2014 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: We have today with us in the gallery two leaders of the New Car Dealers Association. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome. With us today are Jim Inkster, chairman, and Blair Qualey, CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. I think many, if not most, of us own a vehicle and are probably customers of the members of the New Car Dealers Association, a very important group in communities all around our province. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[1335]

M. Farnworth: It’s my understanding that it’s an important day for a member of this House, the Government House Leader. It’s his birthday. I’m not sure which one, but judging from his length of service in this House, I know it’s not his 30th or his 40th.

Would the House please join this side in wishing the Government House Leader a happy birthday.

Hon. M. Polak: In keeping with the theme, many people in this House will remember Frank Costa, who worked in this building for many years. Today is a birthday shared with his son Noah, who is turning five today. He’s starting kindergarten, and he’s a very big boy.

Would the House please join me in wishing Noah a very happy birthday.

Madame Speaker: Government House Leader — and I do know how old you are.

Tributes

STEPHEN SMART

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve lost my hair, my teeth and soon my mind, Madame Speaker — the trifecta.

David Halton, Joe Schlesinger, Knowlton Nash — these are the journalistic giants that have brought us the news via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. To that list let us add Stephen Smart.

Now, much about Stephen is a contradiction. He is a journalist, and his name is Smart. But for the better part of, well, four or five years, Stephen Smart has patrolled these halls and performed a function that is uncomfortable, as it sometimes is for those of us who sit in this chamber, and is an essential element of our democratic process.

He is, to the relief of us all, not receiving an appointment to the Senate. He is not, to my knowledge, going to work for government, but he is seeking adventure and excitement, professionally and otherwise, in other endeavours. I know every member of the House will want to wish Stephen Smart well.

J. Horgan: I’ll join with the Government House Leader in wishing my very best to Stephen, Rebecca and their young family, as they go on to other pursuits. Of course, this is a tragedy for the press gallery. Not only has their humour quotient gone down, but, of course, their Smart quotient is down to zero right now. It’s been a pleasure, and I’m delighted to see smiles on the faces of his colleagues in the gallery today.

Stephen, you’ve done a great job here. And as the Government House Leader said…. I don’t know if I would put Halton in with Schlesinger or Knowlton Nash, but I will certainly say Stephen Smart and Peter Mansbridge. How about that? Best of luck to you and your family.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: This has been both an interesting year and, in some ways, an extremely exciting year for me. What I want to start with is I want to introduce my first grandchild. I wasn’t here earlier in the spring to do that, but I’m going to now. Ried Laurie Pimm-De Maid was born on March 30 of this year — mother Kristi Pimm and father Tom De Maid. I’m not quite up with the member who was here before, Mr. Les, but I’m on my way.

The second thing I’d like to say is a big thank-you to all of the members who have shown their huge support to both myself and my family through the extreme challenging time that we had this year, and I would especially like to thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for the nice words he had for me in this House. Thank you very much.

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton: On the theme of birthdays, joining us in the House today is Lucy Hansen, my administrative assistant extraordinaire in the Justice office. Lucy celebrated a milestone birthday yesterday. I think she’s confessing to it. I’m very pleased to have her here in the House today to embarrass her by saying: “Happy 40th.” I hope the House will congratulate her.

A. Dix: It’s my honour to introduce Ron Matteson. Ron has been a councillor in the town of View Royal for 19 of the last 24 years. He was also an outstanding public servant for the Ministry of Health for 28 years. Mr. Matteson, as some of you will know, was wrongly dismissed by the
[ Page 4538 ]
government in September 2012. He’s been exonerated, and the government has acknowledged that exoneration. I think all of us in this House would like to wish him well and wish him welcome.

S. Hamilton: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome to the House today my brother Ken and his lovely wife, Janis. They are in the capital for the next few days. Janis is a longtime hard-working public servant for British Columbia and will be celebrating her 25th year at a dinner hosted by the Lieutenant-Governor tonight and, of course, our Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

KULDEEP SINGH BAINS

H. Bains: Last week the South Asian community lost a giant of a leader, Kuldeep Singh Bains. Kuldeep Singh Bains, at 95, passed away. He was part of the group of people we talked about earlier during our spring session who stood up for their community when they had no rights — no voting rights, no right to practise in their professions, no right to purchase property in certain places in certain cities. He passed away. He was part of that group that stood up, took the steps that were necessary and paid a heavy price personally and as a community.

I think it’s a huge loss to the community and to British Columbia. He will be missed, but his work — that we, people like myself, enjoy doing here — is the work of those people. We talked about Jack Uppal earlier, and it was mentioned in the throne speech.

These were the people who actually worked for the community, worked for B.C., worked for Canada to make Canada a better place and British Columbia a better place that we all enjoy today. I say my sincere condolences to the Bains family and that we will miss him.

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: In the House today I have two dear friends. Jonathan Michaels is a local small business owner with Geeks on the Beach, a web-design company that is growing and expanding from Qualicum Beach to a second office here in Victoria. With him is my dear friend Nicole Biagioni, who is a dedicated RN, who works in labour and delivery in the Comox Valley and, as well, takes care of seniors at home in Parksville. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: I rise to introduce my good son Nate Horgan, who miraculously has appeared in the gallery with his partner, Danielle Florence. Danielle, of course, is playing in Pride and Prejudice at the Langham Court Theatre till October 18. Get your tickets now.

Once that off-Broadway hit moves on, so will Danielle and Nate. Both of them are going off to South Korea to teach people to speak English and maybe talk a little bit about liquefied natural gas. I don’t know. I’ll check that out with the minister responsible. Would the House please give my good son Nate — my gooder son Evan could not be here today — a warm round of applause.

Hon. D. McRae: I’d like to make two sets of introductions today, if I may.

First, I’d like to welcome to the House today Seonag Macrae, the new CEO for Community Living B.C. Seonag is accompanied by Sheila Taylor, the deputy minister for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. Seonag joined CLBC in August as a new CEO, and previously she worked for about 18 years in the health sector and community services sector. Before joining CLBC she was the vice-chair for the board of Surrey Place Centre in Ontario, a large provider of services to children and adults with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Please join me in welcoming both Seonag and Sheila to the House today.

[1345]

Madame Speaker, for the edification of the members opposite, before I do my second set — in case they were wondering — Seonag Macrae is spelled M-a-c-r-a-e — little “r.” We might be related, but my dad has assured me it is because of a family dispute about 920 years ago. Anyway, there are never enough McRaes to visit the Legislature.

A second set of introductions, Madame Speaker. Today we have a business person from the Comox Valley, a friend of mine, Jay Oddleifsson, who has worked tirelessly in our community as a business person but also as a board member on numerous community boards. One of the boards that probably members in this chamber have heard of is the Comox Valley music fest, which is one of the best music fests not just on Vancouver Island and not just in British Columbia but in western Canada. He is here today joining us with his family member, Katherine Porter. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Darcy: Joining us in the precinct today is my good friend Brynn Bourke, who is both my constituency president and a wonderful researcher with the B.C. Building Trades Council. Her colleague is Esvelda Rujnic. If my colleagues could please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to introduce the Hon. Daniel Lang, senator for Yukon and Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. Senator Lang is in Victoria to
[ Page 4539 ]
participate in the Maritime Security Conference organized by the Navy League of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies. He is accompanied by policy adviser Naresh Raghubeer. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: My campaign manager from the 2013 campaign, Jennifer Osmar, is in the House. I know that both sides of the House would like to make Jennifer feel welcome, particularly given the great job she did in the 2013 campaign. She didn’t have much of a candidate. Thank you very much.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ROLE OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD
CENTRES IN EAST VANCOUVER DURING
TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Kwan: The summer of 2014 was an unusual summer. It was hot, and it was long. In fact, it was so long that summer went well into September.

For many students, the standard question of, “What did you do this summer?” morphed into: “When do you think we’ll go back to school?” As members of the community struggled with the uncertainty and concern for lost educational time, community centres and neighbourhood houses quickly kicked into high gear.

For the Strathcona Community Centre alone, more than 1,000 youth went into the centre each day that school was not in session. Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre was stretched to the limit in trying to meet the needs of the community. Similar demands were placed on other centres and neighbourhood houses in my riding, but even though they were overextended and they did not have extra funding in place, they did not hesitate to step up to meet this critical additional demand for support and services.

In fact, this work was done without prompting. They did it simply because the need was there. As indicated by Ron Suzuki of the Strathcona Community Centre: “For a lot of the kids, the school is not just a place of education. It is a social safety net.”

There is no question that everyone in our community takes to heart the depth of this statement. It is truly inspiring to see how the community centres and neighbourhood houses just quietly went to work so that the many children in our neighbourhood had access to healthy meals and structured, supervised activities to fill their days. The board members, staff and volunteers are the unsung heroes in our community. They should be recognized for their incredible dedication and tireless effort, especially during this long, hot summer.

I ask the House to join me in thanking everyone at Strathcona Community Centre, Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre, Mount Pleasant Community Centre, Britannia Community Services Society, Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House, Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House and Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House in my constituency for always being there for our community.

TAILINGS POND BREACH
AT MOUNT POLLEY MINE

D. Barnett: On Monday, August 4, I received some terrible news — the breach at the tailings pond at the Mount Polley mine. As a local MLA who knows the community well and so many of the workers, my heart sank. As we all know, this was also terrible news for so many.

[1350]

Despite this occurrence, I’m proud of the way our community responded. People rallied all around and across our region. They rallied around the people of Likely and around the local First Nations and all who were impacted by this disaster.

I was very impressed by how people outside of the community responded, including staff from various ministries. Immediate action and resources, both from the province and from the company, were deployed to help with the cleanup and to minimize the environmental impact.

To the residents of Likely and to families across the province who depend on mining: we truly do stand with you. Thank you for your patience, strength and understanding through this time.

On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Cariboo North and myself, I am pleased to say that we are working with local community and business groups in Likely to create a long-term regional strategy in response to this incident.

I want to let people know that tourism operators throughout the Cariboo region are open for business. The resilience of the people of the Cariboo in good times and bad times is evident, and together we stand as one.

Wait for Me, Daddy WORLD WAR II
PHOTOGRAPH IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: Last Saturday, in a moving and historic ceremony attended by hundreds of people, the iconic photo Wait for Me, Daddy came home to New Westminster. You probably saw the story on the news. This was a single photograph taken by Province photographer Claude Dettloff, but it captured everything about family, separation, sacrifice and the uncertainty of war.

It was October 1, 1940, and hundreds of soldiers were marching down the hill on 8th Street in New Westminster to board a ship on the Fraser River to head off to fight fascism in Europe. Warren “Whitey” Bernard, a five-year-old boy, let go of his mother’s hand and ran after his father, Jack. The image was captured forever and made the front
[ Page 4540 ]
page of the Province the next day, and then it was hung in every classroom in British Columbia and appeared in magazines around the world.

This weekend a series of statues by Edwin and Veronica Dam De Nogales commemorating the Wait for Me, Daddy photo was unveiled on the same spot where this poignant parting took place many years ago. Canada Post unveiled a commemorative stamp on Saturday, and the Royal Canadian Mint unveiled a special $2 coin. Whitey Bernard, together with several of his look-alike grandchildren, was the star of the day together with two veterans now in their 90s who marched off to war that day.

Saturday was a very emotional and powerful day for everyone present, as we all found ourselves thinking of family members who have served or been affected by war. For me it was my father, who served with the French army in World War II and was taken a prisoner of war at Dunkirk; my mother, who, like so many of her countrymen, was part of the Danish resistance; my brother, who served for 27 years in the Canadian military and was a peacekeeper in Cyprus.

It was a day to honour all of them. It was a day to honour military families like Whitey Bernard’s, whose parents’ marriage, unfortunately, did not survive the strains of war. It was also a day like Remembrance Day is — a day to honour those who did not return.

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

D. Horne: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize an important economic driver in our province, the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. Close to 400 new car dealerships that represent vehicle manufacturers from around the globe make up the New Car Dealers Association of B.C.

Just last week the association announced that in three short years, B.C.’s new car dealers have substantially increased their economic impact on the provincial economy by generating almost $11 billion in retail sales in 2013. This is an increase of almost 17 percent from the $9.4 billion in sales in 2010.

[1355]

B.C.’s new car dealers have also added close to 2,500 new full-time-equivalent jobs in the province and increased more than 7 percent, directly employing more than 36,000 people across our province. These are high-paying jobs in more than 50 communities from the north to the Island to the Lower Mainland — across our province.

Additionally, B.C.’s new car dealers contributed to the social development of our society by donating many millions of dollars to local sports teams, charities and others, like the Special Olympics.

There’s no better time to buy a car, so I suggest to all of my colleagues that if they’re in the market, they go to a new car dealer close to themselves.

FOSTER FAMILY MONTH
AND ROLE OF FOSTER PARENTS

D. Donaldson: If you know people in your communities who open up their homes to children in care of the province, then you know that they’re a special breed. These are folks who often have their own children, with all the absolute joy and regular challenges that entails, yet find enough time and energy to make room for kids who need some stability and love in their lives.

October is Foster Family Month, which provides an opportunity to salute the more than 3,000 foster families in the province that open up their homes to more than 5,000 vulnerable children and youth. It’s difficult to overstate how much of a commitment foster families demonstrate towards a greater common good, and more of these families are needed.

Yet sometimes we hear criticisms of those foster parents that are in it for the money. Nothing could be further from reality. The last time foster care rates in B.C. were raised was five years ago. That was an increase of 2½ to 3 percent. Think about what’s gone up since then that all families face. Hydro rates this year alone are up 15.6 percent, ICBC rates have increased by 14 percent since 2009, and school costs associated with activities like sports and arts have jumped. They aren’t motivated by the money, but all this impacts foster families disproportionately.

Luckily, some people are trying to make life more affordable for foster families and kids in care. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has a successful initiative encouraging B.C. post-secondary institutions to waive tuition fees for children in care. She has seven colleges and universities signed up, and it’s hoped that the savings will be passed on to the children, because these are kids who deserve a break.

As the spokesperson on Children and Family Development for the official opposition, I invite all members of the Legislature to join me in thanking foster families in this province.

It’s wonderful what you do, and the province needs more of you.

B.C. SUMMER GAMES
ATHLETES AND VOLUNTEERS

Michelle Stilwell: Bill Bowerman, the coach of the 1972 U.S. Olympic track and field team, once said that victory is having done your best. If you’ve done your best, you’ve won. Well, 3,000 athletes, along with 600 coaches, 400 officials and thousands of family members and friends travelled to Nanaimo, the Cowichan Valley and Parksville this past July for the 2014 B.C. Summer Games. All of these athletes, no matter which of the 19 sports they competed in, were all victorious.

While sports has an obvious competitive nature, any-
[ Page 4541 ]
one who has participated — be it for fun, to keep fit or a more serious endeavour — can attest to the friendships that develop between athletes, and this friendly atmosphere is the hallmark of the B.C. Games.

Not only were the games a victory on the field, in the pool or on the water; they were also an economic win, generating about $4 million in economic activity for Vancouver Island.

A successful sporting event is more than just the athletes, the coaches and the officials. They cannot be pulled off without a team of organizers and an army of volunteers.

On this, I’d like to salute the local organizing committee and the estimated 3,200 volunteers who made the games so successful and memorable — the games president, Jeff Lott, and vice-president, Bruce Hunter; along with longtime games organizers like Diana Johnstone; committee members Rod Milner, Arlene Blundell, Tracey White, Jean-Michel Hanssens, Michelle Behie, Lorne Goodall, Liz Williams, Gord Robinson, Pam Donnelly, Barry Sparkes, Yuho Okada, Dan Kucherka, Ashwak Sirri, Kim Smythe, Gerry Laporte, John Blain, Jenn Houtby-Ferguson; and the many, many others who provided outstanding leadership.

[1400]

To all who participated and to all who are involved in this year’s B.C. Summer Games, you’ve won the cheers of a grateful region and a province. Thank you.

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

J. Horgan: Two and a half years ago the then Minister of Health, the current Government House Leader, started an investigation into the activities of eight individuals in the Ministry of Health. On his watch this investigation undertook to discredit and besmirch these individuals. The day he left, these individuals were suspended, and information was leaked to a major media outlet alleging illegalities and breaches of privacy.

The following day, the new minister said the following with respect to the breach of privacy that she was “deeply disturbed and troubled” by the data breach. She made reference to an RCMP investigation.

Two years later, what do we know? Two individuals have been reinstated. A third was offered an apology and chose not to return to government. Two individuals were unfired. That’s a term, hon. Speaker, if you believe it or not: unfired. Unfortunately, the last one, Roderick MacIsaac, didn’t live long enough to get the redress the government deserved to give him.

My question would be to the Premier. How can the government countenance humiliating, discrediting and besmirching the reputations of public servants who come to work every day to improve the lives of British Columbians? How could you possibly do that?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to, again, personally express my condolences to the family of Mr. MacIsaac for their loss and for what they’ve had to endure since that action occurred. I have spoken with Ms. Kayfish and her husband, personally apologized for the way in which her brother, Mr. MacIsaac, was treated by the ministry at the time. Given Mr. MacIsaac’s status as a co-op student working under the supervision of a ministry employee, terminating his employment was, we believe, heavy-handed.

So I’ve apologized to Ms. Kayfish. My deputy minister has also spoken to her and has offered to meet with her and her husband at their convenience, clearing his schedule to do so, to try to provide as much of an explanation as possible for his termination — while, of course, respecting ongoing court cases. But once again, I personally regret that the situation occurred. I have to say Ms. Kayfish was very gracious in my conversation with her, and again, I sincerely apologize for the actions that occurred at that time.

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

J. Horgan: Roderick MacIsaac’s life was tragically lost. There are seven other individuals involved. At the time of the allegations, leaked to a major media outlet — no regard for the personal security of those individuals at that time — by this government, it was alleged that there was an RCMP investigation going on. In March 2013 the RCMP commercial crime division on Vancouver Island said that still they had not had a final report from the government. So 12 months after that, still no report from the government. As far as the RCMP is concerned, they have not conducted an investigation, but the file remains open.

My question is to the Premier. Why is it that this government has not acknowledged its failure, advised the RCMP that there was no requirement for them to participate at all and cleared the air with respect to any criminal activity that may have been going on with respect to the seven individuals who you besmirched two years ago?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me remind the House that the ministry was dealing with a number of very real and ongoing privacy breaches. That included the misuse of personal information, confidential medical information, of over 30,000 British Columbians.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner characterized them in her report of June 2013: “…ministry employees were able to download large amounts of personal health data onto unencrypted flash drives and share it with unauthorized persons, undetected.” The disclosures were unauthorized. Another quote: “The circumstances sur-
[ Page 4542 ]
rounding the breaches present similarities to a pattern of attempts to work around the lengthy approval process that was apparent in the documentation the investigation reviewed.”

The now Leader of the Opposition agreed at the time that this breach of data was a very serious concern. An investigation was launched. The RCMP were made aware of our investigation.

[1405]

I have said and will continue to say that some of the actions we took with some of the employees involved were heavy-handed. For that, I sincerely apologize.

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

J. Horgan: Again, I think that rather than a continued defence of the indefensible, some contrition might have been in order in this regard.

Eight individuals had their reputations denigrated by the government that they worked for. Eight citizens of British Columbia had the power of the state come down upon them — unfounded accusations made about illegality, and allegations that went to their families, their neighbours, their colleagues. They were escorted out of the building with their possessions in their hands, and all you can say is: “There were some violations.”

Not one scrap of data left the Ministry of Health, and the minister knows that. So rather than defend the indefensible, acknowledge injustice. Tell the RCMP that the case is closed. Start releasing the information that you’ve been covering up for the past two years.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to quote the now member of the opposition, who said at the time of the revelation of the Health data breach: “Well, certainly on the first day of the job to have the Health Minister have to reveal an investigation into millions of dollars of misspent public money is a concern. Obviously, you don’t want to have employees that are not able to manage these contracts in place, and I think it was appropriate for the government to take action.”

Now, we have said that some of the action that took place was inappropriate. We could have done better. The head of the public service has launched an investigation into the actions at that time. That investigation will be made public as soon as it is available, hopefully within a couple of weeks. We want to make sure that members of the public service are treated with respect, are treated appropriately when there are human resource implications involved with their work.

Again, to Mr. MacIsaac’s family, we have apologized. We do express our sincere condolences for their loss and the actions that our ministry took part in at that time.

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH
AND ROLE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

J. Darcy: “Heavy-handed” would be an understatement. We have witnessed the actions of a government that did its level best to avoid responsibility for ruining eight people’s lives until the heartfelt pleadings of Linda Kayfish, Roderick MacIsaac’s brave sister, shamed this government into action.

If we’re going to get at the truth, we need to establish some facts. Can the Health Minister confirm that John Dyble, the Premier’s handpicked head of the public service, was briefed on the original investigation and that he approved of the firing of the eight researchers?

Hon. T. Lake: As I have already said, the head of the Public Service Agency, Lynda Tarras, will conduct a review of the government’s human resources practices and processes for disciplining members of the public service. We want to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable approach that’s taken, with disciplinary actions that reflect the severity of the individuals involved and their actions involved.

The Public Service Agency has developed terms of reference and appointed Marcia McNeil to do this work. Ms. McNeil is an independent contractor and has expertise and a background in labour relations law and investigations. We will, through this review, confirm the actions and events that took place during that investigation from the point at which the allegations were received — allegations that were very serious — through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.

We will assess the human resource and investigation procedures and practices utilized in responding to the allegations, and she will make recommendations where required for improving the procedures and practices for human resources and management staff to follow in responding to these types of matters.

Madame Speaker, we are determined to ensure that this does not happen in the future.

Madame Speaker: New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: That was not the question, with all respect, hon. Speaker. Let me remind the minister of certain words that appear in certain internal government documents. On August 15, 2012 — three weeks before the Premier’s government fired the eight health researchers — John Dyble, Health deputy Graham Whitmarsh and Public Service Agency deputy Lynda Tarras sat down for a discussion.

[1410]

The Premier’s office won’t tell us what the Premier’s deputy discussed with them, but it’s significant that the
[ Page 4543 ]
Premier’s office used freedom of information in order to sever the subject matter of the discussion on the grounds that it involved “law enforcement issues.”

Can the Minister of Health confirm that this meeting was held to brief John Dyble on the health care firings and to brief him on the government’s plan to send the matter to the RCMP?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s important that we understand that there’s an independent review of all of the sequence of events that occurred around that time. Any information that is available will be made available to that independent agent, Ms. McNeil. That information will be contained in her report — all of the information, as I mentioned, surrounding the actions and events that took place — and also recommendations to prevent the type of action that we now know, in some cases, was inappropriate, from ever happening again.

We will be happy to share that report in full with the public as soon as it is made available.

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ON
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

A. Dix: One of the most disreputable parts of the Liberal government’s strategy in dealing with this matter was its strategy with respect to communicating the issue. This was implemented in detail by GCPE, the government communications and public engagement organization, under the direction of its then deputy, Athana Mentzelopoulos.

The government announced this action before it told the employees they were fired by leaking information to the Vancouver Sun. That’s what they did. Can the minister explain why they would engage in such disreputable tactics at the expense of the basic rights of employees?

Hon. T. Lake: Rushing to judgment has proven to be not the appropriate thing to do in some cases. We’ve apologized for the sequence of events in which the ministry rushed to judgment, so I would caution the opposition not to rush to judgment in this situation, when we have an ongoing review that will look at all of the sequence of events that occurred. We will share the results of that review with the public as soon as it is available.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: For the minister to speak today about a rush to judgment when they did nothing…. They knew that some of their actions here were completely inappropriate, and they failed to inform the public until Ms. Kayfish spoke last week. For the minister to be giving lessons about rushing to judgment is just disgraceful.

You can look at the freedom-of-information request coming out of Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s office to see how satisfied the government’s team — her team, the Premier’s pal’s team — was about how their leak had gone. Can the minister confirm that Ms. Mentzelopoulos, the Premier’s political communicator, met with Deputy Minister Graham Whitmarsh eight days before the leak to address the strategy to communicate this issue?

Hon. T. Lake: Rushing to judgment is something that we did, and I’ve apologized for it. I don’t want to do it again. I know the member opposite knows this — that when you are in a position, whether you’re leading a ministry or any position where people are relying on you to make judgments, you receive a lot of advice.

I received a lot of advice from lawyers, from civil servants, from political staff. Sometimes you forget that politics is first and foremost about people. Ms. Kayfish and her husband are real people that were deeply impacted by the actions of our ministry. I should have reached out sooner. For that, too, I am truly sorry that I didn’t.

We have a process in place now, and I think it’s important that we allow that process to unfold. We will share the results of that process with the public.

[1415]

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH
AND ROLE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

M. Mungall: According to the minister’s October 3 backgrounder, the objectives of the review by Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil are to “confirm the actions and events that took place, including through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.”

The current head of the public service, the Premier’s Mr. Dyble, bears the legal and administrative responsibility for this abuse of power. None of the firings could have occurred without his explicit approval. Moreover, Mr. Dyble met with Mr. Whitmarsh and Ms. Tarras to discuss matters related to law enforcement just weeks before the suspensions, the firings and the leaked allegations to the RCMP that the RCMP were involved.

My question is whether Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating Mr. Dyble’s involvement in these firings — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: Again I want to remind the House that the protection of people’s personal, private medical information is paramount. Breach of confidentiality of that information, as reflected in the members opposite’s comments at the time, is very serious. This is something that is the last thing we want to have happen in government. It is a very serious thing. But when you are dealing with that type of investigation and the people that are involved, it’s important to have balance, to have fairness.
[ Page 4544 ]

Through this review Ms. McNeil will look at all of the events, the sequence of events, the actions that occurred, and assess the procedures and practices that were utilized and make recommendations for improvements. I don’t want to rush to judgment. I caution the opposition from rushing to judgment, and allow this independent investigator to do her very important work.

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ON
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

M. Karagianis: The minister would not answer this question a few moments ago, but in fact just eight days before this story was deliberately leaked to the media, Ms. Mentzelopoulos did in fact meet with then Health Deputy Graham Whitmarsh to discuss a human resources issue.

Now, the minister has consistently referred to this review. Can the minister confirm that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating any role that Ms. Mentzelopoulos and/or government communications, GCPE, had in how the firing decisions were executed and communicated? It’s a simple yes-or-no answer.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure how more clear I can be. The review will confirm the actions and events that took place during the investigation from the point at which the allegations were received through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed. I think that’s very clear.

REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

S. Robinson: Well, clearly, Mr. Dyble would have briefed the Premier on the mass firings of people working on drug safety, including on the Premier’s pet project, Champix. Clearly, she allowed Mr. Dyble to proceed with the plan that ruined eight people’s lives. The minister just said a few moments ago that they intend to look at the sequence of events that occurred.

I’d like to confirm that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating the Premier’s involvement in the making and execution of the firing decisions. And once again, a simple yes or no will do.

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite have acknowledged that this is the domain of the professional civil service. That professional civil service is led by the deputy that has ordered the investigation through an independent contractor with an excellent background and expertise in labour relations law and investigations.
[ Page 4545 ]
It will review all of the actions that occurred — the sequence of events, the actions that were taken from the time that the allegations were made through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.

We hope to have those recommendations for improvements and an investigation into what occurred at the time, including all of the sequence of events, within a matter of weeks. At that time we will make that report public.

[1420]

S. Simpson: The minister has talked a lot about what will be in and out of the investigation. Will the minister confirm and commit today that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil will be given all documents related in three areas — related to meetings Mr. Dyble had with Mr. Whitmarsh and Ms. Tarras on August 15, 2012, and any documents that may have come out of that meeting; all documents related to the GCPE plan that led to the September 5, 2012, press leak and the September 6 press conference; and finally, will the minister commit to the House today that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil will be given each and every document that came before cabinet that discussed these firings either before or after they occurred?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, and I will repeat, the review will confirm the actions and events that took place. Not some of the actions and events — it will confirm the actions and events that took place during the investigation from when the allegations occurred through to when the termination decisions were made.

That is, I believe, a very broad mandate, and I look forward to the recommendations from that review.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Just again to confirm with the minister, is the minister committing that those documents and correspondence that I’ve asked for will be released to the investigators?

Hon. T. Lake: I am not conducting the investigation. Ms. McNeil is conducting the investigation under the auspices of our Public Service Agency lead, Lynda Tarras. I will confirm that the review will look at all of the actions and events that took place from the time of the allegations through to the disciplinary action.

N. Macdonald: Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil will have an awful lot to do in the next three weeks. Can the minister confirm that Ms. McNeil will actually have the legal authority to compel individuals to answer her questions? Again, a yes or no.

Hon. T. Lake: The Public Service Agency is conducting the review using an independent expert in labour relations law and investigations.

Ms. McNeil will do three things. She will confirm all of the actions and events that occurred during our investigation at the Ministry of Health, from the point at which the allegations were received right through to when disciplinary decisions were made. She will assess the human resource and investigation procedures and practices utilized in responding to those allegations and make recommendations, where required, for improving those procedures to make sure that the actions that occurred, when they were heavy-handed or inappropriate, will not occur in the future.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: With all respect, the minister didn’t answer the question. It’s a really clear question, yes or no. Can the minister confirm that Ms. McNeil will actually have the legal authority to compel individuals to answer questions, and secondly, will Ms. McNeil have the legal authority to compel individuals to provide her with all relevant documents that they have in their possession? It’s a yes or no on those questions.

Hon. T. Lake: The Public Service Agency, headed by Lynda Tarras, has ordered this review. It is a third-party independent review. Ms. McNeil has a broad mandate. Should she encounter any difficulties with that mandate, I’m sure she will voice them.

I expect that this will be a broad review looking at all of the actions and sequences that I have mentioned in my former answers.

M. Farnworth: According to the minister’s press release, the information gathered from this review will be used to make recommendations to improve how the public service responds to allegations of employee misconduct in the future. I have read this very carefully. Unfortunately, there is no mention of findings, no mention of responsibility, no mention of accountability and no mention of possible consequences to anyone.

Can the Minister of Health point me to any single word, phrase or sentence in the terms of reference that tells Linda Kayfish, the researchers, their families and their colleagues that there may be consequences for anybody arising from this government’s abuse of power?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: This review, as I have mentioned, has a very broad mandate. It will look at all of the events that occurred, from the time of the allegations through to the disciplinary actions. We acknowledge the need for this investigation. We acknowledge that some of the actions that occurred were disproportionate, were heavy-handed. We have apologized. I have personally apologized for those actions.

We expect that this review will look at all of the details around those actions that occurred at that time and will assess the practices that were in place and make recommendations to make sure that those kinds of actions that are disproportionate, that are heavy-handed, do not occur in the future.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister says that they want to look at everything, that they want to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.

Well, unfortunately, in the terms of reference there are several topics that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil are prohibited from investigating; namely, they’re not permitted to examine “decisions made following the terminations in the context of settlements of grievances and legal claims.”

Can the Minister of Health explain why he constructed the terms of reference so carefully as to exclude any examination of what happened in the 24 months after the government fired eight public servants, ruining their reputations and lives?

Hon. T. Lake: The response is that I did not craft the terms of reference for the investigation. Those were crafted by the professional public service, the Public Service Agency, which is mandated to govern the professional civil service of British Columbia. It was not appropriate for the Minister of Health to design the terms of reference looking into the actions of the professional public service. That is the role of Ms. Tarras, as the head of the Public Service Agency.

C. James: This House has seen this government’s so-called independent investigations before. It’s very important that the public have confidence that the ability to ask questions will be there.

I would like to ask the minister once again: could he commit today that Ms. McNeil will have the ability to compel any and all individuals — including the Premier, including any former ministers — to answer any and all questions necessary for this investigation?

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly have learned a lesson about rushing in and when governments are heavy-handed and what the roles of different people in government are — what their roles are.

I don’t think the member implies or means to imply that the Public Service Agency, which is responsible for the professional public service of British Columbia, would be anything but objective and thorough in their investigations. I’m sure she agrees that they will be that way, because they are responsible for our professional public service.
[ Page 4546 ]

As I mentioned, the terms of reference were created by the Public Service Agency, and I am confident that that investigation will be thorough and complete and that we will all learn a lot about how to conduct the professional public service when it comes to matters of potential disciplinary action so that we don’t have the same situation that some of the members of the Ministry of Health had to endure.

But remembering that there was a serious breach of confidential information that occurred, the government was compelled to take action. Some of the actions were inappropriate, and for that, we are all very sorry.

Madame Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: We’re not looking to rush to judgment. We are looking on behalf of the public, on behalf of the families, on behalf of the individuals who work for government. We are looking for the truth here.

[1430]

While I have heard the minister say that he has confidence in the process, I would ask the minister again…. We’re looking for more than simply the minister’s confidence. We are looking for a commitment that the individual doing this investigation, Ms. McNeil, will have complete authority to compel any and all individuals, including the Premier, including former ministers, to answer any and all questions necessary to get to the truth of this entire matter.

Hon. T. Lake: I do not feel it is the role of the Minister of Health to create the terms of reference for an investigation and a report that will include recommendations into the conduct of the Public Service Agency. That is the role of the professional public service. I have every confidence in our professional public service. I will not rush to judgment about what the recommendations, the findings, will be, but I look forward to those so that we can improve our processes to protect the public and to protect the great men and women who work for the government of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change, October 2014.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, how about we start with a little joy in what so far is a little bit of a dull day. About six to seven weeks ago No. 4 arrived. Grandchild No. 4, Riley Patrick Coleman, was born to one side of my family, my son and my daughter-in-law. Riley Patrick is No. 4, following Gabriel, Josephine and Owen into the world.

And on the 31st of August another great milestone was achieved in that my wife, who has tolerated me for a long time, and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

When I think of Riley Patrick, I think of a new chapter for British Columbia. What’s the future going to look like for this little infant soul that was just brought into the world? What’s his future going to be? His educational opportunities? His opportunities to have a full and generous life?

Not long ago B.C. had a depleting conventional natural gas supply. We were actually sitting not long ago, less than two decades ago, looking at the fact that we were actually going to run out of natural gas in B.C. — until we changed how we did business. We incented the marketplace as a government in 2001, and we found what has proven to be one of the largest and most stable reserves of natural gas in the world.

While this was happening, our primary markets, the United States and our neighbours to the east in Canada, were actually seeing a whole new supply developed across North America and seeing gas coming from the United States into Canada, into eastern Canada, competing with us out of one field in the northern United States. The world was becoming more and more connected, and our markets were diminishing because the supply that we had was more than the market we could get it to. So you can imagine. Now you have a resource and nowhere to go.

You have a resource that is so large that you could supply the North American market for 200-plus years, all your customers, and still have gas left. While you’re doing that, your very customers south of you are finding more of the same product you want to ship, and some of your communities, particularly communities like Fort Nelson, are the furthest away from the market on the entire North American continent.

[1435]

Even though they have the Horn River and the Liard Basin up there, they’re a long ways to market. Where do you send the gas?

So a few years ago — actually, a little over 2½ years ago — the province announced an LNG strategy. Particularly, we announced it in February of 2012. When we announced that strategy in early ’12, there were three LNG proposals in British Columbia — three — and the con-
[ Page 4547 ]
cept of a new industry — you’re trying to pursue a new industry for British Columbia and a future for our province — was born.

Now, at the time, people were critical, saying: “It’s pie in the sky. Why are you dreaming? Why are you looking ahead?” My thought at the very beginning was: “Why not?” Why would we sit on our hands and not pursue an opportunity on behalf of our citizens? Or do we just sit here and wait for something to come to us? Why not pursue it?

Today, since February 2012, not three…. But now there are 18 LNG proposals in British Columbia at various stages of development involving over 30 international companies who are in British Columbia looking to invest. Five of those LNG projects alone — five of them alone — have come in 2014, just in the last seven or eight months.

So now you have this huge influx of interest and investment in British Columbia, and the proposals are at different stages. There are nine export permits already issued by the National Energy Board. There are a number of these that have already gone into the environmental assessment process, and we have an assessment of all the competitiveness worldwide — all our needs, all our labour, all the things that we need, and we have been working tirelessly to do that.

We have not missed a single deadline or commitment we have made to a company since we started to put this file together. Not one. But the important thing, I think, first of all, is to remind people what it is we’re talking about.

I always go back when I talk about this to September of 2013. Or maybe it was 2012.

I was in Prince Rupert speaking to the chamber of commerce in Prince Rupert. After the speech, giving what I thought was an incredibly articulate and motivational speech about the future of liquefied natural gas, a gentleman of about 40 years of age walked up to me and said: “Rich, you’re so right. We’ve got to pursue this opportunity. We need to get the product to Asia. I worked in the oil fields. I worked in the natural gas fields. I grew up in Dawson Creek. For 15 years I worked in the fields.” And he says: “But for the life of me, I don’t know where it comes out of the ground as a liquid.”

At that point I realized that we had to have people understand what it is. So now I explain to people when I speak to them that if you’ve got a natural gas fireplace in your house and you turn it on, that’s natural gas. If you have a natural gas furnace in your house and you use it for heat, that’s natural gas. It’s the same product.

The difference is that we move it to a specialized plant where we freeze it down to minus 161 degrees Celsius. At that point it becomes a liquid that can be loaded on to specialized ships and chilled. It reduces in size by over 600 times and is now a commodity you can ship anywhere in the world to help fire other homes for heat, run power plants — any number of things that natural gas can do here can be done anywhere else in the world. It’s that compact form of natural gas that can be safely stored and transported across the ocean that’s important to understand.

I was sitting with an elder from one of the First Nations in the north at our LNG conference this year, and she said to me: “Rich, I’m really concerned about LNG polluting the Skeena.” And I said: “Well, it’s not a liquid when it goes by the Skeena. It’s not a liquid until we turn it into a liquid at the LNG plant, and then we put it on a ship. If it warms up, if it actually were to rupture…. If the gas warms up, it evaporates just like any other natural gas. It cannot pollute the river.”

She says: “Well, that changes my whole attitude and opinion towards this product. I would like more information.” And today she’s one of the people up there that is encouraging people in her own First Nations community to support liquefied natural gas.

As you know, the LNG commitment started with the jobs plan in 2011. But it’s a challenging thing to take on something this massive in a short period of time and amass the resources of government and focus it in one direction.

I can tell you this today, Members on both sides of the House, that if you’ve ever questioned the capacity, the professionalism and the ability of B.C.’s public service, just look at this file.

[1440]

Every single ministry, every single deputy minister, every single ADM and other people right down through government cooperate without silos to try and be successful on behalf of British Columbians. Whether it’s First Nations, whether it’s this ministry or whether it’s the Ministry of Energy and Mines on the electricity side, whether it’s the Ministry of Environment, we’re all working together in a way I have never seen in my 18½ years in this House.

Today, with the number of plants that we have and the number of export approvals we have, we have to be in a place to build a competitive industry in British Columbia. While we do that, we will always have those who will be griping from the sidelines for a number of reasons. First, they really don’t want to see success in B.C. So they might be an international competitor. They might be somebody in government or on the opposition side of this Legislature, hoping not to have success for British Columbians, because that way, they can say: “I told you so. They couldn’t get it done.”

But the reality is this. It would be a much better use of your time to actually get on board on the opposite side of this House and quit — half of you saying you support LNG and half of you saying you don’t. Because the fact of the matter is that there are 100,000 jobs at stake here. There is $175 billion GDP to Canada. There is an opportunity to bring to British Columbia the largest single investment in capital in Canadian history — the largest single.
[ Page 4548 ]

When I say that, people go, “Oh, come on,” so let me give you an example. There’s an entire new aluminum smelter being built in Kitimat today by Rio Tinto Alcan, approximate cost between $3.3 billion and $3.7 billion; one LNG facility — total capital cost of the plant is between $15 billion and $18 billion; the pipeline to serve it, between $6 billion and $7 billion; and the drill-up program to have the gas to flow for a five-year period, $2 billion a year.

It doesn’t take long to figure out this is worth pursuing, and when you have this many proponents in British Columbia, you’re going to have a lot of work to do in order to work things out.

So what have we done? In this session, as the throne speech said, we will be explaining to you the tax stuff. I can tell you this. It is globally competitive. When you get a chance to look at it and debate it and see the people that are going to be validators behind it, you will say that they got it right. It will be the cleanest in the world, and you will see the levers that make that possible as we come through this session of the Legislature.

You’ll look at the fact that these people are here for a reason. They’re in British Columbia for a number of reasons: (1) they know this resource has a market worldwide, and (2) they look for stable places to invest. Where better to invest when there’s a jurisdiction with a triple-A credit rating, balancing their budget, that has a skilled workforce that’s prepared to work with industry to build a globally competitive industry on behalf of its citizens? That’s why they’re here. They like the fact there’s a reliable, stable place to do business, and international investors today increasingly are looking for more secure places to invest their money.

The other piece is that we’re pretty close to China, Korea, Japan and India from our west coast. As a matter of fact, our ports on the northwest side of our province are the closest ports on the entire west side of the continent of North America to those countries — those countries that are actually looking for the business. They need the natural gas to come and replace dirty coal in their power plants, reduce GHGs and reduce pollution in their countries. We can help.

Now, we know we won’t supply all of the natural gas these countries need, although we’re prepared to do that if they wanted to make the investment. Obviously, we’d be happy about that. But we do want a piece of the marketplace for the future of the citizens of British Columbia, and we plan to pursue that aggressively as we go forward.

[1445]

I can tell you this. As we’ve gone through this, we’ve actually seen an increased interest in British Columbia itself, and I can give you one quick example of that. We put together our first LNG conference two years ago. Our first LNG conference had about 500 people come through, exhibitors and participants. This year we were turning people away from the door — 1,400 delegates.

Down on the floor of the convention, on top of the huge trade show we had, we had an area where people could come and find their fit. Young people from all over British Columbia came to that conference. They were able to go in and touch and feel how they could do welding and pipefitting, learning these skills and what skills would be needed for the future. They came from all over B.C.

There were young people from First Nations communities who had never been on an airplane, who came to Vancouver to find their fit and get knowledge about the opportunities. We are connecting those people that came there to the opportunities for their future, which is an important aspect of this entire package, because it is going to allow us to develop the skill training that’s needed for the next generation. It is going to allow us to go forward and have ourselves, as British Columbia and as Canada, on a global map.

There’s something else we should note. This particular opportunity isn’t just about British Columbia. This is the most significant capital opportunity and job opportunity in Canadian history. We can change the GDP of our country. We can change the future of our country by pursuing liquefied natural gas and being successful. Some people would say: “If they come, they come. If they don’t, they don’t.” I say: “Let’s see if we can find a way to get them to come.”

Maybe we want them to make an investment in Campbell River. Maybe we want them to make an investment in Port Alberni. There are two proposals, one in each of those communities — including Squamish, Kitimat, north at Lax Kw’alaams, in Prince Rupert — the investment of pipelines across the northwest and the northeast, the jobs in Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek.

We also have to do this for another reason. The communities of Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek and Fort St. John support 13,000 jobs in British Columbia through the oil and gas sector, whether it’s construction of camps, whether it’s construction of roads, whether it’s a need for drilling equipment and people that can actually run the rigs and do all the servicing — all of that work that comes.

But if you get a diminishing market and you don’t pursue a new market, you leave those communities at risk. That would be a failure on behalf of any elected official in British Columbia — not to know that they should go and pursue the opportunities to give those communities long-term stability, which they deserve.

The northwest part of this province has suffered a tough time in forestry and other resources over the last decade and a half, two decades. Why shouldn’t we pursue an opportunity that could renew those communities, give them an opportunity to build back enthusiasm and excitement about their future for their children and their grandchildren? Why wouldn’t we pursue an opportunity where this could also take place on Vancouver Island in places like Port Alberni and Campbell River, where there
[ Page 4549 ]
have also been pressures and different industry changes?

At the same time, I know I’ll hear in the debates of this House all of the why nots and none of the whys, because you’re afraid of it. Don’t be. It’s a clean fossil fuel. It can be done safely. We’ll be the cleanest in the world, and the opportunity is there for your children and your grandchildren.

As you go forward, you’re going to have different debates around this, some interesting debates. Where does the skilled workforce come from? How many do we have? Where can we get them from? How do you build that so we can have a future, so these people will come and make the investment in British Columbia and Canada? Quite simply, jobs first for British Columbians, then Canadians, and then if we need, we may need skilled workforce from somewhere else.

The people that have that vision and share that vision are people like organized labour in British Columbia, who are at the table with government, working to do the analysis and the work to get the skilled labour and the training done. If you don’t believe that, let me read you this: “If they’re wise, governments, businesses and unions will continue to support the judicious use of skilled foreign workers to fill temporary skills gaps in the Canadian economy.” That’s Joseph Maloney, who is the vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, in the Province on February 26.

Now, why does Mr. Maloney say that? Because he’s seen the data. He knows how important it is. He knows there’s an ability to actually have jobs for his members that maybe aren’t in Canada after we use up the Canadian skilled labour force. But we do need to know this — that it’s important to have a skills blueprint that works for British Columbia, one that works for Canadians, and that we’re ready for those new jobs.

[1450]

Last spring we did a trip to Ottawa. With us we took labour, we took companies, we took members of the Legislative Assembly, and we met with the B.C. caucus and a number of cabinet ministers. We did a session led by the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m close — and Labour. When you get to my age, things sometimes disappear.

The fact of the matter is that we went to Ottawa with these companies. These companies and these organizations that have touched liquefied natural gas elsewhere in the world told us one thing that was very important — that when they tried to build in Australia, the biggest failure of the construction and the investment was the lack of skilled labour, and it took the closing of the mines of the country to recognize that that skilled labour was important to their long-term success. The construction is one thing, but the long-term success comes from the investment in the business itself.

After the meeting — and at the meeting, actually — two of the people from major companies from around the world said this to our federal ministers in the room: “If Australia had gone and worked together as a country with both its provincial and its federal governments the way these guys did, the experience in Australia would have been different, and we would not have had the challenges we faced in Australia.”

They also said: “That’s why we like British Columbia. They’re actually ready to do the work, do the heavy lifting and learn how this thing can be put together and make sure it works.”

As we come through this, we will have a long history of safety that we’ve had in the oil and gas sector, the responsible natural gas development in British Columbia to stand and put our hat on. We will have a strong regulatory environment that is actually reviewed by jurisdictions around the world, because we’re considered to be world leaders on that. The leadership will transcend the LNG growth, and we will actually move forward to where our natural gas activities become a model as to how to produce clean LNG for the world.

As we do that, we will do it with experts, with studies and with all the assessments we need to do in order to make sure it is acceptable to our citizens and also understood in a way that they know that we’re going to do it right.

Any key for development is finding a fiscal framework that works right. It’s British Columbia’s citizens’ resource. They deserve something for it, and they deserve a future out of it. At the same time, you need to negotiate a non-blindsiding arrangement and work to make sure that you’re in a competitive global environment and that you can compete. We have been confirmed that our approach is competitive. We know we’re finding the right balance between attracting investment and ensuring that British Columbians receive a fair share of benefits. That’s always been key to this file.

It’s not a file where somebody goes out and talks about a piece of it today and another piece over there in the media and another piece over there. When you’re actually trying to deal with tens of billions of dollars of investment and opportunity, you do it in a confidential way without, frankly, putting at risk the commercial information that should be kept confidential for shareholders and companies as they come through a deal like this. Why, maybe, you don’t see a whole bunch of things about LNG in the media is because, quite simply, we’re doing the job that needs to be done on behalf of British Columbians.

The fundamentals are in place. We made unbelievable progress in the last couple of years. We’ve actually taken our operation and moved it across the world to make sure we connect with people that understand this industry, people that can help us negotiate with industry and get to where we can hit what I would call the spot where
[ Page 4550 ]
we can attract the investment for the future of all British Columbians.

We are a big part of North America’s potential. Our liquefied natural gas industry is a significant opportunity for British Columbians. People can sit on the sidelines and say: “Let’s not bother.” Or you can sit there and decide you want to do something for kids like my grandson Riley. My grandson Riley and my other three grandchildren deserve a future in British Columbia where they can see those economic opportunities there for them. They need to know that somebody was thinking about them when we started to do things on behalf of British Columbians.

You can sit back and wait for the future to come, as I’ve said, and nine times out of ten you’ll just wait for failure. Or you can pursue opportunity, pursue challenges, pursue the ability to change your economy and build a future.

[1455]

Liquefied natural gas is worth pursuing. It is a lot of work. It’s worth every minute of it. I can tell you this: Owen, Josephine, Gabriel and Riley are my motivation for making sure that we do this right, that we do it for the future of British Columbians and that we change the British Columbia economy forever.

S. Fraser: It’s always a pleasure to take my spot in the debate in this amazing building.

The response to the throne speech is one of those events where we’re allowed to speak for 30 minutes. There is some irony there, I think. I timed the throne speech, and I believe it was 18 minutes. So speaking for 30 minutes on an 18-minute speech seems a little strange. I have not encountered that….

Deputy Speaker: I could change the clock to 18, if you’d like.

S. Fraser: That’s okay. No, I’ll run my 30 out.

Before I actually speak to the throne speech, I would like to acknowledge some people that help me with this job: Brenda McLean and Patty Edwards in my Port Alberni office. They are my managers in my constituency. They make the office tick. They’ve been with me for the whole 9½ years that I’ve been in this place, and I want to thank them so much for everything they do for the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim.

I’d also like to acknowledge Anne Paxton, here at the Legislature, my legislative assistant, who I wouldn’t be able to do anything without, and also Kenn McLaren in research and also Jennifer Jones in communications. They help me so much.

With that in mind, I’ll move on to speaking to the throne speech. I do not believe that the throne speech is just about LNG. I believe there are so many more issues that are of import to the people of this province and to the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim, certainly. This throne speech was a departure from previous throne speeches. I mentioned that it’s only 18 minutes — very, very short — but it seems to be throne speech–lite, if you will. It was not full of much substance.

I found that it was a totally different tone than the positions taken in the throne speech prior to the last provincial election. At that point, there were pretty lofty statements made about the role of LNG in this province.

Now, I just wanted to clarify: LNG is a part of our economy. It’s a commodity in this province. It has brought us benefit already, and hopefully, it will in the future. It is one commodity, though. It’s not the only commodity, and it is subject to all of the whims and variabilities of the global market. Putting all our eggs in one basket, it would be something that I do have some problems with.

When it comes to LNG in this particular throne speech, it seems to be that the reason for the throne speech was to lower expectations from the very graphic benefits that were touted before the election. I didn’t hear anything about a $100 billion prosperity fund. I didn’t see anything in the throne speech about 100,000 new jobs. These things just seemed to disappear.

As a matter of fact, the statement made in the throne speech was that…. As opposed to being one of the greatest economic opportunities, which the minister referred to just a few moments ago, the throne speech called it “a chance, not a windfall.” All the eggs in one basket for a chance. What happened to doing away with the provincial sales tax, paying off the debt? That irks me to no end.

Paying off the debt. This government has doubled, more than doubled the provincial debt — on-the-books provincial debt — since they took office. This Premier has increased that debt faster than any Premier in the history of the province of British Columbia. Talking about paying off debt, from a government and a Premier that are increasing the debt at astronomical proportions, is a problem. I’m finding when I talk to people that it’s very hard to take this Premier at her word any longer with statements like that.

[1500]

I was at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference this year. It was in Whistler. All the northwestern states and provinces attend those. It’s very industry-full. We get lots of information. The Premier spoke at that conference and spoke about the specific amount of emissions that would be reduced in China by them taking our LNG — if, indeed, they do take some of our LNG. She actually quantified how much reduction would happen, and I wondered where she got her figures.

Afterwards there was a symposium put on at the conference by an Asian economic expert. I attended that. What I learned was that…. As the expert spoke, it was as though he was referring to the Premier’s speech, although he didn’t refer to her by name. He did say that while, yes, China has an insatiable appetite for LNG, it is also true that China has an insatiable appetite for all types of oil
[ Page 4551 ]
and petroleum products, and China also has an insatiable appetite for coal — thermal and metallurgical.

So there is no quid pro quo that our LNG will reduce any greenhouse gas emissions in China. There’s no deal to that effect. There’s no deal to buy our product as of yet. But there is no information that shows that our LNG will have any effect on China’s greenhouse gas emissions, and I find that another part of the pattern, because the Premier cannot be taken at her word any longer.

What she said at the PNWER conference wasn’t based in fact, and the experts at that place called her on that. That does not help this industry.

There is a proposal, as the minister referred to, out of Port Alberni. It’s starting off just right. This is the Huu-ay-aht First Nations working closely with a company called Steelhead LNG. They’ve signed a memorandum of understanding right from the get-go. That is how things should be done in this province when it comes to consultation with First Nations, partnerships with First Nations. It’s part of our future that looks bright post–Tsilhqot’in decision.

But it has to be done right. It has to be providing a maximum amount of benefit for British Columbians and Canadians — jobs, certainly. The minister spoke of that — the problems with jobs, filling that job market.

The problem that the minister didn’t refer to was his government. They gutted the skills-training apprenticeship programs back in 2003, I believe it was. And despite even industry pleading that there’s a looming skills shortage, a trained worker shortage in this province, the government did nothing about that.

Here we are with the panacea, the LNG amazing opportunity that they’re talking about, and British Columbians are not trained up for that. The reason that we have a skilled worker shortage is largely resting with this government’s bad decisions when they re-engineered our training processes in this province.

Also, we may well need temporary foreign workers. There is a role for temporary foreign workers in this province, not just for LNG or other opportunities. But again, we’ve seen this government allowing temporary foreign workers to come in, seemingly without any regard for workers in British Columbia.

Then we’ve seen deals cut where companies can move in, mining companies can move into the province and bring their own labour with them. That doesn’t ring true with some of the government’s statements about having to benefit British Columbian workers first. The actions of this government do not live up to those words. Again, we’re seeing a Premier that is saying something and doing something that’s completely opposite.

[1505]

Now, I’m not going to dwell on LNG, as the previous speaker did — the minister. The minister is the minister of LNG, so I get that. But there are other parts of a throne speech. There are other things of interest and importance to British Columbians.

My critic role, if you will, is I am the spokesperson for the official opposition for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I have been honoured to have that role on and off for the last nine years.

I would note that in this throne speech, the Premier said…. Well, the Lieutenant-Governor said it, but I think it’s written by the Premier’s office:

“Leadership means developing a real partnership with First Nations and giving them the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a thriving economy. The Supreme Court ruling on aboriginal land title presents a new opportunity. It is an opportunity to finally resolve disputes and make decisions together that reflect our common interests and shared vision of a better future. It is an opportunity to move forward towards a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership.”

Those words again. The Premier says them, but she cannot be taken at them.

At the same time we were doing a throne speech, an hour before the throne speech began yesterday in this precinct, there was a large demonstration on the front lawn of the Legislature. Many First Nations and non–First Nations alike attended. Hundreds attended that demonstration, expressing outrage that a known First Nations burial site on Grace Islet was having a house built right on top of it — and the fact that we have a law on the books, the Heritage Conservation Act, that allows this to happen.

We have a cemetery act that prevents someone from building on a cemetery, but when it comes to First Nations, aboriginal peoples, and their sacred burial sites, the act does them a great injustice. It is a discriminatory act. I would note that our member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads has brought in, two or three times, a private member’s bill to try to address that: a two-tiered system where cemeteries are protected and First Nations grave sites are not.

As long as there are those sorts of inequities in this province, these words in the throne speech talking about an opportunity to move forward in a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership…. That’s not a fair partnership; that’s an unfair partnership.

That continues. I just came back from Bella Bella. I met with the Heiltsuk First Nations. I was taken on a lengthy boat trip to a part of the world which is beautiful, the Great Bear rainforest. There’s a site there. There’s a cannery that was shut down a couple of decades ago. It’s like a village. There were 1,000 people living and working there at one point.

Mostly on piles, this whole thing is rotting. It was shut down when it was no longer as profitable, when the fisheries were dying down. The company just left it. It’s full of rusting barrels full of old oil. It’s crumbling into the sea. There’s a ship that’s listing on a 40-degree angle. It’s going into the sea.

It’s right in front of the oldest-recorded continually inhabited village site in North America — a significant ar-
[ Page 4552 ]
chaeological site, a site of reclamation of the remains of First Nations from long ago that were taken from that site. The Heiltsuk First Nation, showing their respect for their elders and generations before and of the land itself, did ceremonies to reclaim their loved ones, their ancestors.

[1510]

Right in front of it is a mess. You have a government that talks about world-class cleanup. They are allowing this to sit and rot and fall into the sea. Now, if this government can’t see to having this environmental ticking time bomb cleaned up on the central coast, how can they be believed when they say whatever resource use, whether it’s mining, whether it’s bitumen, whether it’s LNG…? Can it be done safely? Will there be a cleanup if there’s a spill, if there’s a problem, if there’s an environmental problem, if there’s a First Nations problem?

If the government’s not willing to live up to those words now, why should anyone believe them that they will clean up something afterwards or they will ensure that those who are responsible will clean it up? They’re not doing it now. When this government talks about an opportunity to move forward in a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership with First Nations, it isn’t happening. It’s not happening now, so why should these words be believed?

The throne speech touched on forestry — sort of a side comment. It struck me as ironic that the government would actually talk about forestry as being a part of what built this economy when this government has abandoned forestry. In my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim, this government engineered the full privatization of massive amounts of valuable forest land that should never have been removed from the tree farm licence. They gave it to then-Weyerhaeuser for free.

I believe the Government House Leader and Finance Minister was the Minister of Forests at the time. His own staff, senior staff, advised him not to do that because it would be to the detriment of the people of my constituency, and it is. We’ve lost all control of that industry. The public input does not happen. The public values of the Alberni Valley, of the people of the Alberni Valley, are dismissed because of how this government set that up.

It’s all being exported. Every stick is being exported, and it’s putting at risk, potentially, our water systems, our water supply systems in Port Alberni. Critical ungulate winter ranges that this government’s own staff said should never be cut are being taken down as we speak. Established wildlife habitat areas — taken down as we speak. This government’s own scientists say it shouldn’t be happening.

I’ve raised it with the current minister and the previous minister and the minister before over and over again, and it’s still happening. It’s the people of Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley that are paying that price and may well pay a much bigger price in the future.

When this government raises forestry as a side comment in the throne speech, they should be ashamed of themselves. They’ve orchestrated the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs in this province with no value-added built into anything in this government’s policies on wood or fibre in this province.

The Auditor General said they don’t even have the staff left in the ministry to do proper inventory work, and they’re not doing proper inventory work. How do you manage a resource — like they’re saying they want to manage LNG — when you don’t have the ability to know what you have to start with? You cannot.

I would note that the throne speech gave some recognition to teachers. I must say I do appreciate that, but, again, this is a government that was going to be available 24-7 right through the summer, all the summer months, to ensure that a labour settlement would be reached with the teachers — a fair agreement, not one based on their practices identified by a previous judge that talked about the strategy of forcing a strike, of forcing confrontation, of trying to vilify teachers. That continued. That continued in this labour strife.

[1515]

This government did not make themselves available 24-7. They didn’t make themselves available at all in the summer. We had the largest strike in the history of this province that students and their families will pay the price for.

That tactic of trying to pick a fight is not in the public interest. While the throne speech says some words recognizing the teachers and the players at the negotiating table, they failed to mention in the throne speech the true nature of what happened there. Indeed, at one point the Premier’s only involvement in that strike was sending out tweets that were inflammatory — designed to, again, try to turn the public’s support away from the teachers, to try to vilify them.

I do applaud the teachers for standing their ground, for standing up for the Constitution of Canada, against a government that repeatedly tried to strip them of those rights.

I don’t care what the political stripe is. The role of any government, any Premier, must be to protect the rights that we have entrenched in the constitution of this country. Any government that tries repeatedly to strip those away from its citizens does not deserve to sit as government.

I was the mining critic for a while last year, prior to the Mount Polley disaster, which was referred to in this throne speech. The scale of this. I had a friend work it out for me. It’s 25 million cubic metres of contaminated water and sludge — 25 million cubic metres.

What my friend looked up was the flow of the Amazon. The Amazon is the largest river in the world — larger by a scale. The next five largest rivers are less than the flow of the Amazon. This would be two minutes of flow of the Amazon. That’s what’s worked its way down toward
[ Page 4553 ]
Quesnel Lake.

I don’t think we’ve got to the bottom of this. The role of the government, the much-reduced role of government oversight, which seems to be the mantra of the government. “Deregulation,” a key word. No one there to protect the public interest. Results-based. Oh yeah, something will happen if something goes wrong, but nothing to prevent it. That’s a model not just in mining but in all resource use.

Conservation officers. We’ve lost…. This government has just dismantled these services, so there are so few people on the ground, boots on the ground, that there is no one to protect the public interest.

While this disaster at Mount Polley unfolded, we have the minister responsible actually just making light of it, saying, “Ah, it’s akin to a natural disaster like an avalanche. It happens naturally” — making statements that are so far from the truth.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Again, how do you believe what’s being said when the statements are so far from the truth?

I met with some people dealing with the native courtworkers in this province today. Referring to relations with First Nations, going back a step, native courtworkers get paid $10,000, on average, less than those doing the comparable job outside of the native courtworkers’ role. They haven’t had a raise in five years, and their job description is six pages long. I could not believe the work they do. This government is not addressing that.

[1520]

If you’re a native courtworker, you get paid far less than a counterpart that’s not a native courtworker. That’s discrimination.

It’s 16 years since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples did their comprehensive report. It talked about that systemic racism and discrimination is still with us. It’s embedded in those institutions, in governments, and as long as you have these disparities, then it remains. If the government buries its head in the sand and allows them to happen, they’re part of that disparity. They’re part of that discrimination.

It’s very similar to the aboriginal friendship centres in this province, 25 centres that help a lot of aboriginal youth coming off reserve, moving into the cities and urban centres. They’re a lifeline. They are mentors.

The government’s own Finance Committee, which they have members sitting on, that is meeting now, at this time in history…. They’re meeting. They’re deliberating. They’re getting submissions from the public. Every year I’ve been here they’ve said unanimously that aboriginal friendship centres need some form of core funding, and $2.5 million was the recommendation from the Finance Committee — $2.5 million. And there is nothing.

There’s nothing in the throne speech about that. There were the words from the Premier talking about First Nations relations, with a firm commitment to be fair. Well, those people doing the work that government should be doing, the good work in the aboriginal friendship centres, are getting paid less than their counterparts elsewhere. They have no core funding from government so they can’t have any guarantees of keeping people working there, those people that are needed to build trust with youth.

It seems like it’s a two-tiered system. If it’s a cemetery, a non–First Nations cemetery, you can’t build on that, for all the right reasons. If it’s a First Nations cemetery, a burial site, you can.

If you are doing the good work in the aboriginal friendship centres and the work that those people do with youth and others…. If it’s in the aboriginal friendship centres, they get paid less. They get scooped by ministries because they can offer them a whole bunch more money. They can’t even keep the people they’ve got. So a two-tiered system there.

If you’re a native courtworker, you’re going to make $10,000 less than your counterparts. This is not a one-off. This is a pattern. This is the pattern that was described 16 years ago in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These discrepancies are discriminatory, and we should fix those. It shouldn’t be a political issue.

We should fix those — we in this House. We’re legislators. When our Whip, the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, puts in a private member’s bill to fix the Heritage Conservation Act so that it’s not discriminatory — so it protects burial sites, for instance — that should be embraced by the government. They won’t even bring it up for debate.

Maybe if we bring it back again, another private member’s bill in this session…. We can do that. We have a throne speech. We had a proroguing of parliament, so all of those previous private members’ bills have fallen off the order table. That allows us to reintroduce. Maybe this time this government will take it seriously and realize that a decades-old piece of legislation that is discriminatory in its very nature should maybe be changed.

[1525]

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Wouldn’t that be something we could all be proud of? Wouldn’t that make this province a better place? That’s what we should be doing here.

There are so many things that were missing in the throne speech. I don’t know where to begin. There are issues with children and families. We still have the worst child poverty rate in the country eight, nine years later — nothing. That’s not something that we can wait for LNG to fix.

J. Yap: As the previous speaker said at the beginning of his comments, it’s always a privilege to rise in this House to speak on behalf of our constituents. I’m delighted and
[ Page 4554 ]
honoured to take my place in this debate to speak in enthusiastic favour of the throne speech that was delivered by Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

I listen very carefully to members opposite when they make their remarks. The last speaker, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I know is a thoughtful member and had some interesting points. But I do want to start off, if I may, by providing some balance on a few of the points that he made during his 30 minutes.

First of all, it is true that we as a province need to continue to work with First Nations, who are an integral part of our communities throughout the province. No government, no Premier has done more in reaching out to First Nations than this government, this Premier. What the member didn’t mention was that for the first time in the history of our province, in the history of British Columbia, a government, led by a Premier with the cabinet, met with the leadership of First Nations — the first time it has happened, a historic moment. That wasn’t mentioned.

The member also had some somewhat critical comments about forestry. I do realize that some former forestry critics are in the chamber and will probably chime in. Forestry has had some challenging times, but I didn’t hear the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim talk about the great efforts that this government, working with industry, has undertaken to diversify our customer base.

We now sell more lumber to China than we ever have to help them grow, and they’re our biggest customer in lumber sales, whereas previously we were somewhat dependent on our biggest customer, still a very important customer, the United States. That wasn’t mentioned by my good friend the member from Alberni.

He did talk about the opportunity of LNG and marketing LNG to the great economies of Asia, including China, and seemed to not be enthusiastic about this generational opportunity for our province, for Canadians, to develop a brand-new industry called liquefied natural gas. His somewhat reserved affirmation for liquefied natural gas — he said that it’s another fossil fuel and that there are no guarantees.

Yes, China is an incredible, growing economy, soon to be the biggest economy in the world. A fast-growing middle class is growing there, and they need energy. What the member did not mention — I’m sure he’s aware of it, because I know he’s interested in clean technology and so on — is that China has for a few years now had very aggressive clean energy targets that they’re pursuing, including moving away from coal-burning energy dependency. That is one of the great opportunities that we face as a province, as a nation.

[1530]

There is more. I just have one more which I really have to set the record…. The member talked about a debt. What was conveniently not included in his comments was the fact that we’ve had to invest, in a significant way, over the last 12 years in capital.

That is the fundamental reason that we have invested in infrastructure projects, whether it’s in bridges, in hospitals, in highways, in public infrastructure that British Columbia’s economy and our communities benefit and need. We embarked on this because in 2001, when we took over from that side, there was a capital investment deficit, and we’ve been steadily investing to make up for that deficit.

Before I leave this, the percentage of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP is the envy of the world — roughly 18 percent. That’s why under the leadership of this Premier and this government, we have, once again, a triple-A credit rating. That wasn’t in Alberni–Pacific Rim’s comments, and that’s fine. I’m here to provide some balance, and I will try to do that.

This triple-A credit rating reinforces the fact that British Columbia is a safe haven for investment. It’s a great place for international investors and capital managers, including those in the energy sector, to bring their capital and invest here in British Columbia to grow the economy and create jobs for the benefit of British Columbians and Canadians. I just wanted to highlight that.

Turning to the throne speech, I have to say that while the throne speech was not one of the longest on record, it touched on the future of our province. It looked forward to what British Columbians can aspire to and the great opportunities that face us when — not if, but when — we develop this great opportunity called liquefied natural gas that’s before us, one of the opportunities that British Columbia has.

We are, as has been pointed out by speakers on both sides of the House, a province that is blessed with natural resources. The key here is finding a way to develop them in a responsible way and a sustainable way, one that benefits all British Columbians. That’s the key, and I believe that our government is on the path to achieving this throughout the province.

Growing our economy is vital to the continued development of our province so that we can continue to enjoy the level of public services that British Columbians expect and deserve. Whether it’s in health care or education or public safety, any aspect requires a healthy economy, and I agree with the throne speech that we have to either continue to seek ways to grow our economy or be stagnant.

We must also continue to balance the budget, control our public spending and, importantly, foster ties with the emerging economies and our traditional economic partners around the world. This way, we can sustain our world-class, publicly funded services that British Columbians enjoy and provide a better future for our children and their children.

I’m proud to represent the great riding of Richmond-Steveston. I know that other members stand up in this
[ Page 4555 ]
House and proclaim that they have the best riding in the province. I know I feel the same way in representing the great people of Richmond-Steveston — part of a great community, the city of Richmond, that has truly been a part of the economic success that is British Columbia.

We have among our assets the most important regional transportation hub, the Vancouver International Airport. Because of the airport and all of the economy that’s grown around it in our culturally diverse community, Asia-Pacific trade — so important for the future of our province and of Canada — is very much a part of our local economy in Richmond.

[1535]

One of the target industries that our jobs plan will focus on is tourism. I also will make a few comments in regards to a very important sector, which I know our government supports, and that is the digital and film industry. These have provided great opportunities for the people of Richmond, of my riding, great examples of how we can continue to diversify our economy and grow our economy.

Let me, first of all, talk about YVR, the Vancouver International Airport, one of the largest economic generators in the province. Just to refresh ourselves, it’s 26,000 direct jobs and $1.9 billion annually in total economic impact. This is according to Tourism Richmond. YVR was named the No. 1 airport in North America for the fifth consecutive year. YVR serves as an emerging international hub, which attracts business, creates jobs and opportunities in Richmond, for the region and for our province.

Many companies and businesses choose to come to Richmond because of the proximity to YVR. YVR clearly benefits trade but also tourism and other businesses in my community. One-fifth of all hotel bookings in Richmond are made by airline employees. Just from that fact alone, that is part of the economic value of YVR to my community.

Richmond and YVR are well positioned as the gateway to the Far East. I’m grateful for the efforts of our Premier and the Minister of International Trade in continuing to focus on finding more customers for our industries in British Columbia. YVR is certainly part of that emerging success.

Ten years ago we used to think that China was a place that sold us goods. Now we’re increasingly looking at China, as well as other emerging economies like India, as a place where we need to go and to find our place to sell goods to.

Let me give you some examples. The cherry industry. The cherry industry in B.C. recently benefited from the critical role that YVR has in supplying products to the world. Cherries are picked in the Okanagan, sorted, trucked to the airport and can be to markets in Hong Kong or Beijing within 36 hours.

This year, thanks to the marketing efforts of the cherry sector and also the support of the Minister of Agriculture, the cherry export business reached $10 million and might double over the next year. Yes, we love cherries, and we know that there is a huge market for cherries and other products from British Columbia. Our agriproducts are in demand. Opportunities are there before us in the emerging economies, including China.

The province of Guangdong, which is the sister province of British Columbia, recently opened its very first trade office in Vancouver. This is historic because it’s the first of its kind in Canada. This office will promote bilateral trade between B.C., Canada, and Guangdong.

Guangdong chose to locate its first Canadian office in Vancouver because of a few key factors which are relevant to any discussion about the great opportunities for our province to grow and to prosper as a trading province.

First of all, our location as Canada’s gateway to Asia. I mentioned that British Columbia and Guangdong have strong two-way trade, and that continues to grow, as well as investment ties and similar economic interests. As well, the importance of the Guangdong-B.C. sister province relationship. And last but not least, Vancouver’s large and vibrant Chinese-Canadian community.

[1540]

The Premier will be leading a trade delegation of members of the business community on her sixth international trade mission to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

We talk about China. We also have to talk about India, which also has one of the fastest-growing middle classes in the world right now. We’ve got a fast-growing middle class in China and perhaps an even faster-growing middle class in India, which provide great opportunities for us to look at offering our services and products — whether it’s in education, natural gas, energy products, agrifoods, clean technology, life sciences, film and digital arts, financial services.

These are the types of products that an emerging economy, a growing economy with a growing middle class, requires. We have it here in British Columbia, in Canada. Currently our exports to India are about $468 million. You compare that to our trade with China, $5.7 billion. Just imagine if we can do with India what we have done with growing our trading relationship with China, and the impact that it would have on B.C.’s economy.

I mentioned tourism, one of the target industries that our jobs plan is focused on. Right now, according to Tourism Vancouver, 25,000 overnight visitors came from China this past June. That’s a 27 percent increase from 19,000 in 2013. In one year, we had a 27 percent increase. Destination B.C.’s website shows that B.C. hosted close to 42,000 overnight customs entries from China this past July, a 29 percent increase over 2013, which was 33,000.

Tourism offers continued great opportunities for our province and, certainly, for my community, Richmond. You can see why we are benefiting once again — talking
[ Page 4556 ]
about YVR. Our great regional asset, the transportation hub YVR, offers a total of 75 flights to China each week, more than any other North American airport. Growing connections with the world’s most popular country is a major, major plank for YVR.

Tourism employs over 7,500 people in my community, representing 7 percent of total employment in Richmond. Tourism is responsible for about $350 million in direct GDP impact locally. On a broader scale, looking at our province, we’re looking at potentially 100,000 new job openings expected in tourism by 2020. Two-thirds of these jobs will be in the Lower Mainland — great opportunities for the region, including Richmond.

I mentioned briefly earlier about film production. It’s a sector that has undergone great growth in the last while. We see this in Richmond, where a number of productions happen right in Steveston village in my riding. We see Once Upon a Time, which is a very popular TV show that has been renewed for a fourth season, I believe.

People in Richmond are very proud of the fact that our jewel of a place, Steveston village, has attracted this level of activity — which generates economic activity and which, perhaps not surprisingly, has become a tourist draw. People want to come to Steveston because they want to visit Storybrooke, which is the name of the fictitious fishing village in this TV series — Storybrooke. I have been told that local merchants have seen an increase in the number of tourists who are coming there to visit the sites that they see in Once Upon a Time’s Storybrooke.

[1545]

It’s a wonderful opportunity for our community, as well as for greater Richmond and for our province — the continued development and growth of the film industry, also one of the target industries as part of our jobs plan.

Let me turn now to the great generational opportunity that liquefied natural gas provides us. The minister responsible for natural gas outlined very clearly the great opportunity and how we need to get this right so that we develop an industry that would be the cleanest liquefied natural gas industry in the world so that we can secure opportunities for liquefied natural gas customers in the burgeoning economies of Asia — whether it’s in China, in India, in Korea, in Japan. This is the great opportunity that we have here in British Columbia.

The throne speech devoted some time to talking about this great opportunity that liquefied natural gas offers British Columbia.

Global trade in LNG doubled between 2000 and 2010, and it’s expected to increase by another 50 percent by 2020. The economic prospects are substantial. It’s estimated that between $130 billion and $260 billion over the next 30 years is what this market represents.

When we talk about the generational opportunities, when we talk about how LNG can really help increase the prosperity for British Columbians, we should be clear here. It’s not just about where the projects are immediately located, the energy companies that are directly involved and the thousands of jobs that would be directly created as a result of the LNG projects moving forward but also the benefits that will accrue to small and medium-sized businesses around the province that will have an opportunity to bid on business opportunities that relate to the increase in activity because of LNG.

I’m grateful to my colleague the member for Peace River South, who is also the parliamentary secretary for LNG opportunities, and the work that he’s done and is doing, travelling the province, working with the Minister for Jobs and Tourism and Minister Responsible for Labour in creating the opportunities that will be there for small business and for medium-sized business around the province to benefit from the LNG economy that is coming.

LNG companies, proponents, who are seeking to develop projects here in British Columbia have so far invested over $7 billion to acquire natural gas assets which will support LNG development. An additional $2 billion has been spent preparing for construction of LNG infrastructure. As we heard from the minister, there are 18 possible projects. We’d love all 18, but even if three or four of these 18 come to fruition, just imagine the economic benefits that will flow to our great province.

We will spend time this session looking at the legislative framework that will govern liquefied natural gas as a brand-new industry. It’s so important that we get this right. We have heard some previous speakers from the other side make somewhat critical comments about: “Why is it taking so long? Why didn’t we have this done quickly?” The fact is this is a brand-new industry. It’s so important that we do this right once.

[1550]

The time was invested over the last several months. I know that the minister has been extremely busy on this file, as well as many members of the public service, in ensuring that we find best practices around the world, that we study the industry of LNG in other jurisdictions to make sure that B.C.’s LNG industry will be the cleanest and also provide the fairest taxation regime that will provide benefits to the owners of the resource, the people of British Columbia. That’s what we will do this session, as we move forward in developing this great opportunity, a liquefied natural gas industry for British Columbia.

We have a great opportunity to lead our province, to lead our country. We have already made great strides in terms of B.C. being competitive — a great place to invest, to create jobs, to move to, to raise a family, to recreate — and we will continue to do that. Liquefied natural gas will be one more important part of an already diversified economy that we can all be and should be proud of.

As I conclude my comments, I want to take the opportunity to thank a few people who have been very supportive to me as a member of the Legislature. I want to thank my constituency assistants, Paige Robertson and
[ Page 4557 ]
Po Wah Ng, and my new part-time assistant in the office, Laura Chen, as well as the staff here in the Legislature: my legislative assistant, Janta Quigley, and communications officer, Olivia Cheung. All of us, I know, don’t operate in isolation. We all are proud of the work that our assistants, our staff, provide us. But I am especially grateful to them.

Let me just close with this. We have an opportunity to create something new, something that will generate prosperity for our province in a sustainable way into the future. I know that there will be a difference of opinions as we debate, not just in the throne speech but in the coming debates over the legislation on creating this new LNG industry for British Columbia.

But I do look forward to us coming together to ensure that this great opportunity, which all of us want for our great province, is seized upon so that we can one day look back, all of us, whichever side of the House that you sit on, and say: “I was there for the debate and that special time when we created a brand-new industry that is now, in the future, as we look back now, creating all this great prosperity for our province.”

With that, I take my place.

Notice of Motion

AMENDMENT TO
THRONE SPEECH MOTION

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I am just standing to give notice of motion, via you through the Clerk, that I will bring a motion forward to amend the throne speech two days from now.

Debate Continued

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

I have been here over five years now, and although I’ve responded to a lot of throne speeches, I’ve never taken the opportunity to thank my constituency assistants who have been here with me for five years.

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: It’s about time, right? Is that what the Minister of Natural Gas Development said? Yes, it’s about time. Julie Maitland, full-time in Hazelton, and Shelley Worthington and Michelle Larstone, each half-time in Smithers.

The reason it comes to mind is that it’s been four months that we’ve been out of this Legislature, and Stikine presents a number of unique challenges.

It’s the largest constituency in the province — 20 million hectares, the size of Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands combined. It’s very difficult to get around — 20 hours straight driving if you didn’t stop for refreshment breaks. And that doesn’t include a side trip to Telegraph Creek, which would be six hours return.

Lots of the areas don’t have Internet service and cell phone service, and public transit is a challenge as well. Demographics are a very, very high percentage of First Nations. Especially in the lower age groups, it’s a majority.

[1555]

The constituency assistants I have handle a lot of people who don’t have the ability to have regular contact with government services. So I really salute them. They really hold down the fort when I am down here.

Stikine also…. And I outlined this in my response to the throne speech in February. There’s a healthy deal of skepticism amongst the people in Stikine — skepticism when the government says we have the next best big thing coming for you. Maybe it’s part of being in the north. In Stikine the history goes back a long ways on that.

In the late 1870s there was the Skeena River rebellion by the Gitxsan around mining incursions. We’ve had the Collins overland telegraph line promised that never came through. The Yukon telegraph line. This was before the 1900s. We’ve had brochures by Grand Trunk Pacific Railway about this being the next big thing in Stikine for development. Of course, more recently we’ve had the forest industry being the next big thing. So there’s a healthy deal of skepticism about promises from government about the next big thing.

The throne speech is supposed to be a vision laid out by the government, and hopefully, it leads to some policy and legislative changes. My colleagues have pointed out that it was an 18-minute throne speech. It took me about five minutes to read it to the end. It was a mixture of rehashing of old announcements, of retreating on LNG promises and of missed opportunities, I think, to make important commitments on LNG.

It ignored many other areas that I think are important, many other economic and social areas. I’m going to address those.

I must say that I’m happy that I was able to hear some of the comments from the Minister of Natural Gas Development, because I am going to deal with some of the whys. He challenged us to deal with some of the whys around LNG, and I hope he’s able to stick around for the next half-hour. If not, perhaps he can request a Hansard transcript, because I will outline some of the whys that might help him out in his LNG approach.

There’s a major trust issue with this government. I intend to give some examples connected to the throne speech. This trust issue stems from the Premier saying what she figures people want to hear. She’s good at that, but then she doesn’t deliver. It makes it hard to take the Premier at her word anymore.

However, the first thing I’d like to do is compliment and say I agree with some of the language in the throne speech. Here is a sentence that I fully agree with that was spoken yesterday by the Lieutenant-Governor, who was
[ Page 4558 ]
speaking the words of the Premier and this government. “For thousands of years in British Columbia, through countless other changes, one thing has remained constant: the land sustains us. If we continue to cherish it, if we continue to invest wisely, it will sustain our children and their children.”

This couldn’t be any more appropriate for the people of Stikine. The land definitely sustains the people of Stikine — spiritually and culturally but also economically and for sustenance. This is First Nations and non–First Nations. If it wasn’t for the moose meat in the freezer or the jarred salmon in the pantry, people really would go hungry. So the land does sustain.

But what the Premier says in the throne speech — “the land sustains us” — and her actions and this government’s actions are very different. We’ve got the most recent example of the Mount Polley tailings pond breach: 25 million cubic metres of tailings waste flushed down Hazeltine Creek into Quesnel Lake. That is not a great example of oversight by the government when it comes to the land sustaining us.

We’ve had almost 30 percent of staff cuts under this government in front-line dirt ministries — so boots on the ground, people who do things like having a look at tailings pond dams or look at sufficiently restocked areas in the forests.

We’ve had an Auditor General’s report just a few years ago saying that when the environmental assessment office, under this government, puts in place mitigative measures — in other words, conditions on the approval of a project — there’s very little or no follow-up on whether those mitigative measures are working or not. Again, a trust issue.

Then we know that this government in 2002 gutted the environmental assessment legislation. They took out many oversights as well as wording around cumulative effects, which is a big issue when it comes to LNG development.

[1600]

I think — and here’s my first suggestion about a why — the Premier in her throne speech and this government could have taken a pro-active stance on “the land sustains us” by endorsing what the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre and what the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research suggested on August 1, 2013, in a letter to the Minister of Environment: to request that the minister order a strategic environmental and economic assessment of liquid natural gas development in British Columbia, pursuant to section 49 of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Section 49 empowers the minister to order a strategic environmental assessment in the form of “an assessment of any policy, enactment, plan, practice or procedure of the government.” It was suggested that this strategic assessment could determine whether LNG developments are in the public interest and, if so, identify ways to optimize benefits and minimize negative impacts.

That was 2013, a long time ago. That was rejected by the minister and by this government. So there are my first five. Why reject something that could have built the trust that is sadly lacking in this government’s environmental approach?

The Union of B.C. Municipalities recently held their annual convention, and there was a resolution that came forward from the regional district of the Queen Charlottes. It was endorsed by the UBCM delegates. Again, it was along the same lines. I’ll read it.

“Whereas liquid natural gas development in northeastern B.C. and proposed pipelines, terminal facilities and tanker transportation from the north coast will have large, cumulative environmental, social and economic impacts; and whereas this development is happening across B.C. — impacting the land and communities of northern B.C., both civic and First Nation — without the means of meaningful consultation and involvement; and whereas comprehensive planning and cumulative impact assessment have been lacking to date, therefore be it resolved that UBCM request that the province of B.C. and First Nations convene and co-chair a strategic economic and environmental impact assessment of LNG development in British Columbia and be it further resolved that UBCM request that the province and First Nations invite the federal government to participate in this joint planning process.”

That was not only endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipality delegates but also, previous to that, the North Central Local Government Association that represents all municipalities in the north.

Again, why reject that approach when this government knows it needs social licence and needs to build trust? Again, it’s saying one thing, “the land sustains us,” but not taking actions to back up those words.

There’s another why for the minister. Last May on the last day of the legislative sitting, which happened to be May 29, I filed a notice of questions for the Premier to answer in connection with natural gas production in the northeast — some very important questions, questions especially that concern the Treaty 8 Tribal Association up in the northeast.

Some of the questions were specific. I’m not going to read all ten. For instance, how many wells need to be drilled to recover the amount of natural gas to supply these LNG facilities, and how many well sites need to be developed? A pretty straightforward question.

Another straightforward question: how many kilometres of pipeline will be needed to connect these well sites with natural gas production facilities? Pretty straightforward, I’d say.

Here’s another example of a question: how many full-time jobs will be required for the operations of the natural gas production needed to supply the proposed LNG facilities, and how many transient workers will be needed to fill these full-time jobs?

I think, if you’re looking at an overall strategy, these are important questions to have some answers to. Well, it’s been four months now, and I haven’t heard back from the Premier on any of these ten questions that were listed on the Votes and Proceedings notice of questions back
[ Page 4559 ]
on May 29.

Again, you have to build trust. Why delay in answering questions like that if you really want to get behind the LNG proposals? It just doesn’t seem to make any sense why.

There’s been talk about benefits, in the throne speech, around LNG. Specifically, I have an example of what the government could have done in the throne speech regarding benefits to communities in the northwest.

[1605]

They could have used the throne speech…. Rather than using it as a threat to say, “If you don’t endorse LNG, then you’re going to have issues with health care, with housing, with other things,” instead, this government could have talked about such a strong proposal that came out of the northwest called the northwest British Columbia resource benefits alliance.

Now, this is all of the communities in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, the communities in the regional district of the Queen Charlottes. And then, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako also signed on to this resource benefits alliance. That represents all of the municipalities, basically, from Vanderhoof, all through the west, right to the Queen Charlottes.

I happened to be able to witness a meeting between the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine and the Premier — and I believe the Minister of Natural Gas Development was there as well — when this resource benefits alliance was discussed by the folks from the regional district and Terrace and Kitimat and Stewart.

What they’re seeking is early access to an equitable share of the revenues that can be a result of the economic expansion now underway in the northwest — not just LNG but other areas as well. They’re saying that this early access could be used to fully address infrastructure deficits and needs, both now and into the future, to fully address all other impacts associated with major resource development and to provide significant legacy resources to the resource benefits alliance communities.

The first priority of the resource benefit alliance, as they say, is to start “revenue-sharing discussions and negotiations promised by Premier Christy Clark during the 2013 provincial election and reaffirmed in June 2014.” This again is saying that there could be great benefits to the people of the northwest but not taking any action by the Premier or the government to fulfil those words.

The resource benefits alliance said the fall 2014 action plan that they have is “to establish a negotiating framework and make an early start on revenue-sharing discussions, conclude information-sharing protocols and address other items necessary to support successful discussions and negotiations.” No mention of that in the throne speech.

I ask the government why. If you’re convinced of the benefits of promoting the LNG industry, then why would you not discuss this in the throne speech, at least mention that this meeting took place and that you hope to fulfil some of the commitments and some of the resources that the northwest resource alliance is looking for?

However, what we’ve seen, and what we’ve seen in the throne speech, is we’ve gone from the government saying LNG is “one of the greatest economic opportunities our province has ever seen” to, yesterday, that it’s “a chance, not a windfall.” Well, that’s a significant retreat.

LNG might have some benefits, but let’s have an honest discussion about them. The over-the-top hyperbole that we’ve witnessed to date does not build trust when you have to backtrack, as we saw yesterday. So look at the northwest resource benefits alliance. Make mention of them. Give us a report in the throne speech that you intend to fulfil what they are asking, or at least sit down and have negotiations around what can be done. Nothing around that — it doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in the communities in the northwest.

The promises and, while we’re at that, potential benefits for communities in the northwest…. The promises of 100,000 jobs — we’ve seen that backtrack. That was not mentioned; although, one of the members before me mentioned it. But it wasn’t mentioned in the throne speech. No wonder. Watch out for that.

Yesterday it was reported in the media that Petronas, the Malaysian-owned state-owned company that is interested in establishing LNG plants, is saying that unless they can get the conditions they want, they might not ever come back, for ten or 15 years.

[1610]

Watch out for this, because one of the conditions they talk about and one of the problems they highlight is a higher cost for contractors relative to global competitors. We know that this government signed — I believe it was in June — a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese government to expedite temporary foreign workers’ entry into B.C. Then we see that Petronas is putting out warning signals about the higher cost for contractors relative to global competitors.

I think the communities, the municipal leaders in the northwest aren’t stupid. They can read the tea leaves. They can see that the government has backed off the 100,000 jobs — no mention yesterday in the throne speech. They see the memorandum of understanding to expedite temporary foreign workers from China to work on LNG plants and Petronas saying: “Well, those high-cost local contractors in the northwest are a problem.” Who’s going to get shut out in that? I would submit that people are worried in the northwest that they’re going to get shut out.

The First Nations component of the throne speech was interesting. The exact language that I heard and hung on to was: “The Supreme Court ruling on aboriginal land title represents a new opportunity.” A new opportunity. Well, you say what people want to hear but then don’t deliver. If it’s a new opportunity, why did the government
[ Page 4560 ]
fight it in the courts for seven years?

Seven years they fought this case, the William case. As it ended up, it went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court actually gave a pretty good dressing down of the government saying: “What are you doing? You’re not listening to our directions on previous decisions, like the Delgamuukw, like the Haida.” Seven years of wasted taxpayers’ resources in the courts. The Tsilhqot’in decision on June 26 combined with Mount Polley in early August has resulted in a lack of trust amongst First Nations.

There’s been direct action on the land emboldened since then as well as previous to those two cases. In the case of the Wet’suwet’en, the direct action is actually in the constituency of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. They’ve been blocking access to Pacific Trail pipeline and other LNG-related pipelines that are planned through their territories to Kitimat.

More recently the Gitxsan have set up a direct action at kilometre 15 on the Suskwa Forest Service Road prohibiting TransCanada Pipelines employees from entering their traditional territories. That is the pipeline that would supply if Petronas goes ahead with their LNG facility on Lelu Island, which is another issue that I don’t have time to talk about here.

Lelu Island — I’ll take a minute — is surrounded by eelgrass beds, which are rearing beds for the salmon that are exiting the river, fresh water.Obviously, when you exit fresh water and you go into salt water, it takes a little bit of adjustment, so the salmon congregate in these eelgrass beds, and that’s exactly where the LNG plant is planned for on Lelu Island. So big concerns there.

Again, the words in the throne speech that the aboriginal title decision by the Supreme Court of Canada was “a new opportunity” — well, if that was the case, then why didn’t the government take a more conciliatory and probably a better approach over the last seven years with the Tsilhqot’in? Again, saying what people want to hear but then no delivery on the words.

I’ve got to not let it slip. The member previous, the member for Richmond-Steveston, talked about the unprecedented meeting between chiefs and B.C. and the Premier. That was triggered by the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Tsilhqot’in. Again, the government was forced into that meeting. I think that, again, leads to a lack of trust on the ground.

[1615]

I want to congratulate the Premier and her staff for mentioning in the throne speech one of the people who’ve passed away since the last throne speech. That was Dr. Alfred Joseph. I made mention of him in the spring sitting. Alfred was a Wet’suwet’en elder. Gisday’wa was his name. I worked with him closely in the ’90s on the Court of Appeal decision in B.C. around Delgamuukw. I went to the Supreme Court a couple of times with Alfred, with the Delgamuukw oral presentation, as well as, as an intervener with the Haida.

He was a carver. He was also a documenter of aboriginal title. I digitized many of his videos, of him being on the land and talking and describing Wet’suwet’en names for mountains and rivers so that they could be used in the court case originally. He was a firm believer in “The land sustains us,” but he was also a believer of that saying in connection to children and grandchildren. He taught. He was an elder at some of the cultural camps the Wet’suwet’en planned. Actually, one of the locations was right in Telkwa Pass, where some of the LNG work could be planned.

Alfred — Dr. Joseph, Gisday’wa — was a firm believer in children and grandchildren, which the Minister of Natural Gas Development mentioned in his address. But there was no mention in the throne speech of children, of families first, of violence-free B.C. These, again, are slogans that rolled off the Premier’s lips quite easily, but there was no action taken to back those slogans up.

Children. My portfolio now is Children and Family Development. Why did the government avoid, in the throne speech, talking about a policy change that they could implement to ensure that tuition bursaries are not clawed back from children in care, as was pointed out by the children’s representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, about ten days ago — a clawback that’s disgraceful for children that have overcome many, many challenges, more than we can ever imagine?

When they thought they were finally catching a break, they found that their tuition bursaries are being clawed back. The children’s representative has managed to convince post-secondary education institutions, seven of them in B.C., to waive tuition fees. Now some of these students are getting letters from the Ministry of Children and Family Development that their bursaries are being clawed back in reflection of that tuition being waived.

I think that is not what people in this province expect of a just government, of a fair government, of a responsive government. I would submit: why not use the throne speech to announce a policy change on that? It would be a fine venue to do that, and it would be absolutely highlighting the issue in a positive way.

Families first. Do you remember that? No mention in this throne speech. In fact, I don’t know if I’ve heard a B.C. Liberal MLA mouth those words for a year now. If that was the intent of the Premier to really put families first, we could have seen some poverty reduction plan information in the throne speech. Never saw any of that. Why?

Violence-free B.C. We heard that in the last throne speech. We’ve had many meetings around a public transit system on Highway 16, the so-called Highway of Tears, where many First Nations women have disappeared, are murdered and missing over the years. Again, if you’re going to mouth those words to a very vulnerable segment of the population, it is incumbent on you to back those words up with some action. We didn’t see any ac-
[ Page 4561 ]
tion since the last throne speech on that.

In this throne speech we could have seen action. The government could have taken the opportunity to talk about how they’re supporting their words on violence-free B.C. by endorsing, by announcing a public transportation system along Highway 16, and that was absent. That’s very, very disappointing.

[1620]

The government says, and I say, it’s all about choices. No wonder that there’s a funding shortfall. Just three things off the top of my head without any research: $16 million in funding spent on partisan ads before the last election; over $500 million spent on B.C. Place, $149 million overrun on that; $1 billion spent on smart meters. I mean, these are choices — choices that the government made. To complain about a shortfall in funding and that that’s why we need LNG, you’ve got to look at how this government decided on spending the money that taxpayers provide them.

Wording in the throne speech was “a firm commitment to control spending.” A firm commitment to control spending. It rolls off the Premier’s tongue. Again, the action to back it up.

Here’s the reality. Debt has increased faster under this Premier than any other Premier in B.C. history — $18.6 billion in her four years. How do you jive those two facts? No wonder people are cynical of what they hear in this Legislature from the government. It’s incumbent upon us to back up our words with actions. Otherwise, we can expect voter turnout to keep declining because people see that as the ultimate in cynicism.

What we’ve seen here in the throne speech is, again, all eggs in one basket. Why would the government, the Premier, not use the throne speech to talk about diversity in the economic sphere? Agriculture, tourism, fisheries — $25 million the sports fishery and inland commercial fishery brings in to the northwest each year. These are things that should be highlighted that weren’t.

Forestry and mining were touched on in a very superficial manner.

I see my time is coming to an end, and I wanted to just relay one story from my Scottish in-laws. It relates to backing your words up with actions. There’s a saying that they have that I’ve heard them say. It’s opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.

I think that the throne speech was a fine example of that and what we’ve seen from the Premier — 100,000 jobs promised, and an MOU saying we’ll import temporary foreign workers. Eliminating the provincial debt was promised, and then unprecedented levels of racking it up. No sales tax promised. Nothing said about that in the throne speech. So $100 billion prosperity fund, and now we’re talking about a chance, not a windfall. This is definitely opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.

What I’d like to see is an honest discussion for the children and grandchildren that the Minister of Natural Gas Development talks about — an honest discussion for our children and grandchildren of the benefits of this potential industry against the risks. That’s what people are wanting in the province, and that’s what a responsible, responsive government would do.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Abbotsford-Mission. [Applause.]

S. Gibson: Thank you for that overwhelming welcome. It’s very good to be here and good to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

I’m from the Abbotsford-Mission riding. I think many of us in Abbotsford-Mission think it’s one of the finest ridings in British Columbia, and why not? If you drive out the highway from Vancouver, you get these really nice feelings as you get into the country, and you start smelling the flowers, noticing the beautiful blossoms and seeing the amazing growth of blueberries and raspberries, the beautiful dairy farms. You feel right at home. You’d almost say: “I should move here.”

I wouldn’t be surprised, Members, if you get that temptation. We have room left for you. We have room left for you, and we’d certainly encourage to you come on out and visit the Abbotsford-Mission riding and check out our beautiful areas of Hatzic, Matsqui Prairie, Ridgedale, Deroche, Dewdney, McConnell Creek, Lake Errock. These beautiful, pristine spots are welcoming you.

It’s a real privilege for me to represent the people of Abbotsford-Mission riding and also the wonderful people who have allowed me to come here and represent them. I want to especially thank my family — my wife, Joy, and my two daughters and my little grandsons — big fans of mine. It’s good to have them on my team.

[1625]

There are so many people that I’m thankful for. When I go out shopping or I’m just travelling around the community, people stop and encourage me and are very positive, and that’s really nice, having come off of 30 years of service on Abbotsford council and now representing a big piece of Mission as well. The Abbotsford-Mission riding is a special part of our province, and it’s really a thrill to represent the folks from that area.

I taught university students for many years, and one of the things that I encouraged the students to have is a positive attitude. Attitude affects altitude, and we know that. In fact, the body language, the tone of voice, the things that we do to succeed — I tried to encourage my business students, to have that.

So I’m a little discouraged here in the House when I hear so much negativity on this side of the House. I would hope for more of a team spirit, more a feeling of getting together and a positive aggregation of folks here in the Legislature.

One of the things that I talked to my students about is the five Ds of evil. I shared this with my students. I’d get
[ Page 4562 ]
them to write it down.

The first one is doubt. I hear a lot of doubt over here. Kind of sad. It’s sort of waves of doubt lingering on the shores, washing about this place. It’s disappointing.

Discouragement, a tone of discouragement. Kind of sad to see that.

Another word that I teach my students to avoid is diversion. One thing about our government and our Premier and our minister in charge of mining and natural gas is we’re focused. We’ve got a real focus here. We don’t like to be diverted.

Another one is defeat. I hear some people say: “Well, just give up. What are you doing?” But this government, our government — there’s no sense of defeat. There’s a brilliant sense of optimism. That creates a vortex, and people follow along. They love that sense of optimism.

The last one is delay. We’re not delaying. We heard earlier from the minister that we’re moving ahead. There’s a positivism, so delay is something we’re not going to embrace.

It’s really good for me to be here today and just respond to the Speech from the Throne. I think there’s a lot of good stuff in there. Yes, it was a little shorter, but it was condensed. There was a lot of quality in there, a lot of quality, so that was excellent.

The history of economic development in B.C. has really been dependent a lot on the U.S. We know that. We still value our U.S. friends — forestry, mining, fishing — and the U.S. is still a big part of the equation. In the year 2000, 70 percent of B.C. exports went to the U.S. Twelve years later, now, 42 percent of B.C. exports go to the Asia-Pacific. That’s a great trend because it will avoid some of the ups and downs of the U.S. economy, which we’ve seen in the past few years. We are the least dependent province on trade with the U.S.

Now, the exception is the energy sector. LNG is something we’ve had around for many years. We sometimes think it’s something new, but we’ve experienced LNG, and it now employs 13,000 people around our province. Yet the fact remains that jobs are primarily based on creating work for the North American economy. Natural gas is at a very low price right now. We know that. These prices are not likely to increase in the near future, according to the experts.

As more and more jurisdictions on the continent develop their own domestic supplies of natural gas, it becomes essential for our government to take the initiative and harness our export potential. We’ve got to take advantage of the position that we have — very close to those potential markets. We heard earlier from the minister that being in close proximity is going to give us a real advantage.

China, Japan, Korea and India all require reliable sources of energy to develop their economies. It’s exciting to see the big trade contingent going out in a few days to India — very, very positive for our government — and we recognize that initiative.

Yes, there are skeptics. Some people are just skeptical, and I discussed that a moment ago. But don’t ignore the fact that we are currently entertaining over a dozen proposals with energy giants from all around the world.

The critics also ignore the fact that global trade in LNG doubled in the decade between 2000 and 2010. In an age of diminishing supplies of petroleum, energy-hungry nations all over the world are looking for an alternative, and they’re going to find it here. Natural gas is a perfect alternative. It’s the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels, and it’s something that we have in abundance.

[1630]

British Columbia sits on over one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s enough to supply B.C.’s energy needs for generations and still leave plenty over for export. So the development of British Columbia’s LNG industry is important not only for export but also for our own energy self-sufficiency. The fact is that the people of B.C. own the resource. It’s ours. They deserve to see an honest return on the extraction of that resource.

Over the last decade the LNG industry paid almost $9 billion in royalties to the province. Can you imagine the potential revenue to the province once we’ve developed our export markets? It’s so exciting. It’s the reason why this government is laying the groundwork to take full advantage of job growth and spinoff potential. We want to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for these incredible jobs, created for the industry.

That’s the reason why we’re realigning the secondary and post-secondary education systems: to provide students with options for fulfilling jobs in the energy sector. As someone who’s taught in a university for many years, this really is exciting. This is the kind of stuff that separates average governments from great governments, and that’s the one that I’m proud to serve with right now.

The blueprint for a jobs-and-training strategy is a ten-year plan to connect people with employment opportunities and make sure they’re well prepared to take on the challenges of developing the LNG export industry.

First Nations have expressed an excellent interest. They want to get involved, and we’re welcoming them. They’re going to be part of this in a big way. The government remains committed to ensuring that First Nations benefit from the growth of the LNG industry. We’ll work hard with the private sector to make sure that happens.

To all of the critics and skeptics, I want to point directly to the government’s track record. When government announced that it was moving in the direction of becoming one of the first provinces in Canada to eliminate the deficit, the critics scoffed and said that it couldn’t be done.

This reminds me of the story of Robert Fulton, the inventor. He invented the first steamboat. Robert Fulton, back in New York in the early 1800s, had this steamboat on the river, and this thing was coughing smoke and sputtering, and people yelled out: “It’ll never start; it’ll
[ Page 4563 ]
never start.” Robert Fulton got that thing started, that steamboat, and once he got going, he was moving down the river, and people yelled out, “It’ll never stop; it’ll never stop,” right? You can’t have it both ways. Robert Fulton is one of my heroes. I like that guy.

When the government tabled that budget, the critics still insisted that being deficit-free was a pipedream. Well, that was several years ago. Since then this government has tabled two balanced budgets in a row — fantastic — and we’re on track to tabling a third one next year.

It is with the same determination that we’ll prove all of the skeptics and critics wrong by taking a long-term approach to diversifying the economy in British Columbia. In the future historians will look back and see that the government had the vision to ensure prosperity in British Columbia. Historians will note that the government succeeded in getting its finances in order. But more importantly, it laid the groundwork for a new export industry and allowed the private sector to flourish.

I want to remind this House that life is lived forward but understood backwards. Right now we’re at the centre of one of the most exciting times in our province, and I invite everybody to join in with us and get involved and get excited about LNG.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview. [Applause.]

G. Heyman: Thank you, Members, for your recognition.

I’d like to begin my remarks first of all by thanking the people of Vancouver-Fairview, the many constituents who have come to me over the many months since the last sitting to talk about the issues that are important to them — to talk about education, the effects of underfunding of important programs in the education system on the quality of an education that they would like to see their children be able to have in order to fully take their place in both the community life of the province and the economic life of the province.

[1635]

They have also talked to me about their concerns about the economic future of the province. One of those concerns has been: “Are we putting too much store in one industry when so many of us work in other industries that play a very important role in the economic life of this province? We’re worried that we’re not seizing the opportunities that exist there for us.”

In fact, many of them worry about whether their own jobs in these industries — these very viable industries, these uncontroversial industries — will actually be there for them as time goes on. Others have come and talked about the difficulties their families face with a lack of child care, the challenges their graduating-from-high-school children face trying to contemplate graduating after several years of post-secondary education, if they’re able to afford to go, with an average debt of $30,000.

These constituents have spent many hours speaking with me about their hopes, their aspirations, their concerns and their desire that I represent their voice in this Legislature, as I’m sure is the case for every member in this House, on either side of the House. People have hopes. They have dreams. They have concerns. They have fears. We must find a way to address those.

Before I address the substance of the throne speech, I also want to pay respect to the numbers of staff who assist me and constituents on a daily basis — the staff in my constituency office, Jarrett Hagglund, Ashley Fehr, Reamick Lo; the staff I’ve worked with directly, not just in research and communications but the legislative assistants — first Jean Lawson, then Jared Butcher and now Elena Banfield. Without their help, it’s very difficult to address the many issues that face us all on a daily basis.

Let me now turn my thoughts and my words to the throne speech. I’ve listened to the member for Richmond-Steveston, and I’ve listened to the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

To some extent, I have to say, it’s always to some degree a pleasure to listen to people’s boundless optimism — even if I actually believe that that optimism is somewhat baseless and actually bears a striking resemblance to a habit that our Premier has of finding out exactly what it is that people need to hear and want to hear to have faith in the future, telling them what they want to hear, and then doing whatever it is she wants to do, irrespective of whether it’s good for the province and irrespective of whether it’s reflective of a long-term vision.

I suppose I could stand here and perhaps — although it’s unlikely — say that I support the throne speech because of its direction, but I have to say: how can one actually support a speech that by and large is filled with platitudes and devoid of substance, devoid of detail, largely devoid of fact and certainly devoid of vision?

If in fact we saw in the throne speech a road map, a road map for us to truly work together to create a diversified, well-grounded economy that supports jobs and investment and economic development in every sector, that does it in a way that benefits British Columbians, that does it in a way that is profoundly respectful of the rights of First Nations, that does it in a way that ensures that we leave a sound environmental future for our children and grandchildren, that would be a vision that I think members on both sides of this House could follow.

But I don’t see that vision in this throne speech. I regret that I don’t, just as my constituents regret that they don’t.

Close to a year and a half ago we heard, from the Premier, promises during the election campaign — promises related to the future of British Columbia, promises that were all hinged on the development of liquid natural gas, promises of 100,000 jobs, promises of a trillion-dollar economy, promises of a debt-free B.C.

[1640]

It is notable that unlike a few months ago, this throne speech moves back from those promises, minimizes those promises, is careful not to repeat those promises — because there is little, if any, likelihood that those promises, the promises that led many British Columbians to vote for this government, will in fact be kept.

The throne speech talks about leadership. It talks about “leadership from each and every one of you. For thousands of years in British Columbia, through countless other changes, one thing has remained constant. The land sustains us. If we continue to cherish it, if we continue to invest wisely, it will sustain our children and their children.”

Those are important words. They carry within them a clear message to British Columbians. They hark back to the importance of many values held by First Nations around this province, values that First Nations strive to maintain and to instil in their young people, values that I believe every generation of British Columbians must hold to. But it defies my credulity to hear these words from this government in this throne speech. “For thousands of years in British Columbia, through countless other changes, one thing has remained constant. The land sustains us.”

This is from a government and a Premier who, shortly after being voted leader of her party and Premier of British Columbia, made as one of her very first statements, a comment repeated numerous times, that a carefully thought-out decision of an environmental process resulting from an environmental assessment process of the federal government — a federal government that no one in Canada really believes is a fierce defender of the environment…. A decision that turned down a proposal by Taseko Mines for what was called the Prosperity mine — she called it a dumb decision.

She called it a dumb decision despite the fact that the environmental assessment and the federal Environment Minister said that the proposal would cause serious and irreversible environmental damage, serious ecosystem damage — in fact, the federal Environment Minister said it threatened the entire ecosystem — despite the fact that that proposal was found by the review to be profoundly out of step with the values and rights and traditional practices of the Chilcotin First Nation.

If the land sustains us and we are conscious of that, surely that would lead to respectful consideration of decisions by an environmental process, one that no one actually believed initially would turn down the mine. Surely it would lead to respect. It would lead to thought. It wouldn’t lead to an off-the-cuff statement that it was a dumb decision because it stood in the way of development.

Now, I know the Premier likes to say repeatedly that we on this side of the House can’t say yes to anything and don’t believe in development, but nothing could be further from the truth.

What we believe in is setting up the conditions for development that British Columbians can believe in, that First Nations can believe in, that people can have faith in and that will in fact lead to a richer investment climate because there will be certainty among investors that British Columbia is committed to getting it right. They will not have to be dragged through the wringer of processes and processes being redone and the lack of social licence and all that that entails and all that brings in the way of economic uncertainty.

[1645]

The throne speech says leadership means being consistent on economic development. Again, for perhaps the first time in a year, I’ve heard from the throne speech and the Premier and members opposite many claims that work is being done on a diversified economy, that we’re simply not putting all of our eggs in the LNG basket.

But if that is the case, why have so many people from the business community who have spoken to so many MLAs sounded a caution that while LNG has potential for British Columbia if done right, it is wrong and dangerous to place all of our eggs in one basket and to neglect other sectors of the economy that are, in fact, doing well but could be doing better and could support many, many jobs? In fact, many, many more jobs than even the Premier’s exaggerated claims, which she is no longer making, with respect to the LNG industry. I will return to those in a moment.

This throne speech is notable because it appears to back down on every major commitment that the Premier made during the election campaign. And 100,000 jobs — no one knows where those are going to come from.

In fact, this government is scrambling to get approval for even one project, and it’s not handling that very well because it has put all of its cards face up on the table, therefore putting itself in a terrible negotiating position. We’re seeing that play out in the media on a daily basis, with statements from the CEO of Petronas that are aimed at reducing the value that British Columbians will get for this non-renewable resource that we own, that will drive down the return to British Columbians for this resource.

On the issue of jobs, the Premier has claimed that this industry will provide many jobs for British Columbians, 100,000 jobs. Of course British Columbians would welcome that. We would welcome that. People want jobs for British Columbians. But if the Premier wants jobs for British Columbians, she needs to do more than just tell British Columbians that she’s going to create jobs and then turn around and sign quiet deals with the government of China to bring in temporary foreign workers to fill whatever jobs are in fact created in the liquid natural gas industry.

We can do better in B.C. We should do better in B.C., and we will do better in B.C.

No debt in British Columbia. Frankly, given the likelihood of a very low royalty and tax regime at any time —
[ Page 4565 ]
and an even lower one until many, many years have gone by and the province and people of British Columbia have totally paid off the capital costs of the proponents of the LNG industry…. Only then will we begin to see any significant returns. That will be a long time.

In the meantime, in the three short years that we have had the current Premier of British Columbia, have we seen our provincial debt go down? Has it gone down? No, it’s gone up by almost a third. It’s incredible. Say one thing; do another. Tell people what they want to hear; forget about the facts.

We deserve better in this Legislature. British Columbians deserve better. We deserve a Premier who respects everyone in this province, who has an honest conversation with everyone in this province about her economic proposals. Let me go on about that.

She has said that we will have the cleanest LNG in the world. She has said that it will be British Columbia’s contribution to combatting climate change.

[1650]

If that is the case, why will she only talk about the emissions from liquid natural gas on the downstream end and she won’t talk about the emissions at the wellhead? She doesn’t even want to count those emissions.

We don’t know what legislation we will see over the course of this session, but there have been plenty of hints that there will be legislation to address the fact that, as the Minister of Environment said to a number of people at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, it will be hard enough to meet our legislated greenhouse gas emission targets; with LNG, it will be virtually impossible.

We need to have an honest conversation with British Columbians about the greenhouse gas emission implications of developing an LNG industry. Of course there will be emissions, and there are things that we can do, that this government could insist on, to limit those emissions. There are other things this government could do by public policy to drive down emissions in other areas of the economy and other areas of daily life.

We on this side of the House suggested a number of those things during the election campaign. We would love the opportunity to work with British Columbians to actually implement those measures and to ensure that we actually do have the cleanest LNG industry in the world — or even come close to the cleanest LNG industry in the world. But instead, what we get are words that claim one thing and actions that will do another.

As Justine Hunter said in the Globe and Mail, can we have…? Or as she said, no matter how you dress it up on the accounting books, it remains a fossil fuel from the wellhead to the terminal. Do us a favour, and let’s have a straight conversation about it. A straight conversation. The truth. An honest conversation with British Columbians. Not just telling British Columbians the right words but making and doing the right actions.

The next few months in British Columbia with respect to the liquid natural gas industry will be very interesting. We are seeing high-stakes negotiations. We are seeing power negotiations. And we are not seeing, frankly, the government of British Columbia showing a lot of skill, a lot of experience, a lot of good strategy in negotiations.

When you tell the people you’re negotiating with that you have bet the whole farm and your neighbour’s farm on this one industry, you are bargaining from a position of weakness, and Petronas and others will take full advantage of that. Let’s have that honest conversation with British Columbians as well.

The throne speech talks about education and training and the skills-for-jobs blueprint. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have heard in virtually every city in British Columbia in which we have held public hearings representatives of college administrations, representatives of faculty associations and — very, very significantly — representatives of student associations talk about how difficult it is to access post-secondary education today in British Columbia unless you are very, very rich.

That is not equitable access to public education. That is not going to build our economy by investing in our youth and ensuring they have the skills and the knowledge needed to participate in the economy, which will benefit all of us, including the provincial treasury.

We have seen, through this government’s single-minded focus on balancing the budget…. The member for Abbotsford-Mission referred to that. Well, yes, one can balance the budget every year if one continues to cut and slash the services that British Columbians depend upon and not see so many of those services as an important investment in the economic future of our citizens, our province and, in fact, of the provincial treasury. It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[1655]

Student after student came before us and talked about the crushing debt loads, the stress of trying to work full-time and complete their education, the non-completion rate, the stretching out of the education over many more years than people in my generation would have even considered. This is because tuition has skyrocketed.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada without an upfront, needs-based student grant program, and we have the highest interest rate on student loans. What kind of education plan is that? Why doesn’t the throne speech talk about that and the challenges that that entails for British Columbians, that that entails for our future and that that entails for young people?

We also heard in the Finance Committee significant concern about the skills-for-jobs blueprint that proposes to take 25 percent of existing post-secondary education funding and target it to specific, needed skills. Nobody has any quarrel with ensuring that we are training for the needed skills in LNG, in mining and in other industries, but as Paul Reniers, the executive director of the BCIT Faculty and Staff Association, wrote: “Quality
[ Page 4566 ]
post-secondary education is not a circus tent that can be put up or taken down overnight to move to the next one-industry town.”

We have already seen in the last several years many programs that are critical to different parts of British Columbia’s economy shaved back, cut back, held back and, in some cases, eliminated. When they’re eliminated, all of the infrastructure that supports them disappears. It is difficult and very costly to build them back up again and to replace them. That’s a problem for all of us.

Let me simply illustrate that point by talking about another industry that members opposite like to say is doing very well in B.C., and it is a hugely important industry in British Columbia. It’s film, television and digital animation. It did better in 2012-13 than it did in 2011-2012, but it’s gone down in the number of productions in this year. While some studios are doing well, a number of studio heads said to me very recently: “We have about a 90-cent dollar, and we’re not at capacity.”

If we’re not at capacity with a 90-cent dollar, there’s something structurally wrong with the way we’re supporting the industry. This government made a promise to extend a tax credit to post-production, digital animation and visual effects. It may well be in the upcoming budget. I asked the Minister of Finance that question in estimates in the past session.

In the meantime, the ability of the industry to attract productions here by being able to support the full breadth of the production right down to post-production is compromised. The ability of animation studios in my constituency, with whom I’ve met, to actually take on the contracts available to them with the skilled staff is hampered by the fact that we only graduate 24 students a year from the animation courses in the public post-secondary institutions when they say they could hire the entire class tomorrow and still have a need and, more recently, have had to contract out their work outside of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, this is an existing industry. There are other existing industries. They provide many jobs. Film and television provide more jobs today than the oil and gas industry. The technology industry provides more jobs today than forestry, mining, and oil and gas put together. Why, other than passing mention that this is part of the jobs strategy, don’t we see something concrete to build these industries up and create even more jobs for British Columbians and graduate the students that can fill these jobs in British Columbia, to stay in British Columbia, to build British Columbia for the future?

[1700]

Instead we are pursuing, with a narrow-minded focus, one industry — one very hard-to-establish industry, apparently, because we’re still waiting for the tax regime. We’re still waiting for the investment decisions, and we’re still waiting for a shovel to go into the ground.

The throne speech talks about mining, and it talks about…. This is talking about the people who were put out of work by the tailings pond breach at Mount Polley. “Just like the people of Likely, they need to know they will not be abandoned.” I’m going to assume that the words that came from the Lieutenant-Governor are the words that we are hearing from the government and the Premier. In fact, that’s what they are.

If the people who work in the mining industry in British Columbia and the people of Likely who are living with the after-effects of that environmental disaster are not to feel abandoned, perhaps the Premier would have liked to do something more than show up one day for a photo op and then disappear from Likely, not return, not answer any of the questions the people have about water and their economic future and fish, pretend that nothing serious has happened and hide behind an investigation that is ongoing. That inquiry is important, but reassuring the people of Likely by showing up on the ground is even more important, and the Premier has failed.

She went to Likely. She said what people wanted to hear, and then she disappeared and did whatever she wanted. It’s just not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, let me close my remarks by talking about an area that I believe is significantly important to British Columbia. It’s the area of transportation.

We have waited for close to six years for this government to follow through on the commitment it made in a memorandum of understanding with the mayors of the Metro Vancouver region to reach agreement on a funding formula to implement the much-needed rapid transit south of the Fraser on the completely overcrowded Broadway corridor as well as to meet the needs of seniors with mobility issues and others with mobility issues through handyDART and to add additional buses to existing service to meet the needs of a growing population.

We are still waiting for that funding. Planned expansion of bus service hours has been put on hold by TransLink because there is no certainty that funding is coming. We’re still waiting for the Transportation Minister and the Premier to do something other than say no to every single suggestion of funding put forward by the mayors. It’s not good enough, and it’s not just us on this side who don’t think that it’s good enough.

The members opposite will be familiar with the current CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade, Iain Black. Let me read his words. “One of our organization’s core beliefs is that our economy cannot thrive without the efficient, reliable and safe movement of goods and people. Transportation is critical to our shared economic destiny.”

Tom Syer of the Business Council of British Columbia says that transportation “will be critical to building the communities and businesses that will sustain the expected one million new residents and additional 600,000 jobs” over the next 25 years.

It’s time for the Minister of Transportation and the
[ Page 4567 ]
Premier to get on with the job and stop hiding behind a referendum. Let’s fund transit and build the economy in British Columbia.

M. Morris: I note the member opposite was talking about a lack of funding infrastructure in the metro areas of British Columbia.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I notice that we’ve got the beautiful Port Mann Bridge. We have the Sea to Sky Highway. We’ve got the Fraser Perimeter. We’ve got the Island Highway. I see the Golden Ears Bridge. We see all kinds of HOV areas along Highway 1 down in the Lower Mainland here.

[1705]

From the perspective of a rural B.C. member, I see a lot of dollars being spent on public transit and infrastructure in the Lower Mainland and through the populated areas of the province here. That money comes, generously, from the hard-working people in rural B.C. in the resource-based sector we have that supplies so much to the British Columbian economy over the years.

Let’s talk about the British Columbia economy a little bit. It’s been founded on forestry. Forestry has been the mainstay of the B.C. economy for a number of years now. Back in 1966, when W.A.C. Bennett had the vision for the Williston reservoir and the W.A.C. Bennett dam and bringing power to the interior and the northern part of the province, our population was less than two million people.

Today we’re crowding five million people. Forestry has the mainstay over that period of time since the mid-1960s, where we’ve cut so much wood throughout the province and supplied good-paying jobs for the province. Forestry has been the mainstay of our education system, our health care system, our transportation system and all the other public infrastructure that we have in British Columbia today. It has been provided a lot by forestry.

It’s been supported by mining. Mining has had its ups and downs. It’s a commodity market, like forestry is as well. It’s been supported by agriculture. It’s been supported by a lot of things in this province. But forestry has been the mainstay of what we have here.

The resource communities that we have in rural British Columbia have soldiered on despite the swings that we have seen over the decades in commodity pricing. We have communities like Mackenzie that had a significant downfall with the pulp mills closing, the sawmills closing and a lot of the support services that we have for the industry in that community closing down here a few years ago. They’re up and running on all cylinders again because of a strong forestry economy that we have in British Columbia and across Canada.

We have also seen that downturn in other communities. Mackenzie is reliant on the coalmines, and now they’re experiencing some very tough times there.

We’ve seen large communities, like Prince Rupert, that have seen swings in population, where 50 percent of the population disappears as a result of the downturn in industry and commodity prices across the world. That has a dramatic effect on the community infrastructures that are in place in communities like Prince Rupert and Terrace and Kitimat and Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge and other communities here.

You build the infrastructures to support the people that work in the community, and then you see the infrastructure crumbling as the employment opportunities disappear over the years. The people move out of the community, and the municipalities are left faced with the bills of supporting that infrastructure that’s in place — the water systems, the sewer systems, the education systems, the hospitals, the road structures and everything else that’s in there.

Then, a few years later, the commodity prices go back up, the employment rate goes up, and everybody comes back into the communities again. Things are going well for a while, and then we see a downturn and the communities suffer again. The infrastructure in many of those communities like Mackenzie was built for the sole purpose of forestry back in the ’60s, when Mackenzie first came on board.

A lot of provincial government money went into establishing the community. We have not kept pace. We haven’t kept pace with ensuring that infrastructure stays vibrant to support the employers and the employees that call that community home today.

A lot of British Columbians probably had no idea that we had pipelines in British Columbia, up until the northern gateway was announced in 2005. We had natural gas pipelines back in the 1950s going into communities like Mackenzie, when it was built. In the ’60s we had natural pipelines traversing across to the west coast. We had natural gas pipelines built down into the Lower Mainland here.

So when the people turn their thermostat on in the morning and their apartments get nice and warm, that’s thanks to the natural gas coming out of northeast British Columbia, in a pipeline that’s been in the ground for decades.

We have refineries in Prince George. We’ve got a couple in the Lower Mainland. Those have been serviced by pipelines coming down from northeast B.C. and from Alberta for decades now — 50 to 60 years.

[1710]

They have been helping to provide the income for many British Columbians, helping them get back and forth to work, helping them keep their houses warm, helping them take their children back and forth to school, keeping our hospitals warm, keeping our streets paved.

The contributions that these pipelines have made over the years have been enormous, but they take a lot
[ Page 4568 ]
of maintenance as well. The companies have been reinvesting in modernizing the pipelines and the refinery infrastructure and whatnot to make sure that they meet today’s high environmental standards that British Columbia can be proud to lead the world in.

Things follow through on these cycles on a continual basis. We have a history of that in British Columbia over the last 40, 50, 60, 100 years. I think our Premier had a vision, and she said: “We need something more. We need something to help stabilize the economy in British Columbia and make sure that we have a secure future for everybody in British Columbia.”

That’s one thing that kind of hooked me and got me involved in this line of work. It’s the fact that she did have a vision for a strong economy and a secure tomorrow in British Columbia. I am very concerned about my grandchildren. I want to make sure that they have viable futures ahead of them when they are my age — and my great-grandchildren have viable futures ahead of them.

That vision struck me. Those visions are important. That’s part of leadership. What we’ve seen often in the past is…. We see a situation. We do what has always been done, and we get the same results that we always get. A lot of the philosophy is to throw more money at that, do it quicker and put more people in place so you get the same results. But you get those same results a little bit quicker. I refer to it more as spinning our wheels, and we don’t move ahead.

This Premier and this government have seen things in a little bit different light. We are doing things a little bit differently, and we’re going to get different results. We’re going to get results that are going to stabilize the economy in British Columbia and make sure that we pay down the debt, that we have a fund to look after future British Columbians, that everybody is going to be employed who want to work in this province.

Let me talk a little bit about leadership. The throne speech alluded to leadership. It was a short throne speech, but I think it was to the point. It was precise. It talked about exactly what we’re going to be doing in this session, and that’s to get LNG on the road.

Leadership is something that…. Not all people have the ability to lead. It’s not something that you just assume when you get into a position. It’s something that you’re born with. It’s something that you build upon as you go through your career and you look at different things. It is based on a number of different things.

A leader like we see in our Premier has established a solid vision. She has got a vision of a strong economy and a secure tomorrow by developing our LNG business in British Columbia. To that end, she has developed strategies in order to get to that — to see that vision come to fruition here.

One of the things that all of us face from time to time when we are in a leadership position — whether it’s at home, whether it’s in our communities, whether it’s in government — is that we are often faced with an enormous number of issues surrounding us. I refer to them as little explosions that come up here and there that will distract our attention and take us off our focus on whatever the goals are that we want to achieve for our organization and for our government at this particular time.

The Premier and this government are focussed on the strategies that we have in place to get LNG up and running. That’s the most important thing that we have on our plate at this particular time: to make sure that happens. In order to get there, one of the other aspects — one of the other components of good leadership — is aligning your processes, your systems and your structure in order to achieve your vision and your strategy.

We have the strategy to get LNG up and running. But we’ve got a system that has been developed for forestry, a system that has been developed for a number of other good, solid projects that we have in British Columbia that are already up and running, to a degree — we’ve got mining; we’ve got agriculture; we’ve got technology; we’ve got the film industry — that are contributing in a significant way to B.C.’s economy.

LNG is not. We don’t have LNG in British Columbia yet, so we’re focussing our efforts on that. We’re aligning our systems, processes and structures in order to get that. We have to make sure that we’ve got the right decision-makers in place at the right time, getting the right information in order for them to make those decisions.

[1715]

Within government we’ve seen a lot of alignment. One of our previous speakers, a colleague, the Minister of Natural Gas, commented earlier that we have a number of cross-sectional government departments and agencies that have been working on LNG, and they’re working very well together. That’s an indication that our systems are properly aligned in order to achieve the results that we want.

One of the other aspects of leadership is empowering your employees and everybody that’s working on the project to do the job that they’re supposed to do. That’s another thing that I’ve admired in the leadership that we have from the Premier. The ministers are empowered to go and do what the ministers are supposed to do — with the mandate letters and with the ministries that they have to go out and do that work. The Premier doesn’t interfere too much with that. These ministers are free to go and do that.

Then under the ministers, the ministers have staff and folks working within the ministries that are also empowered to go out and do the things they need to do to get done. This is an effective way to achieve results at the end of the day. You can’t micromanage everybody. You can’t direct everybody on what to do.

What you do is you provide them with what you want as an outcome and ask them to get there. You let them know what resources they have available to work with,
[ Page 4569 ]
where they can go to get those resources and the help they need to get it done, time limits. You give them the parameters which they work under and let the horses pull and take you to that successful strategy.

Then one of the other important factors of leadership, as well, is modelling leadership. Again, it’s an area that I think our Premier has done a very good job of. Modelling is based upon a couple of primary factors: one being competence and the other one being character.

Our Premier has had a laser focus on LNG development. She has not let up for one minute that LNG is high on our list. It’s our main strategic priority, and she has the competence to get there. She has held a great team together here over the last while, and she continues to do that. The competence that is modelled and displayed on a daily basis, I think, is exemplary.

Now, we talk about 100,000 jobs. We talk about figures in the trillions of dollars over the coming decades in British Columbia. We talk about a debt-free B.C. One thing that I haven’t heard demonstrated much with the members opposite is the strategic-thinking part of that. Nothing happens overnight. When we’re talking about things as large as LNG, an industry as large as LNG in British Columbia, that doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t happen in a year; it doesn’t happen in five years, as we’ve seen.

It’s a long-term process, and there are a lot of things. Particularly because there was no LNG in British Columbia, to speak of, up until we started developing the strategy to get there, we probably won’t see LNG being produced in British Columbia for another couple of years. It takes a long time to build the foundation in order to build the superstructure on top of that.

It’s no different than when you’re building your house, no different than when you’re building a large apartment block. Thirty percent or 40 percent of your effort goes into the ground, and nobody even sees it. That’s what has been happening over the last two or three years with our LNG strategy.

We’ve been developing the foundation to build the superstructure on top of that that is going to propel British Columbia forward. It’s going to put British Columbia in the forefront of being a significant contributor to the GDP for Canada, and it’ll put Canada on the map. It’s going to be something to behold.

We haven’t forgotten about all the other resource sectors and all the other elements that are contributing to the economy in British Columbia, as has been suggested by the members opposite. I’m going to talk again a little bit about forestry. Forestry has gone through a significant transition because of the pine beetle epidemic, because of the softwood lumber crash, the housing crash in the United States. A number of factors there caused forestry to tank. That pretty much describes it.

[1720]

The resilience of that particular industry and the ability of them to reinvent themselves and to have a look at how they can be more economically effective in the province and in the world market…. We’re competing worldwide. We’ve developed a great market in China. We’re looking at developing a great market in India.

There’s been new technology that’s come on board in British Columbia with respect to other products like glulam beams and panels and whatnot that we’ve used to build the Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George.

We’ve looked at bioenergy as coming on in a big way in British Columbia. We’ve got the wood pellet industry, which has exploded across British Columbia, and we’ve got a wood pellet loading facility at the Port of Prince Rupert that is going at capacity.

We’ve also got individuals. We’ve got companies. We’ve got people that are working on technology to turn fibre into biodiesel. We’ve got technology that’s turning the fibre into all other types of cellulose products that are going to change the industry down the road again.

The forest industry that we knew back in the ’90s and the ’80s right through from the ’60s has significantly changed today. The mills put out dimensional lumber like we’ve never seen before, with the computerized technology and whatnot that they have. Our panel production, with our OSB, our plywood panels. Again, they’re using technology that is making them bigger and stronger and better for the world markets.

We’re also seeing the ability to be a little bit more nimble when it comes to dealing with market conditions across the globe for our forest companies. They’re developing various techniques for shipping and handling and monitoring and cataloguing their supplies that they have around the world. Forestry is not a sunset industry in British Columbia. Forestry is alive and well, and it’s going to be expanding more.

The members opposite talk about log exports. If it wasn’t for log exports, we would have people in northwest British Columbia unemployed. The logging industry in the northwest part of the province is dealing with hemlock and some of the other harder-to-manage wood fibre that we have in British Columbia. It’s being exported. They’re getting a good dollar for it. They’re keeping a lot of First Nations communities employed and a lot of other communities employed there.

We have mining that is gaining a significant foothold in British Columbia. We’ve always had lots of natural resources in British Columbia with respect to mining and minerals. Of course, Thompson Creek have a number of investments in British Columbia that they are expanding upon.

We’ve got situations like Mount Polley, which is unfortunate. Nobody builds a tailings pond to fail. Nobody builds anything to fail and cause any kind of an environmental issue for the communities in which the workers live and make their living. But things do happen from
[ Page 4570 ]
time to time, and we do our best to ensure that we try to mitigate those as much as possible.

We have a very safe mining industry in British Columbia. We have technology that is world-renowned. We have engineers that spend a lot of time and energy and put a lot of thought into how they develop some of these projects that we have in British Columbia.

We’ve got the potential to increase our mining significantly so that the economic benefits that will be derived in some of these more remote communities will help stabilize those communities along with forestry, along with LNG and some of the other natural gas elements that we have out there so that we’re not going to see those drastic swings and cycles that cause so much grief and so much stress for the people that live in rural British Columbia.

Once we get LNG up and running and the dollars are rolling in, we can certainly look at contributing more to metro British Columbia in building some of these transportation structures that everybody is demanding to make the Lower Mainland and urban British Columbia a much better place to live. But we’re also going to be investing in rural British Columbia, as well, to make sure that those communities stay alive and vibrant and are a nice place for the families to remain and live in as they produce these resources for British Columbia.

[1725]

We all fit together. We’re all part of the strong economy for British Columbia. There is not one community that should be left out of it. There’s not one person that should be left out of it. Everybody’s going to have the opportunity to work in British Columbia. Everybody’s going to have an opportunity to contribute in British Columbia. I think probably over the next five or ten years that we’re going to be a force to be reckoned with out here. My grandchildren and everybody else’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to live a lifestyle that is going to be the envy of North America and the world.

L. Krog: As I’ve said many times in this chamber, it’s always an honour and a privilege to rise and say a few words, even if it is to respond to one of the thinnest throne speeches that British Columbia has ever seen delivered in this chamber. I won’t make any jokes about it being shorter than my allotted half-hour for fear you may carry through on the threat made earlier to the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim. I intend to take my 30 minutes and my full opportunity.

Firstly, I want to express my appreciation to the Lieutenant-Governor for the speech and, in particular, for remembering a couple of people that I knew very well. The first is Alex Macdonald, who I think was a mentor to every young New Democrat or every young New Democrat who aspired to be a lawyer.

Second is Joy Leach, who knew me from the time I was a little boy and who was the most innovative and progressive and, I would argue, the most successful mayor that the city of Nanaimo has had in a very long time — a woman ahead of her time, a woman who never took no for an answer, a woman who was responsible for assisting the Harcourt government in a very significant role and setting out a plan that was called Imagine Nanaimo, which has helped largely form what Nanaimo is today.

I say this with no small amount of pride, since everybody brags about their constituency and their own community, that Nanaimo, for those of you who’ve taken the time to stop and visit over the last five or ten years, is a product in large measure of the work of Joy Leach. That product is now what we like to say is the most livable small city in North America and well worth visiting.

It is with great pride that I represent that community. It’s a community that in the last 51 years has only voted other than New Democrat twice: once for Frank Ney, an old Socred, in 1969 to ’72, and once for Mike Hunter, 2001 to 2005, a B.C. Liberal who served his constituency well and for whom I’ve always publicly expressed my respect because Mike Hunter took very seriously his job as an MLA.

That leads me to say a couple more things about the responsibility as an MLA. I represent a community that this House recognized earlier this year, as did the Lieutenant-Governor — the tragic deaths of Michael Lunn and Fred McEachern at the Western Forest Products mill.

I want to say, in particular to their families and people who attended the services for those men, that my community demonstrated a breadth of spirit and heart and compassion not just for that family but also for the person who is alleged to have committed the heinous act that led to their deaths. It has been an incredible display of human compassion, and I pay my deep respects to both those families, who have been leaders in the community in reacting in a way that shows, in the finest traditions of the sense, the spirit of Christian charity and love that is important.

I would be remiss, of course, if I didn’t also remark that this is the 100th anniversary of the First World War. I think in a community like Nanaimo which sent a number of its young men off, as did the communities in this province, that we can’t pass without recognizing that.

I believe there was a piece earlier this year, for instance, that mentioned a community that no longer exists, Walhachin, that sent 97 of its 107 eligible men off to war and essentially killed that community. They died for a cause that was, I think, not always apparent, and many books have been written that suggest it was a great waste of human life. Indeed, it was the great Victorian poet, Rudyard Kipling, who was notorious for being a promoter of empire and war and all those things, who lost his son in that war and closed one of his poems so eloquently with the words: “And if they ask you why we died, tell them that our fathers lied.”

[1730]

We are a long ways down the road, and hopefully, we
[ Page 4571 ]
have learned some lessons in our history. The British Columbia of 1914 is a much different place than the British Columbia of 2014. Earlier this year we had a wonderful time in this House, if I can phrase it that way, when we passed a motion regarding the apology to Chinese Canadians. I think that that motion, and its very passage in this House, reflects what a great change we have made in British Columbia. We are a province to be admired, a part of the world that enjoys great benefits.

As I’ve listened to the debate today, I cannot help but comment on the remarks of the members on the government side. Now, I know that hyperbole has become — how shall I say? — the standard of this place. I know the member for Prince George–Mackenzie was merely carried away in the great spirit of the moment when he took credit on behalf of the B.C. Liberals for building the Island Highway.

Now, I know that one is moved by the spirit in this House — the great Premiers of this province, the builders like W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett — but I have to tell that member that the B.C. Liberals had absolutely nothing to do with the building of the Island Highway.

Indeed, I must tell you that when I was a young man working at the Parksville Chevron in 1969, a Socred member, his political predecessor, told me one night in quiet confidence, as I was putting gas in his car as Dr. McDiarmid headed back to Alberni and out to the west coast: “Son, tell your father to buy land out at the edge of town. That’s where we’re going to build the Island Highway.” That was 1969.

The hyperbole that infects this government obviously has a long history that has been grasped and significantly tucked into their pockets and held for safekeeping by the B.C. Liberals. That is: “We’re going to make a lot of promises, but it just might take us two or three generations to deliver on them.”

Now, I thought one of the better ones that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie…. I’m not picking on him. I think he’s flattered to be singled out, to know that I listened carefully to what he had to say today. He said: “Make sure we pay down the debt.”

Make sure we pay down the debt — that was a marvelous promise: paying down the debt. [Applause.] And he’s got them up clapping now. I agree. Paying down the debt is a wonderful thing, but please, Members, don’t interrupt with applause, because I have a few more words to say.

It’s the most remarkable thing coming from that member in this chamber under this Premier — who since she took office a short few years ago has increased the B.C. debt by 34 percent. That is an unprecedented record in the whole history of British Columbia, one for which I haven’t heard this government justifiably pounding their desks and saying: “We’ve increased the debt 34 percent in a few short years. It’s not even a full term of government. We’ve managed to bump it up by 34 percent.” They’re not bragging about it.

All I’ve heard is gas, more and more about gas. Speaking of gas, we have the Minister of Natural Gas. Oh my goodness, it reminded me of those old black-and-white movies with Burt Lancaster and I can’t remember the actress. It was called Elmer Gantry. I could virtually see the flaps of the tent for the revival meeting flapping in the wind as the gas blew around this chamber. “Salvation is at hand. B.C. liquid natural gas is going to save the day and save this government.” Oh my goodness, I almost believed it myself. He was speaking with such passion.

You know when that member, the Minister of Natural Gas, is about to let a big one go, because he always says: “I can tell you this. I can tell you this.” Then he launched into it with full force and fire, telling us how wonderful it was going to be. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie and pretty much everyone else who’s spoken today has talked about liquid natural gas as if it’s going to solve all our problems. Gosh.

You know something? It didn’t end there. The Minister of Natural Gas also said, “has the possibility, I believe” and then: “the most significant…job opportunity in Canadian history.”

[1735]

The fur trade, forestry, mining, fishing, everything that’s ever happened. Heck, even the oil industry in Alberta is nothing compared to the most significant job opportunity in Canadian history.

Oh my goodness, did I suggest earlier that hyperbole was used in this chamber? I think I might have made a point. I think I might have made a point. Perhaps there has been a little hyperbole.

Fall is a time for reflection. It’s always a time for reflection. It’s a time to bring in the harvest. It’s a time to store up things, to think about the future and the winter, what it will bring. It’s a time to reflect on the work you’ve done and what you’ve achieved. It’s a time to sit back and see those beautiful fall colours — nothing more spectacular than this province in the fall.

I want to reflect precisely on the words in the throne speech. We start off by hailing the “boldness, risk-taking, innovation, creativity, sticking to our guns” and an economy that “allows us to realize our goal of building a strong network of publicly funded services.”

There are strings of pious platitudes, and then there are strings of pious platitudes. I must tell the hon. members that it wasn’t just boldness, risk-tasking, innovation and creativity that built British Columbia. It was government policy. It was sheer good luck on some occasions. I must say this, and this will surprise the members. The building of British Columbia, in terms of those publicly funded services, was based on taxation. There’s nothing wrong with taxation.

I know the girls and boys in short pants who are busily sitting at their computers listening carefully always get nervous when Krog talks about taxation. They hope he’s
[ Page 4572 ]
going to drop a big one, just like the Minister of Natural Gas, that can be used against him at some future time. But the reality is that what we have witnessed in British Columbia over the last two years, in particular, is the highest inequality in Canada. We have the highest inequality in the country. British Columbia’s richest 10 percent make 12.6 times more than the poorest.

Hon. Speaker, I must tell you. The only way you solve that problem is with progressive taxation. You’re not going to solve it by improving the economy. You’re not going to solve it by liquid natural gas. All of those things are important. But you are going to have to face up to the fact that if the government wishes to continue to balance the budget…. I don’t think there’s hardly a British Columbian who wouldn’t agree with that concept.

Gosh knows, the predecessors — certainly in my party, historically — knew that it was an important goal. Dave Barrett hit it two out of three times. Didn’t do it as well in the ’90s, but we faced a fair number of troubles in those days: the collapse of the Japanese lumber market, mineral prices in the toilet, those kinds of things. We’ll just accept for a moment that balancing a budget is a really good thing.

If you still have this horrendous poverty in your society, what is the government going to do to solve it? How are you going to fix it — assuming you believe it is appropriate for the state, for government, for us as a collective, for us as a society to address the issue? We’ve had the worst rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years. We’ve got the worst rate of child poverty in Canada for nine of the last ten years. It’s not an enviable record.

I’ll harken back…. I am sure all the members listened to my every word in the spring when I spoke to the budget and the throne speech then. When the newly revived member who I welcomed back to this chamber tells me he watched me on TV, I am immensely flattered, and I welcome him back.

What I said then is what I want to say again today. How long do the poor and, particularly, the poor children of this province have to wait for this trickle-down economics to work?

[1740]

When is it their turn to get a share of the provincial wealth? When is it their share to be able to go to bed and sleep as securely as every member of this chamber does at night? When is it their turn to not worry about where their job is going to come from or who’s going to pay for their education? When is it their turn to share in what all of us in this chamber, I’m afraid to some extent, take for granted.

Hon. Speaker, when this throne speech talked about “a strong network of publicly funded services….” I have to tell you, I have an article here from the Nanaimo Daily News, May 10, 2014. Now, that’s not a left-wing rag. I know that. You know how I can tell you that? Because the editor of the Nanaimo Daily News at that time has just taken a leave from work. He is the newly acclaimed federal conservative candidate for Nanaimo-Ladysmith riding. I’ve got to tell you, this man is no lefty.

When this paper publishes an article like this, it tells me something. The headline is “Children Now More Vulnerable, Says Doctor.” The person they’re going to quote in this isn’t some left-wing lunatic. It’s not someone who spent their whole lifetime defending the poor and the misbegotten. It’s a public servant, Dr. Paul Hasselback, medical health officer of the central Island region.

What does it say? “Overall, Hasselback concluded that in recent years the levels of vulnerability for children as they begin kindergarten in the district have increased in a number of areas, including their levels of physical, social and emotional development and preparedness as they begin school.” That’s all based on a StatsCan report.

I come back to my point. What’s the point of all of this if we’re not looking after the poorest amongst us and the least able to defend themselves? The children of this province, and in this particular case, the children of my constituency, the children of my constituents — these children are my constituents. Someday they’ll have a chance to vote, and I’ll hope they’ll have the brains and the good and common sense to never be prepared to accept the levels of poverty in which many of them have been brought up.

The speech goes on to talk about us being the envy of the world. I don’t disagree. Compared to the rest of the planet…. Would you rather be in Syria today or Iraq or any of those places? Absolutely not. But then the Premier goes on, through the mouth of a Lieutenant-Governor, to say that it is one thing to say we choose growth; it is another thing to find new ways to grow.

I guess, having grown up in the times that I have, I’ve come to accept and realize — and I suspect that most of the members in this chamber have — that the world is actually a finite place. The planet’s not getting any bigger. We’re not creating any more real estate on which to survive and prosper as human beings.

To say in this superficial and almost silly way that we choose growth, we are ignoring that unlimited growth is a concept whose day is done. We can talk about economic development, and I will talk about economic development any day in this chamber. But the concept that we can continue to grow and that will somehow solve all our problems just isn’t on.

The speech continues in that same vein. A line further on: “Make no mistake. This is another global turning point, and it requires increasing amounts of energy.” The member for Vancouver-Fairview so eloquently pointed out earlier that there are other ways to consider things.

Is it that we want to use increasing amounts of energy? Or is it that we want to devote some of our energies, some of our intelligence, some of our collective wisdom, some of our experience to innovation, to new technologies, to conservation — instead of relying on concepts
[ Page 4573 ]
that, candidly, we pursued with great vigour through the 19th and 20th century but which no longer speak to the generation of young people who are following us, who are looking around a planet with species disappearing, with climate change being recognized by even the most ignorant amongst us now.

With insurance companies — those leading bastions of entrepreneurial capitalism, the folks who take billions and billions of dollars every year and invest around the world — with those folks saying it’s a problem, what does this speech talk about? It talks about, essentially, unlimited growth and using increasing amounts of energy.

[1745]

It isn’t sufficient any more for governments with this kind of knowledge to give us this kind of throne speech and this kind of blueprint for the future. It does not speak to the generation that follows us. It will never speak to them. For a generation of British Columbians who’ve enjoyed the prosperity of the postwar boom, it even speaks increasingly less to them as well.

The confidence and enthusiasm reflected in the speech…. I think it was, well, particularly ironic for me in my constituency and the folks in Nanaimo. At the very same time that we’re saying in the throne speech, “With the market restored, the forestry industry and the families who depend on it are in a good position,” Western Forest Products is announcing they’re shutting the very mill in my community that this Premier happily used as a photo op to announce, in conjunction with Western Forest Products, their new investments in the forest industry.

I want to say to all of those workers at that mill who’ve been promised by Western Forest Products — I take them at their word, and I believe they will do the best they can — that maybe this throne speech isn’t full of the God’s honest truth that one would like to think is spoken in this chamber regularly. The forest industry is certainly improved, but to suggest for a moment it has anything to do with government policy would be real hyperbole. But as I say, that’s become a bit of a trend in this chamber.

The throne speech talks about the jobs plan. In 2013 British Columbia lost 4,400 jobs. At the same time, 48,000 foreign workers were given temporary work permits. My city only has about 88,000 people living in it. More than half the population of Nanaimo — man, woman and child — applied for and got temporary foreign work permits. I just have to say that if this is the jobs plan, I have to say to the Premier: I don’t think it’s working.

If you want to talk about planning and jobs and working for the future and — some of the members have talked about this — the transportation infrastructure necessary to sustain and promote the economy, let’s talk about B.C. Ferries. Let’s talk about the report that the UBCM received that was so criticized by the Minister of Transportation — and in a rather unkind way, I might suggest — and by this government generally.

What did we learn? Well over $2 billion of economic activity gone, and all at the same time that we needed on Vancouver Island, I must say, the tourism that reasonable ferry rates promoted ever more than we’ve needed it in the past, as the forest industry did go into substantial and severe decline. We needed those jobs. We needed a ferry system that worked. Frankly, what we got instead was decreasing ridership, less service and a government that said, essentially: “This is good for you.” It doesn’t go over that well with my constituents, I can tell you.

I almost had to laugh at a line later in the speech where it says: “Leadership means being accountable for every tax dollar that passes through these doors in one form or another. That starts with a firm commitment to control spending, find savings and balance the budget. That means expecting the same of Crown corporations and municipal governments and, just as importantly, giving them the tools to do so.”

It’s pretty well known now that the two major Crown corporations in this province, ICBC and B.C. Hydro, which arguably are the jewels in the Crown corporation tiara — the very jewels — are being sucked dry by this government in ways that they can’t afford to sustain it. We’ve got those deferral accounts, so the promise of revenue way down the road is taken into account in today’s books. And this is somehow balancing the budget? This is leadership?

[1750]

I’ll tell you what it is. I go back to Elmer Gantry. It’s a bit of flim-flam. It’s flam-flam pure and simple.

The worst thing about it is that for business…. British Columbia’s substantial economic advantage that was created through the takeover and — I’ll use the word — the socialization of what became B.C. Hydro has been entirely dissipated in large respect. Gone.

Our businesses now face significant costs that they didn’t face before. Look at hydro rates, set to rise another 15 percent in the next four years. Since 2011, up 28 percent. I want Hydro to prosper. I want Hydro to prosper for a whole series of reasons, but that was a tax hike.

Everybody needs to heat their homes. If you don’t have natural gas, you’re probably going to use electricity. If you want to talk about a tax on the poor…. You can’t afford to turn the heat off, so you’ve got to find a way to pay the heat bill. But the folks in Shaughnessy or the wealthier parts of this province — what they have to pay for hydro is a pretty small percentage of their income. So essentially, this was a tax on the middle class and on the poor in British Columbia. That’s what we’ve done.

But oh no, we didn’t want any tax increases. Gosh knows we had to wrestle and struggle and whine and cajole for ages to get the government to bring a surtax in on higher-income earners, so somebody making $150,000 a year might pay a few more thousand or a few more hundred dollars a year to put in the collective pot that is the government of British Columbia and on which so many
[ Page 4574 ]
people rely for so many services.

The speech goes on to talk about: “For over a generation the funding commitments of western governments have exceeded their means.” Well, that’s not actually true. In the province of Alberta, Premier Peter Lougheed — one of the most farsighted and, I would argue, one of the greatest politicians to come out of western Canada — set up the heritage fund and started that fund. I think as of the last budget that Alberta announced, it had about $18 billion in there.

Interjection.

L. Krog: They put money in the fund, Member. They put it in the fund. The good Conservatives of Alberta — they still put money in the fund. They’ve got $18 billion in there — about half a year’s expenses.

Over there in Norway, one of those left-wing countries, where social democrats have been in power most of the last eight decades…. Over there in Norway, where they’ve got access to North Sea oil and they’ve got a similar population to the province of Alberta — admittedly, we’re talking about a provincial government versus a national government — do they have $18 billion in their fund? Absolutely not. Do they have $50 billion? No. Do they have $100 billion? Nah. Do they have $500 billion? No. The last number that I read — and someone argued with me that, in fact, it’s higher — is they have $760 billion set aside for the rainy day when the oil revenue runs out.

My point in saying this is that unlike us in British Columbia, who were promised salvation through liquid natural gas and are now told that, in fact, we’re going to need it to pay for the groceries — not to pay down the provincial debt, which has bumped up 34 percent in the last few years…. Unlike Norway, where they’ve set it aside, we’re going to have to use it now to pay for the groceries. We’re going to have to use it to pay for all of those things that British Columbians have come to rely on.

I want to close on a somewhat humorous note — I see my time is nearly up; it always goes so quickly — sent to me by a fairly conservative guy. I’m just going to call him Earl, because that’s his first name. He got it back in January from B.C. Ferries. He must be a frequent user. Earl sent me an e-mail recently, and he said: “This is too expensive for the average B.C.’er. Romantic advertisements must be for bureaucrats and politicians only.” Then he goes on to say a few things that I won’t repeat in this chamber.

Of course, it was a wonderful advertisement, always a cheering thing for those of us on who live on Vancouver Island, saying: “Make waves this Valentine’s Day. Take your valentine on a getaway to remember this February with B.C. Ferries vacations.” Give that someone special more than roses this year. Experience a weekend of romance and relaxation in Victoria or Vancouver.

[1755]

I thought the Premier said this was a sick culture down here, and we’ve got B.C. Ferries over there telling everyone to take their most-loved person to beautiful Victoria. But how are we going to get them there? We’re going to get them there on expensive ferries.

To the great chagrin of previous governments, in a little while maybe we’ll be able to bring them here on Polish ferries instead of ferries built in British Columbia. We’re not even going to take advantage of that most simple of economic opportunities, which is to build the things you actually need and use and can’t avoid buying and paying for. You, instead, are going to give those jobs away to another country.

We’ve got 48,000 temporary workers. It’s time for this government to look after the interests of British Columbia.

J. Tegart: It seems to be my fate to always follow the hon. member for Nanaimo. He is most entertaining in his speaking.

It’s an honour and a privilege to reply to the Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday, on behalf of the constituents of Fraser-Nicola. If the House would indulge me for a moment, it is truly an honour to serve my constituents as their MLA and to stand in the House today on their behalf. I, of course, also could not do this work without the support of my constituent assistant, Lori Pilon, and office support, Nicole Tattam.

Throughout this summer I was able to go out and meet with many constituents and groups in Fraser-Nicola, touring the constituency, visiting communities for announcements, open houses and face-to-face meetings. One of the things that really struck me as I went out and talked to my constituents is that they’re very optimistic about their future.

Fraser-Nicola is located sort of in the middle, between the Lower Mainland and the north. Things are happening in the north, things are happening in the Lower Mainland, and our challenge is how to bring that into my riding and make people ensure that they take advantage of everything that’s available in British Columbia.

The member opposite talked about Imagine Nanaimo. I remember Joy Leach also. I worked with her as a school trustee and had a great deal of respect for Joy. I would suggest to the member opposite that perhaps he could think about Imagine B.C., because I think that’s where we’re coming from.

It was fitting this fall, in the sitting of the Legislature, to begin with a throne speech to ensure that the upcoming legislative agenda is clear and focused in its direction in serving the best interests of British Columbians. Our province is at a turning point, and I am so pleased to be a part of a government that is looking forward and is excited about the future.

Growth in our economy does not happen on its own.
[ Page 4575 ]
It takes effort on the part of the private sector in creating jobs, attracting new investment and expanding operations. The role of government is to support businesses to achieve these goals by creating a supportive environment for businesses to succeed through competitive tax rates for families and businesses, attracting foreign investment and trade, reducing unnecessary regulations and red tape and ensuring that British Columbians receive a world-class education and training system, from primary school right through to post-secondary, enabling them to get the jobs as quickly as possible.

That being said, our plans for LNG development are ambitious yet achievable. That is why in this session it is absolutely essential that we take the time and effort to work carefully in creating a legislative framework that gets it right the first time. We plan on implementing a fair and equitable framework, balancing the needs of industry to receive a reasonable rate of return on investment and meeting the needs of communities, especially in rural B.C., where LNG development is taking place, and also ensuring aboriginal and First Nations involvement and participation in major projects while protecting our environment.

[1800]

As I mentioned, these plans are, of course, ambitious. However, myself and our government are committed to get it done for British Columbians. How do we achieve these goals? How do we seize the opportunity before us in LNG and become a world energy exporter?

It starts with trade. B.C. is already a world leader in international trade, thanks to our world-class ports in the Lower Mainland at Port Metro Vancouver and our expanding ports at Prince Rupert and Kitimat, where many LNG projects are concentrated.

In addition to our coastal ports, the Ashcroft Terminal inland port in my constituency is a key terminal for B.C.’s expanding trade sector. This facility has significantly expanded capacity for B.C. exports, connecting our coastal ports to the vast North American rail links through the CP Rail and CN Rail network. The Ashcroft Terminal will be a major employer in my region. It will not just be an advantage for Ashcroft but will be an advantage to the region as a whole and also to the province. I am proud to support the Ashcroft Terminal in the Fraser-Nicola constituency.

Because of our already strong trade relationships with Asian economies for B.C. goods and materials, the development of LNG will enable B.C. to also supply these growing economies with a cleaner source of energy. Our Premier has taken the lead with the LNG trade mission, which took place this spring, and the trade mission to India taking place this month. Our government is strengthening the relationship of potential buyers of B.C. products and LNG.

While we create demand for our energy, we need to be ready to supply the resource. Our supply of natural gas is abundant in B.C. However, we need to work hard to build the infrastructure necessary to transport and support this industry moving ahead with LNG exports by preparing British Columbians now to have the skills and qualifications to work on these projects when they start.

The B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint is our government’s comprehensive, cross-ministry plan to re-engineer our education system, supporting students from primary school right through to post-secondary. B.C.’s blueprint is the key to ensure that workers are trained to fill the top LNG jobs and in-demand occupations. Already, funding has been allocated to trade institutions across the province to train students, including two in my region at Thompson Rivers University and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology.

Specifically, the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology is well known to be the home of aboriginal public post-secondary education in British Columbia, with their major campus right in the heart of my constituency in Merritt. I recently attended NVIT’s opening luncheon. It was attended by students, by parents, by grandparents, by extended family and by community members who are there to support their students in their success.

Just last week our government announced a $366,000 investment as a part of the B.C. blueprint, which will provide a total of 95 aboriginal learners from the Fraser-Nicola having access to a variety of programs at NVIT and TRU, helping these students launch their careers or further their post-secondary education.

Often I am asked: what does LNG have to do with some of the small communities in my area? It’s these kinds of opportunities across the province that are making people realize what an important initiative this is.

The B.C. blueprint also allocated $75,000 of funding to NVIT to develop a platform to inform staff and faculty about disabilities and their impacts on learning. The blueprint emphasizes aboriginal education as a centre point of the success for this program. Students need to acquire the necessary skills to ensure that they’re able to participate in developing our LNG sector.

[1805]

If more aboriginal students have access to skills-training programs and access to in-demand programs today, they will be prepared to work in jobs and positions that will support the LNG sector going forward.

That is why I’m pleased to see these additional announcements to ensure that NVIT has the resources necessary to expand critical skills programming on their campuses and meet the needs of aboriginal learners through mobile trades training units, bringing the classroom to students right in their home communities. When the demand increases for skilled labour, NVIT will play a key role in training the skilled labour and talent that will be needed to build the LNG industry.

Natural resources and LNG development take place in remote and rural regions of our province. We must en-
[ Page 4576 ]
sure that all British Columbians, urban and rural, benefit from the development of this resource.

Most of the wealth generated in our province comes from the development of natural resources, and communities where this development takes place deserve their fair share of the economic benefits to improve their quality of life. However, a strong collective voice to government policy is needed. That is why our Premier and Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations announced the creation of the rural advisory council, chaired by my colleague the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

This council, announced at UBCM, will ensure that our communities can provide meaningful input to government policy to help our rural communities thrive. This doesn’t mean just jobs. It means consultations and discussions to support our rural communities so they can adequately plan their infrastructure for growth, attract people and encourage small business to move to rural British Columbia.

In my constituency, mining and forestry play a big part in the growth of the communities. However, this growth grew over time. No doubt there was our fair share of difficult years and many stories to reinforce those difficult years. But by planning for growth and looking for new opportunities in tourism, agriculture and trade, our quality of life in Fraser-Nicola is second to none. That is why, with LNG development, we need to ensure that growth is smart and sustainable, ensuring that quality of life for citizens living in rural B.C. continues to increase.

In regards to aboriginals and First Nations, our plan for LNG in B.C. calls for continuous engagement with First Nations and the private sector to ensure that LNG benefits are achieved in communities throughout the province. We can do this by opening up economic agreements, training aboriginal students to gain in-demand skills and supporting aboriginal-owned businesses to gain contracts from LNG proponents through the LNG Buy B.C. program, among other measures.

I am very pleased to have my colleague coming to my riding to share with my constituents the overview of the LNG Buy B.C. program and to invite people in my area to understand the opportunities available to them through the LNG opportunity in the north.

Finally, the B.C. jobs plan, our long-term strategy to create jobs and economic growth, will also play a central part in growing B.C.’s economy going forward by supporting our diversified eight key sectors and supporting the development of LNG. With the B.C. jobs plan celebrating its third anniversary last week, the plan has already seen success and now has a renewed focus to create more jobs and support more B.C. businesses.

As was mentioned earlier by the member for Shuswap, over 50,000 new jobs have been added since 2011. Trade is up, tourism is up, and GDP continues to rise from strong job and foreign investment growth.

[1810]

The new cross-sector priorities will also help refocus the B.C. jobs plan to support small business, international trade and commerce, manufacturing, aboriginal peoples and First Nations as we create jobs in all sectors.

We must seize the opportunity before us. The wealth that can be generated from developing our LNG industry will support our most vulnerable British Columbians through funding of social services and disability support; building and expanding world-class health care facilities and funding doctors and nurses that work in them; hiring teachers and maintaining infrastructure at schools for our children; and expanding post-secondary institutions across British Columbia, among many, many more services that British Columbians depend on every day.

The hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned that we have a great many children living in poverty. That certainly is not the wish of anyone in this House, but I’d like to clarify that since 2003 we have reduced the rate of child poverty by over 41 percent. This is a government that cares. Although our focus is clear, our purpose is that as we develop LNG, we can support those people who are most vulnerable in our society.

At the end of this session proponents will have increased certainty for potential LNG projects. “Ensure fair benefits for British Columbians, establish B.C. as a competitive environment for investment in this key industry and protect our environment.” We will continue to work hard over the coming weeks to bring forward a framework and a plan that will help bring all British Columbians incredible economic growth and opportunity.

I personally will work very hard for the people of Fraser-Nicola to make sure that they understand and take advantage of the opportunities provided by the continued development of LNG, whether that is post-secondary education opportunities, service delivery, jobs or continued support for community services.

I believe that is the job of your local MLA, and it is one I do with a great deal of pleasure. It has been an honour to speak this afternoon to the throne speech. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the House today.

J. Kwan: I rise to respond to the throne speech that was delivered yesterday in this Legislature. I have to note, though, that it was ironic to me that prior to the speech being delivered in this House, gathered in the front of the Legislature building, the people’s House, was a group of people that we as a community, we as British Columbians and as Canadians, recognize as the First Peoples of this land. The aboriginal people were gathered out front.

Why were they there? They were there to make a very poignant statement on this very first day of the Legislature, where the throne speech was to be delivered, which was referenced in terms of the new relationship
[ Page 4577 ]
with aboriginal peoples in the speech. They were there to raise the issue of Grace Islet. They were there to raise that issue. Why? Because Grace Islet is a sacred burial site.

Just imagine for a minute that this is the place where you’ve buried your ancestors — people that you loved, that you honoured, that brought you to this world. You put them there. You buried them there as their resting place. Today, as we speak, that very site, that sacred burial site, is being bulldozed over and being desecrated. The aboriginal community leaders, its members and the community came together to ask for the government to stop this action, to respect those who are there resting in peace and to respect that sacred burial site.

[1815]

As the speech was to be delivered later on in the afternoon, I was there at this rally with a number of my good colleagues. Particularly, I would note that the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, who’s been a strong, strong advocate on this issue, was out front standing with them for the call to protect Grace Islet. I did not see one government MLA, let alone the Premier, show up.

Now, Grace Islet is an interesting thing. Why do I mention it, and why is it relevant to the throne speech? I’ll tell you why it is relevant to the throne speech. The throne speech actually cites the government’s intention to develop a new approach with aboriginal peoples. It actually cites the court decision that was a landmark decision that would change forever, I would anticipate, the way in which all governments deal with aboriginal peoples and their rights and title.

It references that in this throne speech, yet nowhere in the throne speech is there any recognition of this situation of Grace Islet. Nowhere is there any action from the government that would correct this wrong — to allow for a residential development to take place on a burial site. Why is that?

Why is it ironic, to me, as this was happening on the very first day of the Legislature to be regrouping after the summer? It is ironic because this very building, as you know, sits on aboriginal peoples’ land. This House sits on their land.

Surely, if we’re to recognize the court decision around aboriginal land and title, we could recognize the sacredness of burial sites for the elders of the First Peoples and respect their resting place. I was sorely disappointed to see in this throne speech not one mention of this situation and no action taken whatsoever to correct the situation.

I was standing there with my good colleagues supporting the aboriginal people in their call to protect Grace Islet. As the chiefs spoke, the elders spoke, I heard the vice-regal salute, the 15-gun salute, going off in the background, interrupting the speeches, and I thought to myself: “What is wrong with this picture?” I turned around and looked, and there was the red carpet going up the steps of the Legislature, and here we are, standing together with the aboriginal peoples, trying to save a sacred burial site.

I implore the government to not miss this opportunity. There is still the opportunity to correct the wrong. We experienced this in the Lower Mainland with the Musqueam people. After much to-do, protesting and rallies and petitions and negotiations, the situation was resolved. This, too, could be resolved. We missed the opportunity to have it recognized in the throne speech, but it is not too late.

I want to mention that the development that’s taking place on Grace Islet is a violation of the heritage act. I just want to put that on record. It is a violation of an existing piece of legislation in our books. Now, I know that the Minister of Forests has given the developer a change in permit to allow for this development. That said, it is still, as I understand it, a violation of the heritage act.

[1820]

It is not too late, and the matter could be resolved in such a way that shows respect to the aboriginal people, that honours the spirit of the court decision that was handed down not so very long ago.

The Premier says in her throne speech that she will engage in a new way of doing business with the aboriginal peoples, that she will in fact look at the court decision as new opportunities.

I urge the Premier not to do what she always practises, which is to say one thing and then do another. There is an opportunity for her to right this wrong right now, and I would urge her to do exactly that.

Let me just quote from Phil Vernon, from a news article. He said: “Do we really want a monument to greed and folly of the provincial government to not follow its own heritage act here? Or would we rather be known for beginning to build relations with First Nations?” I urge that we follow these words. As so many aboriginal leaders, so many aboriginal elders, so many people in the community have said, this is the right course of action.

Now, aside from this, I want to touch on another issue that’s near and dear to my heart. I looked through the throne speech. The throne speech is supposed to be a document that highlights and puts out, as a blueprint, the direction of the government. I know there’s LNG, and I’m going to turn to that in a minute, but there are other issues that are, in my view, equally important.

For more than 20 years I’ve worked on this. This is the issue that has impacted many lives, most certainly for the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — but not just for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant but across the province of British Columbia and, I would venture to say, outside of British Columbia as well. This is the issue about the missing and murdered women.

Now, we know that there was an inquiry that was completed and recommendations made by Justice Wally Oppal, the former Attorney General in this Legislature. The recommendations…. While some action has been
[ Page 4578 ]
taken, many have not been acted on.

On October 4, on Saturday — late afternoon or, I guess, early evening — the family members of the missing and murdered women held a rally. It was a national day of action on the missing and murdered aboriginal women, where we came together as a community to honour the women who lost their lives, who have gone missing, and to honour the family members and the friends who suffered this incredible, traumatic loss in their lives and to renew our call for action — federally, provincially and municipally.

Of course, the community was calling for a federal inquiry, a national inquiry, and of course, the community wanted to see action followed up with the Oppal Inquiry recommendations as well.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We know that in this Legislature…. We’ve talked about it question period after question period. Questions have been asked, calling for the shuttle bus on Highway 16, calling for action so that we can prevent this kind of tragedy from ever happening again — the worst murder cases in the history of Canada, to prevent that from happening again.

To me, it’s a pretty significant issue. It’s pretty significant, and I think not just for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant but for all of us. I did look to the throne speech with some shred of hope that maybe there would be some mentioning of a recognition from the government that further action would be taken to implement all of the recommendations with regards to the Wally Oppal Inquiry on the missing and murdered women. Again, to my disappointment, it was not even mentioned in this document.

[1825]

Now, I heard the Premier before the election say over and over again how she wanted to prevent this from ever happening again, that it was top of mind for her. Yet here she had another opportunity in her throne speech to highlight that, to make sure that the family members know that it’s not forgotten — that the women are not forgotten and that action will be taken and that shuttle bus will actually take place along Highway 16 so that women can have access to safe transportation in that community.

But it was not there — yet another display of the Premier being very fond of saying one thing but failing again to actually follow up with concrete action. That, to me, was a big, big disappointment with the throne speech.

Madame Speaker, I’m noting the time. I’m getting the stare. I will continue my remarks tomorrow. At this juncture, I would like to reserve my spot to continue the debate tomorrow.

J. Kwan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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