bullying and threat assessment strategy in all of Canada. This strategy includes a five-year multilevel training program for 15,000 educators and community partners, to help them proactively identify and address threats. More than 5,500 people have already been trained. The training programs have been established, and all 60 school districts have completed the first phase.

Part of this training specifically deals with cyberbullying and the importance of teaching students to use social media responsibly and ethically and also how to potentially remove conflict from content places like Facebook.

We have all seen the vast effects of cyberbullying from those tragic situations and stories of youth like Amanda Todd. Stories like these are horrific, yet they help us get that conversation started, creating opportunities for us to have those discussions as we work together to find solutions to bring a stop to bullying and on-line harassment.

The world and its technology are changing. On-line harassment can be particularly insidious, as it offers a venue for potential bullies where they can hide under the veil of anonymity. Those bullied are not armed with the tools to protect or defend themselves, and even more so, neither are their parents or those who support them. For this reason we are developing on-line tools and resources for parents on the erasebullying.ca website. The site features information on conflict, definitions on bullying, warning signs, conversation starters, tips for talking at schools, cyberbullying, Internet slang and information on youth suicide.

The content is updated frequently, and the website continues to receive steady traffic — approximately 8,300 visitors in December alone. This is an impressive number. I see this as the first line of defence, where students and parents can have a confidential place to search for information and resources.

We need to keep this conversation going. We need to encourage the discussion and continue to educate. There's also an ERASE Bullying Twitter feed, @ERASEbullyingBC, that has more than 2,200 followers, myself included, and I actually find the tweets both informative and inspiring.

The confidential and anonymous on-line ERASE Bullying reporting tool has launched in both French and English, so students can safely and, if they so choose, anonymously report bullying and other harmful behaviours.

We now have school districts focusing one of their six professional development days on anti-bullying and safe culture within a personalized learning environment. The Ministry of Education has provided districts with resource packages containing ideas for professional development.

In November of 2012 the Premier hosted the ERASE Bullying Summit, with more than 130 students, anti-bullying experts and key stakeholders. Together they identified key priorities and actions to help students,
[ Page 1490 ]
communities and individuals keep their communities safe.

I think we can all relate, at one time or another, when we ourselves were bullied or we witnessed bullying firsthand, whether in school, on the playground or in the workplace. The effect this has on people who are bullied cannot be overstated.

This government has put in place a framework that is leading towards being more quickly recognized and then having a framework in place that leads to positive outcomes.

We can't be bystanders anymore. We can't just look the other way. We have to help make it better, because nobody deserves to be bullied. One step at a time we need to rise together from both sides of this House and around the province. It's our responsibility.

[1010]

C. James: Thank you to the member for raising a critical issue. I think, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum said so well, this is something that unites this House. I think there are members on all sides who would say that this is a priority for us not simply because you're a parent but because it's something that impacts all of us. Whether we're talking about the education system, whether we're talking about our children, whether we're talking about the workplace, dealing with bullying is a critical issue for all of us to take on.

I want to spend a couple of minutes that I have to talk about a couple of areas that I believe need to be strengthened and actions that we need to move on. I think we would all agree that erasing bullying is a goal that we all need to look to. But in the meantime, we need to take the steps to name it, to call it out when it is done, because I think there are still some people who believe that bullying is something that just happens when you're a young person growing up — that it's still just part of aging and it's part of your experience as a young person.

I think the first critical piece that we all need to talk about is that we all have a responsibility to name it. It's not simply the responsibility of the victim; it's the responsibility of those who are around. It's the responsibility of the support network. It is the responsibility of all of us to stand up, to call it and to name it when we see bullying.

I think that the second piece — and it is some of the work that, certainly, we see happening with parents and the school boards — is to educate families to know what bullying is when it's there. This is particularly important in the area of cyberbullying. As we all know…. Although as parents — and now I see it through the lens of a grandparent — you think you know what's going on with your children, and you think you're aware of what's happening, certainly with cyberbullying and with what happens through social media, there are often opportunities for young people not to share that with their families and not to share that with adults.

It's even more important, when it comes to educating, that we all take a personal responsibility to learn about what's going on, to learn what our children know and to learn what our grandchildren know. Often I think parents are very surprised that it's much more than they would have ever imagined that their children are aware of.

Then the last piece that's important, as we look at how we erase bullying, is to get beyond the bullying and to address it first, right off the bat. The member mentioned school boards and the request by government to school boards to put in place a code of conduct. I think that's important, but there's a large piece missing from that work. That's the piece of ensuring that sexual orientation and all human rights are included as part of that code of conduct.

In fact, in this province there are still approximately 50 percent of school boards and private schools that have not included sexual orientation as part of that code of conduct. Well, if we are going to truly end bullying, we need to ensure that all human rights, including sexual orientation and gender identity, are included as part of those policies. So I think there's more work to do, on government's part, in making sure that it's not simply saying that codes of conduct are there but that it includes all of the areas that are needed.

Then the last piece is the work that has to happen for those victims. We need more support for youth mental health. The member mentioned Amanda Todd. Well, Carol Todd would be one of the best advocates to tell you the importance of counselling, the importance of support, the importance of youth mental health supports for both victims and bullies, who both often need that kind of support to be able to address it.

I certainly join with the member across to talk about how we erase bullying, to work together to be able to do it and to take the important steps to not only, as I said, call it and ensure that it's there in codes of conduct but that the support and the counselling and the necessary support for victims and bullies are also in place in programming, because that's just as important if we're going to address it.

Michelle Stilwell: Well, I thank the member opposite for sharing our concerns and acknowledging that this is something that needs to be unified within this House and across the province of British Columbia. Whether we're parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles, brothers or sisters, we all share the same concern, and we don't want to see anyone that we love or care for be bullied.

[1015]

There is no doubt that we need to put a stop to bullying, and there's no doubt that we need to take a stand and accept people for their differences, no matter what their race, gender, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation may be. It's not something that's going to be easy to solve, and there are definitely no simple solutions, but I do acknowledge that when we work together collabora-
[ Page 1491 ]
tively, we will make a difference. We need to continue to work with those school boards the member opposite mentioned in a partnership so that we make it come alive.

We'll continue to educate and train people to work with our youth. We'll count on the input from the 12 students from the ERASE Bullying student council. They will become the leaders who will be changing school culture for the future.

It's definitely not something that we can fix in five years just by training people. Culture shift takes much more time than that, but look how far we have come. Pink Shirt Day has done such a great job of raising awareness about bullying — at schools, at hockey games and even in front of the Legislature with flash mobs in pink shirts. They've made a big impression. But as we learned with Amanda Todd, sometimes we need to do more.

I believe that the ERASE Bullying provincial advisory council on violence prevention, with the representatives from police and schools and the social agency partners, will continue to take those steps forward in helping to put a stop to bullying. Community plays such a huge role in ending bullying, and every single one of us needs to offer each other compassionate responses every single day. We must be those role models for good behaviour in moving towards a safer society, because we are all in this together.

I invite everyone to participate in Pink Shirt Day on Wednesday, but really, I invite everyone to take part 365 days of the year, 24-7, to be role models, to continue to talk about the issue and work together to find those great solutions.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN ADULT LEARNING

R. Fleming: I want to talk a little bit this morning about something that was missing from the budget last week but was clearly identified by both sides of the House in the Standing Committee on Finance and, in fact, unanimously recommended in bipartisan fashion when the committee did their deliberations after travelling in every part of the province and hearing from communities and business leaders, labour market experts and everybody else who came to testify. That was about the critical need to support literacy funding in British Columbia.

This is a section of the budget that is so small it doesn't even have a line item but something that is so critical that it sustains 102 organizations operating in 400 communities. Every one of the 85 members in this House has people that are dedicated on a daily basis to promoting adult literacy in their communities, and they do it on an incredibly small amount of money.

Those efforts are in jeopardy, and that's what the committee heard. The committee heard that without stable funding, which is the situation today, many literacy organizations in different communities, including mine here in Victoria, face the risk of not being able to continue their efforts — certainly, not in the way that they manage to do so today.

This was perhaps the most modest ask, I dare say, that the Finance Committee heard. What they asked of this government, and what the Liberal Chair of that committee agreed to and the members on that committee, was $2½ million of stable funding over the next three years — in other words, to go back to 2011 funding levels. Literacy efforts in British Columbia are threatened today because government has only committed $1 million to support 102 organizations working in 400 communities in British Columbia.

Now, that's what I want to speak about this morning. Government missed an opportunity last week to hear about, from the perspective of all the members of the Finance Committee, why this is critically important. It's additionally important to support what we have in terms of the formal and informal networks around B.C. on literacy. The work they do is important, and the work they do is also in the absence of a coordinated literacy plan in British Columbia.

We also know from recent reports that without a plan, this government is adrift within Canada and internationally on adult literacy statistics. The OECD recently issued a report, in 2013, that showed that adult literacy gains in Canada, and B.C. in particular, have stalled.

[1020]

We exist in the middle of the pack of those countries that are involved in the international comparison, and we show little sign of improvement.

Now, how big is the scale of this problem? We know from recent surveys that there are approximately 320,000 people aged 25 to 64 in our workforce, in the economy in British Columbia, who have not graduated from high school. Between 2008 and 2011 almost 30 percent of 18-year-olds did not graduate from high school. Imagine that, in this day and age at this point in the 21st century in this kind of knowledge-based economy here in British Columbia.

That is a statistic that shows an economy that is not paying attention to one of the key drivers that is leading to a decline in productivity in our economy. That shows a priority that government ought to have in terms of not only raising the GDP but raising the living standards of those people who need support in British Columbia.

This should be, if not the core, a critical component of the government's so-called jobs plan. We know that it's not performing in terms of the outcomes and the targets it set for itself. I'll leave that to another point of debate in the session here for that to be canvassed in more detail. To have a B.C. jobs plan that doesn't acknowledge and put as one of its major priorities raising up literacy standards in B.C. is a jobs plan that will fail.

We know from discussions, some public and some private, from HR departments of major liquefied natural gas companies that are looking at an opportunity in British
[ Page 1492 ]
Columbia right now — some of those proponents who are doing their business case — that one of the things they're looking at is the labour force.

In northern British Columbia they're looking at some school districts that have a graduation rate of 50 percent. They're looking at aboriginal communities where the graduation rate, in some cases, is even worse. Some of those communities don't even have a literacy outreach coordinator.

Now, companies can't hire workers that are at a level 1 or a level 2 in literacy and numeracy. We are at risk of having this LNG opportunity provide no opportunity for British Columbians in those communities unless we do something to raise standards. The aboriginal social licence — which communities in the northwest of this province want to be a part of — includes and is based on employment opportunities and income and breaking the cycle of unemployment in those communities. Without access to literacy outreach programs, that is not going to occur.

There are many economic reasons to support stable funding. I've mentioned a few of them this morning. But there's the human factor for it too. I just want to read a letter that the Standing Committee on Finance received from a gentleman in Zeballos, which is a community that struggles, here on the north Island.

It was written by somebody who's a grandfather of children. He was so proud because he recently learned how to read and write properly, and he did it because has grandchildren urged him to do it. This was a gentleman who had not been in school since 1961. He wrote to the government. He urged them to do better. He talked about his life-changing opportunities because of the literacy programs that exist in his community.

That is a compelling reason why government needed to listen to its own Liberal majority and the opposition members on the Standing Committee on Finance. They didn't do it in the budget that was tabled here last week. They need to do it going forward.

J. Thornthwaite: Our government is committed to ensuring that adults in B.C. have the adult education opportunities needed to fulfil their educational, employment and life goals. We recognize that for many British Columbians the first point of access to post-secondary education and training is through developmental programs, such as adult basic education and English as a second language.

Annually, we invest considerable funding to ensure that learners have access to upgrading, transition and language training programming throughout the province. These priority programs support the B.C. jobs plan, enhance access to education and ensure that all British Columbians have the training needed to acquire the jobs and become active members of the labour market.

[1025]

Since 2001 our government has invested more than $2 billion in literacy and literacy-related initiatives for British Columbians.

I'd just like to comment on what the member had said about Decoda. In promoting adult literacy, Decoda continues to be a valued partner in the Ministry of Education's literacy work. It's one of the many organizations that the Ministry of Education partners with to help improve the literacy skills of British Columbians.

This year Decoda is receiving $1.5 million from the Ministry of Education, including $500,000 from the Raise-a-Reader program. I was honoured to be able to join my partners in Decoda at the Raise-a-Reader event last fall with our Capilano University partners, down in Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver.

As the member indicated, Decoda supports the coordinated literacy network in B.C. They fund 102 literacy outreach coordinators who work in 400 communities across the province. Those literacy outreach coordinators bring together literacy task groups to identify local literacy priorities and develop community-based action plans to address local issues and challenges and to help reach goals. They basically help what they call second-chance learners.

With regards to the comments that were made about the K-to-12 system, I'd like to just bring out some information, some facts with regard to the success of B.C. students. The excellent results achieved by B.C. students in prestigious international studies, such as PIRLS and PISA, are good examples of what students are actually achieving.

In the PIRLS test of the reading ability of grade 4 students, B.C. was recognized as one of the top seven jurisdictions in the world. The 2012 PISA test results showed that 15-year-old B.C. students are in the range above other high-performing jurisdictions such as Finland, Germany and Australia. Compared to other Canadian provinces, B.C. students were top-ranked in reading and science, and second only to Quebec in math.

The ministry has also appointed Maureen Dockendorf as our superintendent for literacy, which shows a huge commitment in the actual investments on literacy in our children's classrooms.

Since introducing a community-based literacy model in 2003, the Ministry of Education has invested approximately $33 million with Decoda Literacy Solutions. The ministry has partnered with Decoda to develop a community literacy model to improve literacy awareness. Funding provided to Decoda comes from three provincial ministries — Education, Advanced Ed, and Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training — totalling $2.3 million during 2012 and 2013. Over the past three years Advanced Ed provided funding of $130,000 in 2012-13 and $62,000 in 2013-14.

Decoda also receives funding and works collaboratively with other granting sources, such as the Columbia
[ Page 1493 ]
Basin Trust, the Gaming Commission, Rotary clubs, foundations, credit unions, Raise-a-Reader and the United Way.

Total literacy funding across three ministries in 2012 and 2013 — Education, Advanced Ed, and Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training — was $37.6 million. Total funding to Decoda from those three ministries was $2.3 million. And in addition, from the Ministry of Education, $27.4 million in funding, including to Decoda; to public libraries; to Changing Results for Young Readers; Ready, Set, Learn kindergarten programs; and StrongStart centres.

The Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology provided $2.4 million in support of community literacy adult programs. In the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, $7.6 million for workplace-based essential skills training for fiscal year '11-12 through '13-14 — again, $281,000 to Decoda.

I think we're doing a pretty good job of our investments in adult literacy.

R. Fleming: I thank the member for her response, although I think I may have some numbers that are a little different than hers. They are numbers that the Standing Committee on Finance not only heard but agreed with.

[1030]

Yesterday we saw the closing ceremonies of the Sochi games. It brings us back to something that was supposed to be a legacy of Vancouver and Whistler's 2010 hosting of the games.

Under the Legacies Now funding, one of the initiatives that was to be covered was, in fact, raising literacy in British Columbia. It was recognized as something that should be a social benefit for the huge cost that taxpayers bore to build the infrastructure and to host those games.

The reality is that that legacy has dried up completely now. Those funds were dipped into and expensed because government cut core line funding in its ministries. Literacy funding today, administered by Decoda for the literacy outreach coordinators in 102 different organizations around British Columbia, is in peril.

That's why this issue is of urgency, that's why I raise it this morning for debate, and that's why both sides, both parties in this Legislature, recommended unanimously that government listen to those organizations on the ground in communities and give stable, multi-year funding. That didn't happen in the budget that was tabled last week.

We risk a great deal by not supporting those who do the work. Let me just put it in Decoda's words. Having endured cuts, beginning in 2010, from the Legacies Now funding, they have exhausted reserves. In their own words: "Decoda has been left with a shortfall, taken from limited remaining resources. As a not-for-profit organization, Decoda does not have the funding resources to continue to make up the shortfall for funding."

That was the warning that was given to the Standing Committee on Finance in advance of the budget, and it's one that is real, that the members took seriously, because they made a joint urging of government to make it part of this budget.

We're also talking about new Canadians in all of this. What we've seen in recent weeks is the province of B.C., this Liberal government, completely buckling to Ottawa and eliminating college-based, high-quality ESL funding. Now, that is one of the most critical cornerstones of advancing an agenda that will boost literacy gains in this province and developing our workforce so that we have a higher-growth, more productive economy.

What we're going to see as a result of this government's shifting models — unlike Manitoba and Ontario, which stood up to the federal government — caving in and moving to an inferior model…. We're going to see tens of thousands of new Canadians with advanced degrees and skills, who come here from all over the world, not be able to contribute to our economy in the way they should.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Thank you for the opportunity to bring it to the attention of my colleagues across the way this morning.

CREDIT UNIONS AND COMMUNITIES

L. Larson: I'm pleased to speak today to the history and value of the credit unions of British Columbia to our economy.

During the Depression of the '30s the established banks showed very little interest in those who made small deposits or took out small loans. In fact, many branches closed and left small communities. This hurt the small businesses and entrepreneurs who now had nowhere to turn for financial help or credit.

The earliest supporters of credit unions were those who generally never had credit — the underemployed, the poorly paid. These people suffered from low wages, seasonal work and the common problem of having periodic shortages of capital.

Credit unions in the early days were communities of people who banded together to save money collectively and to loan money. Money was loaned on a person's reputation; how reliable the applicant was, as judged by his peers; and if the loan would be productive.

In the early 1930s, in the midst of the Depression, a group met in Burnaby and decided to launch an organization known as the Common Good Co-operative. Since there was no legislation, the members of the Common Good erred on the side of caution by calling themselves a co-op, believing that credit unions could possibly be illegal.

The Common Good was not the only co-op operating under the radar. There was one in a bus station, operated by the Pacific Stage Coach drivers, and others, such as the Canada Post employees and the fishermen, who also banded together to help one another.
[ Page 1494 ]

These groups' long-term goals were to undertake industrial projects and help the unemployed and their families. By 1936 the Common Good had established branches in Point Grey, New Westminster, Vancouver and North Vancouver.

The first effort to gain legislation for credit unions was introduced in 1936 by MLA Dorothy Steeves as a private member's bill. The Credit Union Act was finally passed in 1938.

[1035]

Under the legislation, a credit union could be chartered if ten or more members applied to the inspector of credit unions, who was an official in the Department of the Attorney General. Applications were granted only if they were for the convenience and advantage of the public. The Powell River Credit Union was the first to be officially chartered, in 1939.

The Credit Union Act was lengthy — 150 pages of small print, with a "common bond" clause. The theme of the common bond was that members of the credit union must share a bond related to either occupation, religion, ethnicity, organization or place of residence. Examples were the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Credit Union and the Vancouver Firefighters Credit Union.

Legislation also stipulated that members had to purchase and hold shares, and only members could share in any benefits. The government also required that funds be set aside to protect the credit union against bad loans and losses.

Profits could be distributed to members or transferred to a central credit union, which was established in 1944. By 1946 the Central Credit Union was very influential, as credit unions had over 19,000 members and $1.7 million in assets.

Credit unions also went to great lengths to ensure that members were saving, some even as far as putting savings in their members' names. Savings soon became a measure of character for some of the credit unions.

While initial loans were for cars, consolidating debts, home repairs, furniture and funerals, by the 1960s, 70 percent of the loans were for mortgages. It should be noted that credit unions were the first financial institutions to make loans to women in their own names — yes. By 1965, outside the Lower Mainland there were 29 credit unions with assets exceeding $1 million. Those credit unions in small, rural communities became part of the social fabric of these communities and contributed significantly to the local economies.

The Credit Union Foundation of B.C. is provincewide and funded through donations from credit union members. The foundation provides public colleges and universities throughout British Columbia with grant funding disbursed to students with financial needs. In 2012 the foundation provided over $200,000 in awards to 197 individual recipients.

Yet another partnership between the United Way, the credit unions of B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and aboriginal and community leaders is Success By 6. It provides funds for early-years councils for local early-years programs and projects. The credit unions have contributed 25 cents per member, per year, for a total of $2.5 million to these regional and provincewide initiatives.

Credit unions have also been extremely innovative — first to offer daily interest savings, payroll deductions, loan payments. They pioneered the later banking hours, installed the first ATMs, the first RESPs, debit cards and cheque imaging as well as mobile banking apps for all three major smartphone platforms.

There are 43 independent credit unions with 370 branches and 550 ATMs. They have become cornerstones of their rural communities, offering innovative banking while maintaining direct social connections with the people they serve. This government continues to recognize and support the credit unions of British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I thank the member for providing this House the opportunity to talk about credit unions. Normally, we use this time, it is my understanding, though, to talk about some policy items, and I didn't hear much of a policy debate going on. I'm going to take this time to also speak about credit unions and the great work that they do in my particular area, in the Nelson-Creston riding.

Of course, credit unions are well known as the democratic bank. They are democratic organizations based on the principle of one member, one vote. They also are based on the principle that the profits are to be shared by the many. It's quite a socialist concept, actually.

[1040]

Yes, this idea that the profits are supposed to be shared by the many, not just by the few, is something that separates credit unions from the big banks, of course. So no surprise that, as the member mentioned, the legislation that allowed for credit unions to exist here in British Columbia was introduced by a CCF member — of course, the precursor to the political party of the opposition benches. Dorothy Gretchen Steeves had the vision to see the benefit of credit unions in their communities, because it was very aligned with the type of ideology espoused by her political party of that day and of today as well.

What do we see with our credit unions in this day and age? Well, I'll speak about the credit unions in my riding, which are doing amazing work. The Nelson and District Credit Union is servicing the Nelson area and the East Shore, as well as Rossland, which is in my colleague's riding of Kootenay West.

Some of the work that they do in the community focuses on education specifically. They provide awards to secondary school students. They provide scholarships to those entering post-secondary education. We all know
[ Page 1495 ]
that post-secondary education is getting more and more expensive as cuts to post-secondary education are a reality out of this Liberal budget. These types of scholarships are helping kids in my area get the education they need so they can get the jobs that they need to have a good life.

Kootenay Savings also has a community foundation. They're servicing Salmo, Kaslo and South Slocan. They have provided, since 2000, $3.5 million awarded to the communities, helping programs throughout the region deliver services so our communities can thrive.

Of course, I'd be remiss to not mention the incredible long list just last year of the community programs from the Creston and District Credit Union. They're servicing the Creston Valley. They've been doing these types of community programs for over 60 years.

Last year alone — a long list; just bringing it down to a couple. Blossom Festival — a great event every year. I recommend everybody come out and check that out on the May long weekend, as well as supporting future Olympians at the figure-skating club or the Thunder Cats hockey.

Of course, I can't forget all the great work that the Creston and District Credit Union is doing for the Creston Valley wildlife management area and Ducks Unlimited and preserving that beautiful Ramsar site in the Creston Valley.

Again, I'd like to thank the member for giving us the opportunity to talk about the great work that credit unions are doing in our area and for reminding us all of the democratic principles that exist behind our credit unions and the idea that profits are to go to the many and not just to the few, an ideology that I sure hope the members opposite will adopt very soon and perhaps make some amendments to their budget.

L. Larson: I'll take my last chance here to talk about my own riding and the credit unions that are in my local community of Oliver. We have two credit unions, Valley First and Interior Savings, both cooperative financial institutions that serve thousands of people in small and large communities throughout the Okanagan, Thompson and Similkameen valleys.

Valley First's Feed the Valley program has raised over $500,000 since 2010. They have received an award as one of Canada's top credit union community investment programs. Locally in Oliver in the last three years they have collected more than 1,000 pounds of food and raised over $16,000 for our local food bank. Just to remind you, my community is less than 5,000 people.

Interior Savings' Million Dollar Bursary program will provide up to 1,000 graduating students with $1,000 bursaries, a commitment of $3 million between 2014 and 2016. Interior Savings has also sponsored the Oliver annual Hike for Hospice for several years. Both credit unions do respond immediately when there are local issues.

[1045]

As government, we have responded quickly to an issue our credit unions were facing with the proposed changes in tax structure coming down from the federal government — changes that would have seriously affected their ability to continue to be profitable, to remain in British Columbia and to give back to their communities. We will amend the Income Tax Act to provide relief to credit unions from those changes to income tax policy announced by the federal government.

Credit unions currently employ more than 8,700 people, hold $58 billion in assets and have 1.9 million members. Collectively, in 2012-2013, they contributed more than $17½ million to charity.

We are thankful for the credit unions of British Columbia, who support our local economies as employers, who help small business, who volunteer and who are major contributors to the social fabric of all of British Columbia.

FRASER HEALTH REVIEW

J. Darcy: I rise today to speak about the review of the Fraser Health Authority that was announced by the minister a few months ago.

I want to begin by saluting the wonderful staff who work for Fraser Health — the 22,000 staff, 2,500 physicians and 6,500 volunteers who give everything of themselves every single day to try and ensure the highest quality health care that they possibly can. It's a wide array of staff, as I said — everyone from physicians to booking clerks to nurses to pharmacy techs to tradespeople to cleaners. All do their very, very best under very difficult circumstances.

In the months leading up to the announcement of the review of Fraser Health, we all were treated to numerous front-page stories about some of the issues that patients and their families have experienced in Fraser Health, which eventually gave rise to a review being announced. Those included the overcrowding in emergency rooms, the high incidence of infectious diseases, the long wait-lists and a myriad of other problems.

On November 1, 2013, the minister announced, as I said, that there would be a review of Fraser Health operations, and he certainly stressed concerns about Fraser Health Authority not meeting its budget targets.

In some of the media exchanges that followed, there was some speculation about possible boundary changes. There were also statements made by the minister that congestion in our emergency rooms and hospitals is "nothing new" — effectively denying, in a real sense, that there was a real crisis of hallway medicine in the Fraser Health Authority.

Both the CEO of the health authority and the Minister of Health stressed that this review would not be looking at individual patient experiences or media stories, much
[ Page 1496 ]
less allegations of organizations representing people who work on the front lines of health care.

Immediately after that, on behalf of both the families — many families who have come to me with issues — as well as on behalf of the opposition caucus, I challenged the minister that we need to stop denying there's a crisis here if we're really going to get to the bottom of it; that an operational review, a high-level operational review, is absolutely critical. But what's also absolutely critical is that there be full transparency and accountability in this review of Fraser Health. We need it.

The public has the right to know: what are we looking at? Are we looking at bed shortages? Are we looking at insufficient staffing levels? Are we looking at overcrowding? Are we looking at the number of alternate-level-of-care beds that prevent people who need to be in those beds from getting the care that they deserve?

We also called on the minister to speak to the issue of immediate action, because with the opening of the new Surrey Memorial Hospital, with great fanfare — a wonderful building but absolutely flooded with increased volume — the overcrowding, in fact, in many cases has gotten worse. The same with, in my hometown, the Royal Columbian Hospital.

But we also challenged the minister: where will the public accountability be in this review? Why won't the voices of patients and their families be heard? And why won't the voices of people who work in health care be heard, who surely have a huge amount to offer to the minister and to the CEOs and the heads of health authorities who are involved in the review?

On November 12, 2013, the members of the committee were appointed. It was announced — as I said, senior officials in both the ministry and in various health authorities. Again, no details. Again, no terms of reference. We heard just one new thing, and that was that the nine-member committee will have its first face-to-face meeting before the end of the month. That was on November 12, 2013.

[1050]

Again, on behalf of the opposition caucus and the patients and their families who have come to me, we reiterated that the terms of reference needed to be released, that there needed to be a public consultation, that there needed to be involvement of front-line health care providers — and again, no response from the minister.

My office received, then, some time in December what appeared to us to be a form letter in response to this raising of very, very serious concerns. The response basically said: "Your comments have been forwarded to the review committee. Although the ministry will not be formally seeking public input, we value feedback and suggestions." Then it referred me to a press release on the Ministry of Health website.

There were questions asked out of the Fraser Health board meeting. Where is the opportunity for public input? Where is the opportunity for input from front-line health care providers? The answer that was given was: "There is no time for public input or a town hall meeting. Timelines are just too tight."

Then we heard nothing for 75 days — 75 days, hon. Speaker. On January 27, 2014, I had to assume, and members of the public had to assume, that this review panel were working their butts off, examining every aspect of the operations of Fraser Health. But on January 27 the minister reannounced the names on the committee, a couple of changes on the committee, and repeated that they would be meeting for the first time by the end of the month. Now, that's what the minister said on November 12, and he said it again on January 27 — three months since the review was announced; 75 days since the members of the review panel were announced.

The Health Minister, when he was questioned about it, publicly said: "With Christmas intervening, that does tend to put a bit of a pause there, but it is a priority. We've set a timeline, and we're going to meet it." Well, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that certainly the patients and their families who want answers had to wait. They're waiting an awfully long time.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The issues that have given rise to this review continue and abound every day in the interim period. We've seen superbugs at Royal Columbian Hospital — superbugs, antibiotic-resistant bugs. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control has said very clearly in past reports that overcrowding in hospitals and lack of sufficient cleaning creates the conditions for these things to continue.

I will return in my closing remarks, calling on the minister to change course. It's not too late to do so.

M. Hunt: I wish to join with the member opposite in congratulating the wonderful staff and volunteers that we have in Fraser Health that are doing a tremendous job dealing with the health care challenges of the citizens of Fraser Health.

We have to remember one thing. In May 2013 the citizens of British Columbia gave a mandate to this government to grow the economy and to control spending. That means that we have to review the issues. We have to review the challenges that we're facing and make those tough decisions in order to protect today the services for tomorrow and the delivery of those services tomorrow.

Despite the challenging fiscal realities that we face, we continue to make significant investments in the health care system. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to live within our means and, ultimately, to balance the budget. In fact, most health authorities have been able to manage their budgets and are producing exceptional care for our citizens.

Fraser Health is a most interesting health authority.
[ Page 1497 ]
It's easy to just say that it's the fastest-growing health authority in the province. That's easy to say — the growth, the diversity, those things. But I'd just like to pause for a moment here to help the members to understand the kind of growth that Fraser Health is experiencing. Just in the last five years, the city of Surrey alone has grown by Prince George. So in five years all of Prince George has moved into Surrey.

[1055]

If we take the next ten years and we look at the projections for growth, all of Richmond — the fourth-largest municipality in this province — will be moving into Surrey. If we add the growth that's happening in Langley and we add the growth happening in Abbotsford, we in fact find ourselves more than the growth of Burnaby in the next ten years. That is a massive challenge.

Just to compare the growth between…. I'm using Surrey as the example because that's where I'm from and that's the one that I know the best. The growth in Surrey in the last five years, in the last census, was 75,000. The second-fastest-growing city in the province was the city of Vancouver, at 25,000 — one-third the growth.

There are massive challenges that are coming on Fraser Health. There's massive work that needs to be done and challenges that the Minister of Health is working on, and he has, in fact, directed that the Fraser Health Authority produce a three-year strategic and operating plan. In order to support that plan and address the challenges that they're going to be facing, he has appointed this ten-member review committee to support the board.

I would mention that this review panel includes board chairs. It has health executives, deputy ministers, executive directors of patient advocacy groups. So the patient advocacy groups are represented in this panel. In fact, the co-chairs of this panel will be meeting with the minister. I believe it's today, if I have my facts correct. But they are meeting. We are having the people that are the advocates for the patients that are there. Ultimately, they're the ones that are hearing the generalities, the stories. They're hearing the specifics, but they're able to put that into the generalities of what's necessary in the midst of Fraser Health.

We have good representation from throughout the province, as well as the challenges that we are facing. In this review, my hope and expectation is the fact that we will check…. We will learn what the challenges are, how we can address those challenges and what we can learn from those challenges so that this isn't simply information for the Fraser Health Authority. Rather, this is information that can be used in all of the health authorities throughout the province.

The mandate that they have is to conclude their review and bring the lessons learned forward by the end of May. That is a challenge, but I know that if we work together collaboratively, we can make significant progress in the challenges that are facing Fraser Health Authority in addressing the quality targets.

We've already had one review that has worked within the health authority, within Fraser themselves, that looked at five specific areas where they can improve, and they have done that in this past year. But the reality is: how do we, in fact, judge what is being done? What is the spectrum? Is the spectrum, the matrix, simply how much money we spend, or are we actually looking at the outcomes? Are we looking at the outcomes for our citizens?

J. Darcy: There is no question that there are huge challenges with growth in Fraser Health Authority. But frankly, this has been coming for many years now. This is the kind of thing that Fraser Health and the Ministry of Health should have been able to anticipate and plan ahead.

I absolutely agree that we need a high-level operational review, but we also need an opportunity for the voices of patients and their families to be heard — the voice of a man who died recently at Eagle Ridge Hospital, who was read his last rites in a hallway surrounded by 12 other people, not dying with dignity by any stretch of the imagination; a psych patient at Royal Columbian Hospital who, because of insufficient staffing and because of an overcrowded emergency ward, ended up bolting all the way to the SkyTrain station before he was brought back.

Those stories go on and on. They're in the front lines of the operation. They're also in the back office operation, in pharmacy and in lab, where the workload and the backlog is so great that the capacity for errors is very, very serious.

I would call on the minister once again. It's not too late. We need a high-level operational review, but we also absolutely need transparency and accountability.

[1100]

The terms of reference for that review ought to be very public. There needs to be an opportunity for patients and their families to be able to come forward and to be heard. That's absolutely critical. How else are we going to fully understand what's happening in health care and its impact on the people it's supposed to serve?

Those staff who work on the front lines…. They get surveys regularly about their job satisfaction, asking them questions like, "Do you have a best friend at work?" but never asking them: "Are there sufficient staff to do the job and to do it well?" and "Do you have ideas about how service to the public, to patients and residents can be improved?"

I would call on the minister to rethink his earlier decision. There is surely time between now and May to provide a thorough process for public consultation and a thorough process for engagement of the people who work every single day and do their very best and give of their hearts and their souls and their physical well-being to care for patients and residents throughout Fraser Health Authority.
[ Page 1498 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for a private members' motion.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 6 — ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND OPPORTUNITIES

J. Tegart: On behalf of my constituents of Fraser-Nicola, I am pleased to rise and move the following:

[Be it resolved that this House continue to support finding ways to grow the economy and create opportunities.]

Last week the Minister of Finance released Budget 2014, which aims to set British Columbia on a solid financial footing and lay the groundwork for attracting new investment to the province. As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I took part in the prebudget consultation tour across the province and heard a broad range of opinions on what our fiscal priorities should be.

Opinions were diverse, but the one underlying theme that the committee heard was a consensus on balancing the budget. British Columbians know that we cannot afford to keep piling on debt and then heaping the expense of servicing that debt on our children. It is not the legacy that we, as current members of this House, want to burden on future generations.

More importantly, deficit and debt are job-killers. A government mired in debt loses the financial freedom to make strategic investments in its people and in its infrastructure. A government that spends more on interest and then borrows more and more money just to keep up with the interest payments is robbing the economy of its ability to create new opportunities for our young people.

Only a balanced budget will create the right conditions for job creation. A balanced budget allows us to maintain an attractive tax regime, both in terms of the lowest personal income tax in Canada and low business taxes that give the private sector the ability to create jobs.

The economy is changing rapidly in British Columbia, and the government is changing with it in order to create opportunities and generate employment. For example, in 2001 China represented only 2.3 percent of B.C.'s total exports. The United States was by far our largest trading partner, with more than 70 percent of our exports heading south of the border.

Today all of that has changed. In 2012 only 44 percent of our exports are dependent on trade with the United States. Now China is our largest trading partner in Asia, exceeding even Japan. That turnaround came as a direct result of the government's Pacific gateway strategy.

Working in partnership with the private sector, the government recognized that strategic investments in transportation infrastructure would give us the competitive edge to take advantage of emerging markets in Asia. The objective is to diversify our economy and make B.C. less reliant on the United States.

[1105]

This is good news for people in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. We depend on forestry, mining and agriculture for jobs in our communities, and getting goods to market faster and more reliably than our competitors is growing the economy and creating new opportunities for our young people in my riding.

Again, none of this could be done without a balanced budget. It is because B.C. has balanced its budget for a second year in a row that we have been able to retain our triple-A credit rating, the highest standard available. Triple-A credit ratings are available to jurisdictions on solid financial ground. B.C. is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that enjoys a triple-A credit rating, and it has given us the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments in things like our highway systems to make our province the gateway to the Pacific.

Balancing the budget is no easy task. It requires making tough decisions and having the courage to follow through on our commitment to fiscal responsibility. But the fact is that the discipline to only spend within our means is creating economic opportunities and generating jobs in every region of our province.

R. Austin: Thanks to the member for Fraser-Nicola for bringing up this topic.

As somebody who represents a riding in northwestern British Columbia, a part of B.C. which…. Unlike the member for Surrey-Panorama, who was just describing the huge increase in population in Surrey, over the last ten or 12 years in the northwest of B.C. we have had, unfortunately, the opposite effect — of people having to leave the northwest from Prince Rupert, from Kitimat and from Terrace in order to go and find work in other parts of British Columbia. Many have gone to Alberta, largely due to the results of the collapse in manufacturing in the forestry sector.

It is very important for those of us looking at new opportunities in the northwest to obviously have the best chance now to re-create some economic activity and to, hopefully, give jobs to people who live there.

I just want to speak very, very briefly to the member's comments around the debt. It is one thing to talk about balancing the budget and reducing debt, but the reality is that there is no Premier in the history of British Columbia who has led the charge to increase the overall debt here in British Columbia. In fact, in the budget that was presented the other day, our overall debt is actually going to increase for the next two to three years.
[ Page 1499 ]

The hope is, of course, that at some point, if there is, indeed, an LNG industry that comes to fruition and if there are multiple plants, one day some of that income will help to create a debt-free B.C. for all of our children. My goodness. We'll see if that happens.

I want to speak for a moment about strategic investments. The members on the other side say that, well, all that we do on this side is request more government expenditure. However, when they have a decision that they would like to make, then it becomes a strategic investment, as opposed to increasing the debt.

Here's an example of a strategic investment that would certainly help to give opportunity and to grow our economy. We saw in the throne speech that one of the five main points that the government brought forward was to increase skills training in British Columbia to take opportunities such as LNG. The following week, just one week later, what did we see in the budget? Nothing less than a cut to post-secondary education and skills training on the operational side.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Yes, they're going to spend some money on the capital side, build some more buildings, but not have people in place to actually supply the programs to train the people to give them opportunities.

We have seen in the last couple of years a lot of activity happening in the northwest around the rebuild of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter. But what has that resulted in? It has resulted in a new airline coming into the northwest. We're all happy about that.

WestJet came in just in November of last year. It brought more competition. It reduced the prices for those of us who have had to pay very high prices travelling back and forth. What it also says is that a company like this came in because they saw a market for bringing workers from outside the region to come and work on this big project.

My fear is this — that as we are sitting waiting now for decisions to be made both by government and by the private sector on LNG, if we don't get this right, if we don't make the investments now — right now — for those potential jobs, what we're we going to see in two or three years' time is even more people coming into the region on planes to take those jobs because we've missed making those strategic investments.

[1110]

It isn't simply on the social capital side that we need to make those strategic investments in order to facilitate growth and opportunity. We also need to recognize that there are some capital expenditures that have to be made prior to a final investment decision.

I'm going to give one example. In Kitimat the location is such that all the industrial activity is on the west side of the Douglas Channel, and the residential side is on the other side. There is one bridge that takes every single worker, every single truck and all the equipment that is needed on the industrial side of Kitimat.

The local government there and people who are leaders in the northwest have gone to the government and said: "Okay, so you're talking about Kitimat the whole time. You're talking about the LNG industry. Do you realize that this bridge" — it's known as the Haisla Bridge — "has not been upgraded and, in fact, needs major work done?" Yet the response of the government is: "Well, there's no LNG money coming in, so we're not going to fix the bridge."

Surely, if you are going to talk about strategic investments, you have to recognize that it's the responsibility of government not simply to rely on the private sector but to do things like build bridges and maintain them in order for any kind of investment to be made — similarly, with the roads.

We see a real need for there to be strategic investments made that are necessary in order for any of these job opportunities to come about.

M. Dalton: I'd like to preface my comments to some remarks that the member for Skeena made regarding infrastructure. In the past decade there's been no greater time in British Columbia's history of more investment in infrastructure from one end of the province to the other, whether it be bridges, roads, hospitals, whatever. This is a record that we are very proud of, and we want to continue doing it.

We're continuing to make these investments. That's one of the reasons why we believe in getting to yes on major projects, on smaller projects and seeing investment in British Columbia.

In the last election we picked up a number of ridings, and we held on to others that were expected to perhaps go the other way. I guess mine would have been in that category — won by 68 votes in the 2009 election. The questions have been asked, and I don't think it's been any big secret about why the tables were reversed.

What I noticed, anyways, going door to door and talking to thousands of people, was just the nervousness among residents about their personal and financial well-being and that of their children.

I think probably the biggest example during the election was the Kinder Morgan surprise, which was really a watershed moment in the election. The Leader of the Opposition insisted on being neutral at one point — well, for a year preceding the project — and then during the election came out and said that they were opposed to the project. That confirmed, really, the fears of a possible NDP government everywhere.

I noticed, talking with people — anybody that had a trades truck, that was personally involved in the economy, those that were tied in with resource sector — that they were quite concerned.
[ Page 1500 ]

So we believe in to getting to yes on projects and seeing the economy grow. That doesn't mean that it's all sunshine and lollipops. It hasn't been. We've been going through a recession, and we're still coming out of that. But we've seen some major changes, and things are progressing.

We're dedicated to seeing small business grow and companies expand. One of the ways of doing this is reducing red tape, and we have done that by cutting red tape by about one-third.

We recognize that needless red tape costs time and investment and jobs, and it's something that we need to remain vigilant with. We're not out of the woods, and more needs to be done, but we have come a long ways. I know that I hear that from businesses.

An example would be one project, one environmental assessment. This isn't about fast-tracking a development, but it is about pursuing more timely and efficient environmental assessments.

[1115]

It's about saving the proponent, the communities and governments time and money, because they only have to go through one process and prepare one set of studies and documentation, deal with one technical working group, undertake one public consultation process, etc.

A growing economy, also, is collaborating with our First Nations people. First Nations support economic development projects that are socially, economically and culturally sustainable. Since 2011 we've actually had 22 non-treaty agreements with First Nations across British Columbia. This is very important. In the past six years we've had over 200 individual agreements with the First Nations. This is good for aboriginal peoples, it's good for business, and it's good for British Columbia.

We also believe in businesses making a profit. It's not a dirty word. It's good. We want businesses to notice that B.C. is a place to do business and to set up shop here. The bottom line makes all the difference in the competitive world markets. The favourable tax regime is really very important in that. British Columbia has one of the best, if not the best, in Canada as far as individual, as far as small business, as far as corporate tax regimes, and that's key.

So what's in it for British Columbians and for us, for the companies making a profit? Well, as they set up shop, it provides opportunities for youth and increases tax revenues. It's important for health care, for education, for infrastructure, for pension plans. It's important for everybody.

They also have to pay competitive wages. So as there are more businesses, there are more opportunities, and then that raises the level of competition. It does raise the standard of living for everybody.

We believe in getting to yes. One example is in not prejudging projects….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I would caution and remind members that Monday morning is private members' time. It's supposed to be slightly less partisan. So hopefully, if members could refrain from highly partisan rhetoric, that would be good.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the motion from the member for Fraser-Nicola, but I do want to comment on a couple of things she said about the best way forward to develop our economy is a balanced budget. I think it's important that we point out that this budget is balanced in a very peculiar and particular way.

The member cautioned us against piling on debt to future generations, yet the budget is balanced exactly by doing that in B.C. Hydro and then relying on ratepayers and small, medium- and large-sized businesses to pay higher rates to bail out Hydro for having been relieved of profits that don't actually exist.

We on this side of the House believe very much in resource development, we believe in responsible resource development with social licence, and we believe in adding value to our resources. But we also believe in a very modern and diversified economy. We don't believe in putting all of our eggs in one basket.

Let me talk briefly about the tech sector. The tech sector since 2009 grew from 84,000 to 90,000 jobs. That's great news, except for this one caveat. We lagged the Canadian average, and we lagged the global average. The trend on this trend line would take us to 111,000 jobs by 2020, but the tech sector representatives tell us that there's a tremendous opportunity here — that we could actually grow to 142,000 jobs, if we did certain things; that we could double the tech sector share of GDP, from 8 percent to 16 percent.

Some of the steps they identified were expanding access to capital…. We on this side of the House had proposed expanding the eligible business tax credit, both the amount and the cap. There could also be an expansion of the small business venture capital program. This helps small companies grow to medium-sized companies, and it helps to attract more capital. The sector would like to double the number of medium-sized companies.

We also need to invest in scientific and technological talent. We need to do that by training, by expanding the number of spaces in our universities, where people get this kind of expertise to work in the sector and grow the sector. Yet we see $142 million in cuts to this sector, to post-secondary education. Ontario far exceeds British Columbia in its investments in research and development tax credits.

[1120]

B.C. is among the lowest in Canada in scientific research and experimental development tax credits. Alberta puts far more money into its version of the Innovation Council than we do here in B.C. That helps start-ups, it helps commercialization, it helps marketing, and it creates jobs. We should be aiming for that higher
[ Page 1501 ]
level of jobs, which the Technology Industry Association calls for, and the greater percentage of the GDP.

Let me simply also add to my comments that the member for Fraser-Nicola talked about the necessity of getting goods to market from her area of the province and, indeed, from every area of the province.

That is why I scratch my head in wonder that despite an agreement five years ago from the Liberal government to work with the mayors to create a funding program, a funding proposal, for TransLink to increase transit in the Lower Mainland and relieve congestion, we still have delay upon delay, while estimates say that this is costing the entire economy of British Columbia up to $1½ billion a year.

If we really want to get goods to market and we really want to develop the B.C. economy, we need to deal with the structural inhibitions of congestion in the Lower Mainland that are slowing down development and slowing down our export capacity.

We believe in a modern, diversified economy. We believe, as most companies do, in investing in the future, making the investments necessary to create jobs in a broad spectrum of sectors across British Columbia. We, like most British Columbians, believe in good, clean jobs now and in not putting all of our eggs in one uncertain basket.

M. Morris: I'm going to diversify a little bit this morning. We all hear about the great things that this government is doing and that we're doing across the province with respect to some of the natural resource development — LNG, mining, the forestry sector and whatnot. But we have a tremendous amount of opportunity with a lot of the other sectors that we have in the province here. I'm going to talk about a couple of them.

The first one I'm going to talk about is the B.C. cattle industry. It's a relatively small industry when you compare it to Alberta and across the country. B.C. currently has about 5 percent of the national cow herd in Canada, but we have room to expand.

Right now we have about 4,000 ranches in British Columbia. Those ranches cover five million acres of private land, and they have about 21½ million acres of Crown land lease property. Some of the largest B.C. ranches are in the interior and the northern part of the province. They employ over 8,700 people and contribute over $600 million annually to the B.C. economy.

Right now in Prince George we have the third-largest airport in Canada, in close proximity to the large cattle operations that we have in British Columbia here. We're also in the Pacific gateway access to the Asia-Pacific markets. I think B.C. has a tremendous opportunity to step up to the plate and start offering cattle products to ship over to Asia via the airport out of Prince George.

Recently Canada has negotiated the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. That's also creating outstanding new market opportunities for B.C. cattle producers — cattle producers right across Canada but, specifically, cattle producers in Prince George and throughout British Columbia.

Prince George has affordable land in close proximity to the airport, and we have the availability to put the infrastructure in place that B.C. cattle producers need in order to access that particular market. I think that's something that B.C. Cattlemens Association is probably looking at. I think it's something that cattle producers in British Columbia would welcome — that opportunity to delve into that market and increase our share.

One of the other areas I've often looked at in British Columbia that we don't really pay enough attention to — and which, I think, would help us, with respect to getting our message across to people that live in the more urban centres in British Columbia and around the world — is resource-based tourism. We have an abundance of natural resources in British Columbia that we're currently developing, and responsibly developing, and we have done so for a long period of time now.

[1125]

We have major highways going north, south, east and west in British Columbia that haul hundreds of tonnes of goods to market from the interior of British Columbia. We have thousands of kilometres of power transmission lines that bring power from the W.A.C. Bennett dam, the Peace Canyon dam, perhaps the Site C dam in the future, Revelstoke dam and other dams in British Columbia that provide power to British Columbia and the northwest part of the United States.

We have existing oil and gas pipelines that are sending thousands, millions, of gallons of oil products to refineries in Prince George and elsewhere in the province and natural gas throughout the province to power industry. I think there are all kinds of opportunities downstream from those activities to introduce new markets and new industry to British Columbians.

British Columbians in the Lower Mainland and people across the world need to understand: when they turn a light switch on, where does that power come from? When they turn that thermostat up in their apartment or building, where does that natural gas come from? When they look at the walls in their building, where do the construction materials come from?

I think if we were to focus on a resource-based tourism sector where…. They could take people along the highways and explain these aspects to them. Cross a pipeline and stop there and explain to them where the product in that particular pipeline is going — to the coast of British Columbia, across to the Asian markets or elsewhere.

When it stops by a railway, it talks about the amount of goods that this particular railway is shipping across Canada — and, perhaps, on goods that are imported through the Port of Prince Rupert, unloaded onto rail-
[ Page 1502 ]
cars and shipped across to Chicago.

Perhaps it's forest industry, perhaps it's coal, or perhaps it's other product from some of the mines that we operate in British Columbia, these people would get a firsthand look at where these opportunities exist. It would also generate new ideas with those who have a mind for entrepreneurship and spread industry more across the province.

L. Popham: I'd like to respond to the member across the way who just talked about the potential of the cattle industry in B.C. Unfortunately, because B.C. has botched the meat regulations so badly, the value-added opportunity for the cattle industry has been very limited.

Now, when I look at this motion, I'm slightly surprised that it came from the government side of the House, as we seem to be hedging our bets on one opportunity, which is LNG. But in general, I completely support this motion, and I'm happy to speak on it.

Many things have bothered me since the election, but one thing that has been extremely irritating is the constant, repetitive slogan used by the government members: growing the economy. It's said so often, for most people, it's lost its meaning. Sometimes I wonder if it's ever had a meaning, especially when I see opportunities to grow the economy being ignored. We don't have to look much further than the creative sector to comprehend the opportunities missed, even in this most current 2014 budget.

Never mind growing the economy; how about creating the economy? Now, that has meaning, and the proof is in the pudding. An excellent report called Moving B.C.'s Creative Industry Forward, a cross-sectoral approach, is a look at the creative economy as an important economic driver.

There is a chance to build on work that has been done in each separate part of the creative industry, like book publishing, music, film, television, theatre, dance — just to name some. In the past these sectors have worked very hard separately but now are taking a new approach, working together to make sure they are standing together as a force in our economy.

But the support and the leadership from government just isn't there the way it needs to be. There is an opportunity for government to follow suit and involve the creative sector in a cross-ministry approach.

To fully engage the energy and potential of the creative sector, it's important to have a provincial vision and a place to bring all stakeholders together. A select standing committee on arts, culture and the creative economy could be a place where this work is done. We don't have a legislative committee like this currently, but I'm hoping the government will see the value in bringing policy-makers and arts and culture stakeholders together in a standing committee in order to be most effective.

When we have an industry contributing an estimated GDP of $4 billion in B.C., it's high time to start moving them from the margins to the mainstream. Our economy is at a crossroads itself. We have a choice. We can grow the economy — whatever that means — or we can get serious and create the economy that we want.

M. Bernier: I'm pleased to rise today and speak in favour of this motion and speak to why I feel this is an important direction for us to be taking on as a province.

[1130]

In my riding, I'm seeing firsthand the opportunities that are available to us, and thanks to this government, we are already growing the economy and creating opportunities for everybody. This needs to continue.

It's not about one industry over the other. In fact, the member for Skeena might be surprised to know that I'm going to try to make it through this entire speech without mentioning the fact that we're extracting a gaseous methane substance, trying to get it to the coast in pipelines, liquefy it, put it in ships and send it overseas. I think it has been talked about a few times, so I'm going to actually not refer to that.

In fact, this is about creating an environment where everything is possible: where free enterprise can flourish and prosper, building a strong economy and a secure tomorrow; where companies coming to B.C. know that their investment dollars are well spent here. It's about working together to get to yes. We know that when we grow our economy, when we get to yes, we're going to be able to invest in the services and the programs that the citizens of British Columbia come to expect and, in fact, deserve.

They have elected us to get to yes. We need to do this by promoting responsible economic development here in the province. We have a responsibility to make the tough decisions. We're going to be doing that to make sure that we create a bright future for everybody in British Columbia.

We know — and we've talked about the fact — that this is going to be hard, but some feel that it's actually better to say no: to say no to projects, to say no to investment, to say no to opportunities. In fact, when you're saying no to that, you're saying no to the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are already working in the fields. They're working in the natural gas sector. They're working in the forestry sector. They're working in mining. They're working in agriculture.

Our goal is to continue to get to yes, because these are jobs that are feeding families. They're building communities, and we want to see this continue. We want to see more opportunities here in British Columbia. That is why we are trying to get to yes. We are saying yes for our children's future. We're saying yes to giving opportunities for better lives here in British Columbia.

Last week we celebrated Mining Day. In my riding of Peace River South we have Tumbler Ridge. In 1982 this was a purpose-built community specifically to support
[ Page 1503 ]
the mining industry. Even though in the late '90s it saw a decline in the population in the area — we saw a decline in the workforce — Tumbler Ridge is now a thriving community. It is booming.

This year we are going to be approving the new Roman mine, which is going to see hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the economy and hundreds more jobs in my riding.

What some tend to forget, though, is that a lot of the comforts of life that we have nowadays…. We take it for granted — our cars, our cell phones, taking a trip in a plane, riding a bike in a new bike lane. These are all comforts that have actually come from industry. This has come from saying yes. This comes from drilling mines, from extracting natural gas, from producing products that we need around the world for the comforts that we've come to enjoy.

What I find interesting is the same people that say no are the same ones that are enjoying the comforts of life from those that have stood up and said yes.

I'm proud to say that I'm working hard, that this government is working hard, to get to yes. We're working hard for families here in British Columbia. I'm proud to support this motion.

J. Shin: Thanks to all the members for their response to the motion for this House to find ways to grow the economy and create opportunities. It is an important one, and it is my privilege to contribute to this discussion on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

Now, empowering not just some but a broad spectrum of local initiatives is imperative for a not just strong but resilient economy that can support jobs and fund services long term for, again, not just some but all British Columbians.

[1135]

The government does have a preoccupation on the liquefied natural gas sector that is cause for concern by both the industry experts and the community stakeholders, as we saw many other valuable drivers of our economy afflicted with growth limitations — like arts, technology, films, science, small business.

What I would like to bring to this discussion is specifically on the owner-operated small businesses without any employees, which, in fact, make up over more than half of our current business landscape in B.C. I hope that this is something that can earn the members' attention and consideration.

When one speaks of small business, most people aren't picturing a company with 40 employees or $4 million in revenue, which under the current classification would be defined as small. Like most, I picture, instead, the likes of a tiny ice cream store that I used to help my parents operate in a struggling mall. I picture, instead, the dozens of little mama-and-papa shops lining North Road in my constituency.

According to Statistics Canada, small businesses make up 98 percent of all businesses in this province, which a lot of members are aware of. But now what is perhaps a lesser-known fact is that 55 percent of these, amounting to 290,000 businesses, operate without any paid help. It's a one-man operation or, as is often the case for many immigrant families I represent in Burnaby-Lougheed, a couple- or immediate family–run operation. There are approximately 1,700 people estimated to be working in family businesses without collecting any pay, just to keep the businesses going.

These 290,000 owner-operator businesses without employees struggle with dismal representation to voice what really hurts them and their business, from the rocketing costs of operation — like hydro, rent, triple-net, bank charges — to dealing with regulatory processes like food safety, for example, which hasn't quite caught up to various fermentation processes that are in our exotic ethnic cuisine.

From the heavy incorporation and accounting paperwork to Commercial Tenancy Act — articulated in very complex languages, with landlords' interests at the front — these entrepreneurs, especially the older immigrants, are not only disadvantaged in understanding the policies and rights for effective negotiation and protection; they're also least likely to be even aware of, or have the luxury of time to claim, what resources are available.

Many of these entrepreneurs make less than minimum wage by the hour — the so-called underinsured working poor, with just enough income to be disqualified for exemptions and subsidies while being crippled by the increasing user fees like MSP that doubled in the last decade. All the while, they face the same affordability challenges — in housing, transportation, daycare as well as tuition — like the rest of us who are employed with benefits.

Studies suggest that during uncertain economic times, people do turn to self-employment. This is particularly true for immigrants, whose foreign credentials are unrecognized and who are often stigmatized by their language or cultural barriers from employment. In 2012 the number of self-employed without paid help was twice that of self-employed with paid help. This gap appears to have been growing for the past decade.

It is noteworthy that this is not related to the entrepreneurs themselves but rather is a reflection of society's overall skills development for market readiness and number of available jobs.

In the U.S., language like "minority-owned," "woman-owned" or "disadvantaged businesses" exist in council and legislative bodies, but not in Canada. I believe that one of the ways we can grow the economy and create opportunities is by supporting our incredibly hard-working owner-operator small businesses — not just in language assistance but with real empowerment by outreach and education.
[ Page 1504 ]

S. Sullivan: I'm very pleased to speak in favour of the motion by our member for Fraser-Nicola. I can tell you, as a member for Vancouver–False Creek, not many people think of mining when they think of my riding. But in fact, they would be very mistaken because mining is a very important part of Vancouver–False Creek. If you were to stand on Vancouver and Howe, within a three-block radius you would find over 1,000 mining companies in that area.

You can think of mining as two different aspects: one is the exploration, and the other is the production and development itself. Vancouver is known as one of the three largest centres in the world for junior mining or exploration mining. It's a very, very important part of what we do. There are many companies that, although they are not specifically mining companies, are related to it through the services that they provide.

[1140]

I'm just going to give you a little bit of a background. We certainly believe that in getting to yes on economic development, that means supporting our mining and mineral exploration industry in B.C.

We note that the worldwide demand for coal, metals, industrial materials has increased and is expected to rise even more with the significant urbanization taking place in China and India. B.C. is well-positioned to benefit from these global demands with vast reserves of coal, metals and minerals, a highly skilled workforce and the world's largest concentration of mining and exploration companies. That's why, as part of the B.C. jobs plan, we committed to opening eight new mines and expanding nine existing ones by 2015.

Since the introduction of the jobs plan, two new mines have begun production. Two more will open this year, three more are permitted, and the province has approved seven expansions of existing mines. We believe in getting to yes on these projects, not standing in the way. That's why we committed $24 million to cut the backlog in government permitting and approvals.

It's working. We have met our target to reduce the backlog of applications for notices of work in the mining sector by 80 percent, and today the average turnaround is 55 days, down from 110 days in 2011 and over 155 days in 2001.

Since 2001, B.C. has been a leader in tax cuts and other fiscal measures to create the positive investment climate that is necessary for a thriving mining industry. We have reduced the corporate income tax rate from 16.5 percent to 11 percent, eliminated corporate capital taxes for resource industries such as mining, and extended the new mine allowance, which provides the equivalent of a 133.3 percent deduction of capital costs for mines that start or expand production before January 1, 2016.

We've extended the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit to December 31, 2014, keeping the after-tax cost of $1,000 of eligible grass-roots exploration the second lowest in Canada and helping to encourage continued interest and investment in B.C., and extended the B.C. mining exploration tax, which provides a 20 percent refundable tax credit for companies.

The junior mining sector has been hit very heavily by the recent global changes in the business environment and lost almost half of its value in the previous year alone — its market cap value. We need to support this struggling industry right now. It's waiting for the turnaround. It's waiting for the cycles, and we need to do what we can.

Today we have 19 operating mines — nine coal, ten metal. In 2001 there were 15 operating mines — seven coal and eight metal. In 2012 mining revenues were $9.2 billion in revenue. It means $504 million for health, education, etc. The mineral exploration and mining industry provides more than 30,000 jobs here. Average salary in the mining industry today is $121,000, up from $81,000 in 2001, and 19 percent of Canada's total mining exploration spending is in B.C. In 2001….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Ralston: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this motion. I want to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for bringing it forward before the House. Certainly, this is a shift in perspectives on what we saw in the throne speech in terms of supporting a more diversified economy, as opposed to an industrial monoculture, which seemed to be reflected in the throne speech.

Diversification. The member for Fraser-Nicola spoke of diversification in the economy and spoke particularly of geographic diversification of markets. Certainly, the rise of China has been a global phenomenon at 8 or 9 percent growth in many years since the early 2000s. China has increasingly called upon the world to provide it with resources, and certainly, British Columbia is no exception there.

[1145]

But the commodities that go to China, while it's commendable and an important source of jobs here in British Columbia, are still very much the traditional natural resource commodities of British Columbia — whether it's raw logs or cut lumber for use for forming in China. Coal to China, sulphur, copper, unprocessed ore, for example — those are the traditional staple products of British Columbia.

I think when other people speak of diversification, in addition to geographic diversification, it's important to consider a diversification within the British Columbia economy. I want to briefly review what some of my colleagues have spoken of, because I think there are some important points that were made by members on this side of the House. I'll comment to some extent, if I have time, on comments made by members on the other side of the House.

Certainly in terms of the member for Skeena, speaking
[ Page 1505 ]
about important strategic investments such as the Haisla bridge in Kitimat, that's a very good example of when government investment in an infrastructure, in advance of investment decisions, will make investment decisions easier to make and more likely to come to the northwest of British Columbia.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission spoke of cutting red tape. I would just caution the member that, for example, one person's red tape is another person's personal safety. In the case of the Workers Compensation Board, we have very good examples where a badly run regulatory system has denied workers who were killed or injured in the Babine fire the opportunity for justice before the courts. That's something that is going to be investigated by Mr. Doust. Certainly, there is clearly a regulatory failure there. So it isn't simply about speaking positively about cutting red tape necessarily.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview spoke, I think, very compellingly about the components of a modern diversified economy and particularly the technology sector. PricewaterhouseCoopers completed a study which spoke of the possibilities for the tech sector. The government has named the ministry, but the minister is apparently telling people that there's no money to do anything on behalf of the ministry.

The member for Saanich South has spoken again of another important area in the economy, the creative industries, and what the opportunities there are there — another opportunity for diversification. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed has spoken about the important sector of owner-operated businesses — 290,000 — who struggle in many ways. Particularly, some of the recent policies that are set out in the budget, such as the increase in B.C. Hydro rates, will impact their ability to be successful.

Now, I don't want to ignore some of the other comments that have been made. The member from False Creek rightly points out the global cluster in mining finance, exploration and engineering that exists in Vancouver. That's something that we support. That has a global perspective, although mining is notoriously subject to mineral prices and can rise and fall with global commodity prices, over which no particular government has any control.

But there are opportunities in British Columbia, huge opportunities. What we have tried to do on this side of the House is sketch out some of the opportunities in a more diversified economy in a way that perhaps the Speech from the Throne probably doesn't focus on to the full extent that it should.

With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

D. Barnett: I'm pleased today to rise in support of the motion by my colleague from Fraser-Nicola, who happens to be a partner in my area. We work very well together, and I'm so thankful that I have this member in the area today.

[1150]

You know, getting to yes is a very simple message. It's a powerful one. It's one that we should all embrace for economics, for well-being, for our social fabric. We stand here and talk about diversification and economies.

It amazes me. I happen to be a senior citizen, so I've been around for a little while. I lived in an urban centre as a young girl, and then I moved to rural British Columbia. I've watched rural British Columbia as it has grown, it has shrunk, it has grown and it has shrunk. When it grows is when we have good, strong free enterprise government; when we have the doors open to the private sector; and we say yes to good economy, good investment climate, good taxation policies, strong environmental policies and working with others.

The word "diversification." I was the mayor for 18 years of a small community. Trying to diversify drove me crazy. It seemed the only way we diversified was if it was in an urban centre. People don't get it. Without rural British Columbia's resources, your urban centres are in trouble.

I heard one of the members across here today speak about small business. A small business can only survive if we have strong big business, folks, because people then become consumers, and they spend their money as consumers.

Everything is important. Tourism, agriculture, mining — it doesn't matter what it is. It's good policies, good government, good taxation policies, and the door is open to say yes. Whether it's mining, LNG, tourism, agriculture, small business, health care, education — they're all businesses of a sort. We must support all of them. Whether it's arts and culture….

It is called diversification, but without that one big, major industry from your resource communities, whether it be LNG or mining or forestry or whatever, the rest will not flow.

It is time that we all sat back and we all took good control of what this government is trying to do and supported it — to say yes, to get those resource industries moving as quickly as we can. In that way, we will have all the things we need for the rest of the diversification in British Columbia — for all the regions, whether you be urban or you be rural. We will be healthy. We will be strong. We will be diverse.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I can tell you that without a healthy economy, you will never have a healthy environment. You will never get rid of the word "poverty" without jobs.

So let's support this government. Let's support good policies. Let's move forward. Let's show Canada and the rest of the world where the leaders are. That is here in British Columbia.

I am so proud of the fact that I sit here with this group
[ Page 1506 ]
of colleagues today in this great government, representing the people of this province, who deserve nothing but the best. The strong leadership we have on this side of the table will continue to give us nothing but the best and to be proud of our government, our citizens, our environment and all the things that all of us enjoy every day in this great province.

Thank you, Madame Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you once again to my colleague for the great motion and to all of you who gave input. Let's continue to give input, constructive and working together to make things better.

J. Horgan: Listening to the previous member, I just feel warm all over. I wonder if it's trickle-down economics I'm feeling warm all over about or something else. But we'll leave that for a moment.

I've been listening to the debate, and I know, on both sides of the House, everyone wants to see a strong economy in their community, in their region, in this province and right across the country. There are variables that governments can put in play to make that happen, and there are obstacles that government can put in play to deter that activity.

[1155]

I often listen to the so-called free-enterprisers on the other side. They say "It's all about our government" when things are up and "It's all about the international marketplace" when things are down. Well, it's a bit of both.

I think most reasonable people…. There is an expectation that we have elected 85 reasonable people to sit in here. When we peel back the partisan stuff for a moment and just focus on the issues that are driving issues of growth or lack of growth in the economy, I think we can all agree that there are impediments in some areas.

One I think of…. The member talked about large business needing an environment to prosper in. I'm thinking of Catalyst, a large employer on the coast in the forest sector, besieged now by the prospect of 28 percent rate increases at B.C. Hydro.

Energy-intensive companies are not saying "Hallelujah," hon. Member, to the policies brought forward by this government when it is comes to electricity. They are saying: "My goodness. How are we going to survive this?"

That's a tangible example of a government policy brought forward by the free-enterprisers here that is constraining growth, constraining the ability of a large employer to continue to provide jobs and other dollars in the community, whether it be to help with the hockey teams or the baseball teams — all of the things that in urban and in rural communities we expect from our business sector.

I know in my community of Langford — one of the fastest-growing areas, certainly on Vancouver Island if not the province — it's been a result of pro-business policies, which I support. I think where we run afoul of reasonable discussion is when we stand in this place on a Monday morning and hector back and forth at each other. I don't want to participate in that.

Last week we brought forward a motion on Senate reform that was startling in the level of ignorance on the other side about what role the province can and should play in that discussion. Similarly, when we're having a discussion about the importance of growing our economy, I think all sides agree that if B.C. is going to carry forward to be the envy of North America, we have to agree on some of these issues. And it's a challenge.

The minister…. Pardon me — the member. Maybe minister some day. The senior citizen across knows that full well from her vast life experience in a resource-based economy. But all we've got to do is focus on these issues in a cooperative way. Monday mornings are supposed to be about that, and the debate that I've heard today, I think, only contributes to an understanding on both sides of the challenges we face.

J. Horgan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada