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)

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 4

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

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, I’d like to introduce Erica Mattson and Amy Morris from the SPCA. They, along with a number of other SPCA representatives, are in the precinct today holding meetings. I ask the House to make them all feel welcome.

[1335]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are some of the people that have been building British Columbia for the past number of decades. I would like to introduce representatives from the building trades council who are here with us today. Mark Curtis, a former constituent of mine, is somewhere up here. Give a wave. There he is. Philip Venoit, a current constituent of mine — good to see you; Jim Paquette; James Leland; Jim Pearson; Dave Holmes — four to Dave Holmes; Tony Santavenere; Mark Olsen; Rob Tuzzi — the Bricklayers; Dale Dhillon; Lee Loftus; Brian Cochrane from the Operating Engineers; Chris Feller; Jim Nunn; Richard McTavish; and, of course, the irrepressible Tom Sigurdson.

Would the House make them all very, very welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the gallery this afternoon is the wise governor of the Jiangsu province, from the People’s Republic of China, and a delegation from the Jiangsu provincial government. The Minister of Agriculture and I met the wise governor and the delegation this morning to discuss bilateral relations between the two provinces and to strengthen relations between our governments. We also witnessed the signing of the letter of intent between our two provinces, which will foster future cooperation.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the hon. Governor Xu and the delegation.

C. James: I have two groups visiting us today in the gallery, and I’ll have a little more to say about that later.

First is a group of people from the HeroWork group: Paul Latour, Kent McFadyen, Audrey Mairi, Dave Meade and John Demedeiros. From the Threshold Housing Society group, we have Mark Muldoon, Graham Kelly, Peggy English, Rebekah Humphrey, Shannon Wilcox and Lu Han Bruce.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to join with the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming members of B.C. Building Trades here today. I know they’re meeting with a number of people throughout the course of the day.

It was fantastic to meet with them this morning and learn that their theme, their motto is: “We build B.C.” I assured them that that’s our job too. It was a very productive discussion. We had some fantastic conversations. I want to join with the members opposite in welcoming men and women who, indeed, do build British Columbia.

B. Ralston: With us today in the gallery is Mehmed Hasakovic, who is the president of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Cultural Centre. With him is the Bosnian youth group the Golden Lilies. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Darcy: I am deeply grateful to welcome a dear friend to the House today, a director with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union and a former constituency president of mine, Lynn Bueckert.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to, of course, join my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, in welcoming members of the BCSPCA and add that Geoff Urton is here with them.

Also, I am very excited to welcome parents and students here of Lord Roberts Elementary in the West End: Meri Kate Marcum, Henry and Lydia Marcum, Sarah Dionco and Leiroy Dionco, and, of course, the Dunn family are on their way — Craig, Shanna, Madeline, Cooper.

Welcome to your Legislature, the people’s House.

K. Corrigan: My colleague has already introduced Mehmed Hasakovic. With him today is Eldin Hasakovic and Elvira Hasakovic, who are constituents of mine, as well as — I’m sorry for butchering your names — Emina Mujezinovic and Amela Causevic.

[1340]

I hope the House will make these members of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Cultural Centre and the youth club very welcome yet again.

L. Throness: I’d like to introduce Ken and Joanne Denbock from my riding. They’ve taken a few days away from beautiful Rosedale to come and holiday in beautiful Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce all my constituents who are part of the Bosnia delegation today. As my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake said, I’ll do my best to pronounce their names properly. First of all, Hajrudin Dzebic, Melisa Dubinovic, Larisa Dubinovic, Neira Karic, Merisa Isovic, Sara Selimovic, Amela Causevic, Meliha Isovic, Elvira Dubinovic and
[ Page 4580 ]
Edita Causevic. Please join me to welcome all of them.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce two members from my Port Coquitlam constituency. They’re here as part of the Bosnian community that’s visiting Victoria today. I’ve spent some time in their country before in a number of places, and it’s a beautiful part of the world. We’re glad that they’re visiting us today. They are Lejla Velagic and Dula Velagic. I wish the House to make them most welcome.

There’s one thing I would ask them. If any of them can tell me where to get any kaymak in the Lower Mainland, I’d really appreciate it.

Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Routley: We have with us in the House today several groups from the Shawnigan Lake School. They’re here on a tour with their teacher, Paul Klassen. There are 39 grade 11 students and two adults with them. Will the House please join me and make them feel welcome.

S. Robinson: In the House today we have two of my constituents as well, Magdalena Colakovic and Edvin Colakovic. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Heyman: It gives me pleasure to introduce more guests in the gallery — Kenan Krupic, Anel Hodzic, Sinan Zukanovic, Melissa Dautovic, Armin Delalic, Emir Krupic and Nihad Krupic. Please join me in welcoming them to this chamber.

M. Elmore: In the group I’d also like to welcome Alisa Zukanovic, Amir Bakovic, Hasnija Dautovic and Melina Krupic. Welcome, and I ask everyone to also please give them a warm welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M201 — FALL FIXED ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

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

V. Huntington: I move that the bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2014, be introduced now and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

V. Huntington: This is the sixth session in a row wherein an independent member has introduced a bill to move B.C.’s fixed election date to the fall. When I introduced this bill last spring, it was with the knowledge that there was support for the legislation on both sides of this House.

Since that time, however, I have been informed that now is not the time to move the fixed election date, because the budget plays an important role in the election debate as a statement of where government plans to take the province.

I was told that the quarterly reports let taxpayers know if the budget is on track. But quarterly reports are not issued before our spring elections, which is precisely the point of this bill. A spring election makes a proper budget cycle impossible. The budget is not fully debated in the House, and the voter never sees a quarterly report. There are no audited financial statements. There is no spending authority for ministries.

The federal government and eight other provinces have adopted fixed fall election dates. Voters go to the polls knowing whether government can deliver its vision and knowing that government business will not be interrupted by an election.

[1345]

In B.C., however, the perception persists that an election-year budget is nothing more than a political tool and not the important, legitimate document that the voter has a right to see. British Columbians deserve better from their leaders.

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

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

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WILLISTON RESERVOIR TROUT FISHERY

M. Morris: I would like to speak today about one of the many long-term benefits of hydroelectric reservoirs, using Williston Lake as an example. Williston reservoir is the largest reservoir in B.C., with a surface area of 1,773 square kilometres, an area equivalent to over 60 percent of the area covered by the greater Vancouver regional district. The controlling structure for the Williston reservoir is the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

Sustaining and promoting a trophy lake trout fishery in Williston reservoir is a unique opportunity to meet conservation and tourism-related goals consistent with the goals of local communities. Increased tourism revenue attributed to destination trophy lake trout fishing is important to the economic diversification of northern resource-based communities.

In the 1990s the Peace-Williston fish and wildlife compensation program made huge efforts to establish
[ Page 4581 ]
a stocking program, releasing approximately 2.4 million kokanee to supplement native stocks and develop Williston reservoir as a kokanee sport fishery. Kokanee are not only popular with anglers throughout the province; they are also an important food source for all of Williston reservoir’s trout species. The angling public is very interested in a promising trophy lake trout fishery. Williston reservoir’s Parsnip Reach supports a lake trout fishery with high catch rates, with many fish weighing between ten and 20 pounds.

This resource serves as an example of economic diversification to support rural resource-based communities. Williston reservoir lake trout fishery, recreational facilities and local fishing derbies attract visitors from all regions of B.C., other Canadian provinces as well as international travellers. Come visit Mackenzie and the Williston reservoir, and bring your fishing rod.

THRESHOLD HOUSING SOCIETY
YOUTH HOUSING PROJECT IN VICTORIA

C. James: When an anonymous donor gifted a fourplex to the Threshold Housing Society this summer, it opened a door to help young people at risk of being homeless. The property will be used to increase units in the society’s safe housing for youth program. The building is located in the South Jubilee area of my constituency, and the project was endorsed and supported by the South Jubilee Neighbourhood Association.

Work renovating the property was completed over the last three weekends by HeroWork, a volunteer program that organizes a modern-day version of old-fashioned barn raisings. They’ve done everything from a backyard garden makeover for a community member with MS to the recent Mustard Seed renovation.

They called this project a HeroWork radical reno, and it’s quite the makeover. Hundreds of people pitched in, donating dollars, contracting services, helping hammer and clean and haul and providing supplies like flooring and plywood and concrete. Each apartment space in the building was decorated and furnished by a different local designer, creating an inviting home and environment for youth.

This project is critical to our community. Because of a shortage of housing, the Threshold Society turns down three out of four youth who need a place to stay. They have a current referral list of 147 youth in need. This building, with its great proximity to transit, will provide transitional housing for up to eight vulnerable youth at a time.

Thank you to the anonymous donor who so generously stepped up to make a difference and to start something extraordinary. Congratulations and a huge thank you to the incredible team of professionals and volunteers who made this happen. This project shows what a difference dedicated individuals and organizations can make, and I’m sure it’s going to inspire others to step up and impact positive change as well.

MILAN ILICH PAVILION
AT RICHMOND HOSPITAL

J. Yap: I am pleased to talk about the newly named Milan Ilich Pavilion in Richmond Hospital. Madame Speaker will recall recently attending the naming ceremony along with the Minister of International Trade and myself.

A few years ago I shared with this House the story of Milan Ilich, one of Richmond’s greatest philanthropists. Milan had dedicated most of his life as a developer in the city of Richmond. He was also involved in many endeavours, including sports, charitable and community services. For eight years he was the owner of the Vancouver 86ers professional soccer team and also a founding co-owner of the WHL Vancouver Giants.

[1350]

Terra Nova, a major community located in northwest Richmond, was developed by Milan’s company and included innovations for the time, including a child care facility and affordable housing amenities. Milan also took a lead role in establishing a vital community services facility in Richmond called the Caring Place, and he inspired many local businesses to also show their support.

Milan’s wife, Maureen, has also contributed generously to the community. The Milan and Maureen Ilich Foundation has donated money generously to many charitable organizations throughout the years, including more than $10 million to the Richmond Hospital. The Milan Ilich Pavilion includes a beautifully redesigned atrium with new, comfortable furniture, a new patient and family resource centre, a new spiritual sanctuary, and a quiet room for private family meetings which serve patients and their families in a more comfortable and caring manner.

It’s fitting that this revitalized Richmond Hospital pavilion is named to honour the life and legacy of Milan Ilich, a great example of how we can all share our success, help others and improve the quality of life by giving back to community.

BEV PARNHAM AND TED LEWIS

C. Trevena: As people put their papers in to run for the municipal elections, I’d like to recognize two individuals who put their communities first but, sadly, died well before their time. Mayor Bev Parnham of Port Hardy died at the end of May. Ted Lewis, the mayor of Zeballos, died in August. Both put politics to one side and worked with those who wanted to work for their communities.

In this last term alone, Bev Parnham fought to improve health care in the north Island. She lobbied for broadband Internet. She stood up to try to save the ferry run
[ Page 4582 ]
that runs from Port Hardy to the central coast and Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. And she was not afraid to quote and use for leverage the sad health outcomes, statistics which put the area among the poorest in the province.

She was respected across the community and among her peers. She never sought the spotlight but as mayor was a true, good-humoured team player. She mentored the young and supported the old.

Ted Lewis moved to Zeballos just ten years ago. He said he fell in love with the village within the first 20 minutes and chose to show his love for his community by running for mayor. His affection for and pride in the village was infectious. He’d always encourage visitors to stay awhile and think about moving there.

He was also impressive in working with those people who’ve always lived in that part of Nootka Sound, the First Nations — the Hupacasath and the Nuu-chah-nulth. His approach was on-the-ground inclusiveness.

His ideas for economic development, his determination to get the 42-kilometre logging road approach to Zeballos upgraded, his push for services and his strong voice for this smallest of communities never overshadowed his humour and his goodwill.

Others will, of course, run for the jobs of mayor in both communities, but both communities are individually better for the commitment from Bev and from Ted. They’ve left us missing their presence at the table and their insights, as well as their laughter.

CHILLIWACK CORN MAZE

J. Martin: As we know, my constituency is in the heart of the Fraser Valley, the breadbasket of this wonderful province. In Chilliwack we are privileged to have a diverse and strong agricultural component to the local economy, but we also ensure that we support our agritourism industry. A number of businesses have been established and have grown over the years, which help educate young people on traditional and emerging farm practices, teaching families where their food comes from and how it gets from field to fork.

The original Chilliwack Corn Maze does just that. Diane and John Bruinsma and their family work hard every year to create the best possible experience for families to enjoy in the community of Greendale. With this being October, the pumpkin patch is also thriving. Right now families can have a great farm experience on a weekend by going out to the pumpkin patch, getting lost in the corn maze, and enjoying the many other fun and affordable games and activities provided at the farm.

Diane and John understand the importance of promoting our agricultural economy and getting involved in various organizations within the city and province to enhance the industry. Encouraging others to learn more about this important basis of our lifestyle is crucial. I’d like to congratulate the Chilliwack Corn Maze on working together with various partners, such as the 40th anniversary of the University of the Fraser Valley, to grow the agritourism industry in the province.

[1355]

Locally owned small businesses nearby produce honey, vegetables, poultry and many artisan gifts. I would encourage everybody and anyone who might be passing through the No. 1 this weekend to stop off in Chilliwack for a great farm experience at the Chilliwack Corn Maze.

JIM DEVA

S. Chandra Herbert: When I got the call, I was hit hard. A man I always knew as an unstoppable force of nature for all that is good in the world was no longer in this world. Jim Deva had died. It’s been hard to process the loss of a man who was always a pillar of strength in times of pain, a man who did what he had to do to allow us all to love freely, to embrace sexuality without hiding it, to fight censorship, and to fight for free speech and equality.

Jim and his partner, Bruce, founded Little Sister’s bookstore in the ’80s, a time when people couldn’t get access to products and books for lesbian, gay, bi and transgender people because of fear and discrimination. In the first few years, indeed, the store was bombed three times because of hatred. But he continued on.

He also had to face a Canadian government keen to ban and censor books being imported for gay and lesbian people. With Janine Fuller, Bruce and a growing community, he fought back all the way to the Supreme Court and won for free speech, won for liberty and won for equality. Jim was vindicated, and Little Sister’s thrived.

It is hard to process the life and the loss of a man so full of life and passion and love, but Jim would not want us to focus just on him. For Jim, it was always about encouraging a community to lead. Indeed, I likely wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for Jim’s encouragement, and so many have similar stories.

If you had a dream, Jim would ask you why you weren’t working hard to achieve it. We all have a life to live. We all have so much to give in this fleeting brief moment in this world. Now is the time to do it.

I will miss you, Jim Deva. I don’t believe you are gone. Jim, thank you for being you, all of you, so we could be all we are. Rest in peace, Jim, and love.

Oral Questions

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON LNG
DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

J. Horgan: No one in this House is better than the Premier at knowing what people want to hear and sounding sincere when she says it. But there’s a lot more than just saying the right things to helping B.C. families in a difficult economy. You have to deliver as well.
[ Page 4583 ]

Three years ago the Premier told B.C. families that she would make B.C. a leader in private sector job creation. Three years later we’re No. 9. When it comes to LNG, three years ago she said we’d create 100,000 jobs, we’d eliminate the debt and we’d eliminate the sales tax. And where are we today? A throne speech two days ago that made no mention of the debt, made no mention of a prosperity fund, made no mention of eliminating the sales tax.

So when it comes to LNG — to the Premier — how can families take her seriously when she’s put British Columbians right where Petronas wants us? What can she say to British Columbians when she can’t deliver a tax bill to this House because Petronas hasn’t written it yet?

Hon. C. Clark: We are currently in negotiations with Petronas and a number of other companies with whom we’re working on their project development agreements. Those project development agreements will determine the next step and will help companies decide if they want to move to a final investment decision. Petronas, Shell, Woodfibre and other companies — we’re working with them all.

I should say that all of the LNG companies in British Columbia will be expected to live up to the five conditions. The five conditions are this. You have to pass your environmental review. There has to be the best environmental protection on land and on water. There has to be First Nations involvement, and there has to be significant economic benefit for British Columbia.

[1400]

We are currently in negotiation, and we are going to deliver on these outcomes for the people of this province.

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

J. Horgan: Again, no prosperity fund, no debt-free B.C., no end to the sales tax — just more talk, more talk.

The Premier also talked about opening up new mines. When I became Leader of the Official Opposition, I travelled to Tumbler Ridge. I don’t know if the Premier has been up there lately, but 750 workers — operating engineers and steelworkers — are no longer working in the mining sector in Tumbler Ridge. In fact, by the end of this year the only people working in the mining sector in Tumbler Ridge will be temporary foreign workers that the Premier supported in coming here.

It’s not just the mining sector. The Premier took the photo opportunity to be at a mill in Nanaimo to talk about jobs in the forest sector just before the last election. That very same mill in Nanaimo where the Premier stood and talked about growing the forest economy is shutting down. It’s closing.

My question to the Premier is…. You were there before the election with what you thought people wanted to hear. Will you go there today to that shuttered mill in Nanaimo and tell those workers what the plan is for them?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me say this first. In the course of working to create a brand-new industry in British Columbia, we are focused on making sure that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs. That is what the skills-for-jobs blueprint is all about.

I would remind the member that many of the folks who are in the gallery that they took the time to introduce today might be among them. Many people who come to this country seeking better opportunities decide to stay and, just like our forbearers, work shoulder to shoulder to build this country. They were once foreign, and now they are Canadians.

Third, I’ll say this. We are currently in negotiation with a number of companies to try and land these deals. There are 15 companies who have expressed interest in being in British Columbia. Not all of them will succeed, but many of them will, because we are good at negotiating.

We’ve negotiated with 200,000 public sector workers. We negotiated an agreement with the teachers union that the opposition said we would never, ever achieve. Now, I’m sure that the next question from the Leader of the Opposition will be: why do you negotiate when you could have binding arbitration? But I’ll tell him this: we’re good at it, we’re going to get it done, and we are going to land these deals.

Madame Speaker: And through the Chair, Leader of the Opposition.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, she knows what to say, because that’s what she thinks people want to hear.

I asked her a question about mining and forestry, as mining executives and forestry executives and mine workers and forest workers have been doing for the past 18 months. What did they get back? Liquefied natural gas. There’s something else in British Columbia that’s driving the economy. It’s traditional industries that you’ve ignored at the expense of just one — just one pipedream.

TAILINGS POND BREACH
AT MOUNT POLLEY MINE

J. Horgan: I have many questions, but I don’t know when I’ll see the Premier again, so I’ll focus this time on Mount Polley. On August 4, 25 metric litres of toxic tailings left the tailings pond at the Mount Polley facility and went into the pristine watershed of the Quesnel Lake district. I immediately went to the region. I talked to people, I talked to workers, I talked to businesses, and a few days later the Premier arrived with the cameras. She came and met a woman named Peggy Zorn.

Peggy Zorn has been running a tourism operation on Quesnel Lake for decades. The Premier clasped Peggy
[ Page 4584 ]
Zorn’s hand, and she looked her in the eyes and said, “I’ll stand with you shoulder to shoulder till we get this lake cleaned up,” and then she left and didn’t come back.

[1405]

The future at Mount Polley for steelworkers, the future at Mount Polley for residents and the future at Mount Polley for tourism operators is as cloudy as the toxic plume that is at Peggy Zorn’s watershed.

Will the Premier put the words aside? Don’t say what people want to hear; do what they need. Back up the people in Likely, get up there and get boots on the ground, and fix the biggest environmental disaster we have seen in my lifetime.

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start, again, in this House by offering our condolences from every single member and every other British Columbian for what has happened to the people of the region and the people of Likely. It is a terrible environmental tragedy, and we are doing everything we can to stand with the community and work with them to ensure that they find their way back to their feet and making sure that all of the environmental impacts of it are mitigated.

Then second, let me say this, because the member has gotten up on three questions and talked about the economy. He’s talked about how we need to say what we mean. Well, I can tell you this. He gets up and he talks about how he supports resource industries, forestry, mining, natural gas. That’s what he says. But it’s not true, because what he does is all about “no.”

What he does on natural gas is all about a moratorium on extracting it. It’s all about stopping it from getting to the coast. It’s all about stopping the shipments from going off across the ocean. It’s all about making sure there’s a regime in British Columbia that is so hostile to resource industries that not only would those industries find themselves in trouble, but more importantly, all of those families that depend on them would find themselves in trouble.

If you want to walk the talk and you say you believe in resource industries, the answer sometimes has to be yes.

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON LNG
AND NEGOTIATIONS ON LNG DEVELOPMENT

B. Ralston: The Premier promised that LNG would wipe out the province’s debt, B.C. Ferries’ debt, B.C. Hydro debt and do away with the PST forever. But all of that is slipping away as potential LNG developers use her grandiose promises against her in the negotiations she referred to, threatening to bail if they don’t get exactly what they want.

The Premier said: “We have to land that tax at the right spot that’s economic for the investors.” Translated, that means she’s going to drop the tax rate even if it means revenue to the province is barely enough to keep the lights on.

Will the Premier admit that her pre-election promises won’t happen and that they have hurt B.C.’s bargaining position in the negotiations she referred to?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working very hard in the course of this negotiation with all of the companies. As I said, there are about 15 in the race. We’re working with all of them. Some of them are farther advanced than others to make this investment in British Columbia, but we are working with all of them.

Not all of those investments will be realized. The commitment we’ve made is that we want to see five LNG facilities up and running in British Columbia. We are working every day to make sure we get there. That means ensuring that they adhere to the five conditions, ensuring that British Columbians get real benefit from the resource that they own, ensuring that the regime works for investors so that the investors will come and ensuring that our environment is protected.

We are working very hard to make this happen. We are good at negotiating. We have a proven record of negotiating agreements at the table, even when the opposition said that it was absolutely impossible. We are going to continue to do that. I promise the member that we are going to reach those goals that we’ve set. We are going to reach them because we’re going to negotiate hard, we’re going to work hard, we’re going to be focused, and we’re going to be fair.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It’s very difficult to take the Premier at her word, especially when it comes to her far-fetched, pre-election LNG promises. She talked about a race. The tax framework was promised by the end of 2013. It still isn’t here. When it finally arrives, she said it’s going to be lower than the government originally signalled last spring. A couple of companies have walked away — Suncor and Apache — and Petronas is now threatening to do the same thing unless they get a tax framework low enough that will surely mean the Premier’s revenue promises are shattered forever.

Will the Premier admit that her specific pre-election promises will never happen and that she sold B.C. citizens down the river?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member should wait a moment before he puts on his party hat and starts singing: “Guess what. They failed. Guess what. The economy failed. Guess what. We weren’t able to create these jobs for British Columbians.”

For heaven’s sake, we should all in this House be working toward a similar goal, and that is a better future for
[ Page 4585 ]
British Columbia families. But I only take his words of advice…. I do take them with a grain of salt.

This is, after all, the same member who said we couldn’t balance the budget once. He said we couldn’t balance the budget twice. He said we couldn’t negotiate agreements with the public sector. He said we had to go to binding arbitration, run the white flag up the pole, before we could get to an agreement with the teachers. He has been wrong on every single one of those pronouncements, and he’ll be wrong on this one too.

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON
FOREST AND MINING INDUSTRIES

C. James: I heard the Premier’s words again say that British Columbians should benefit from our resources, so let’s take a look at forestry for a minute. In 2011 the Premier did a photo op at the opening of the Kitwanga sawmill in the northwest. The mill later shut down with logs that could have fed the mill being bound for export. Also in 2011, the Premier did another photo op at Western Forest Products in Nanaimo. Yesterday we heard that that mill is being shut down with logs that could have fed that mill also bound for export.

When the Premier talks about forestry, she talks about the value of exports, but according to respected natural resources professor George Hoberg, the number of jobs in forestry is down 40 percent under the Liberals.

My question is to the Premier. When will she stop with the photo op politics and get on with the real business of creating jobs for British Columbians with a resource that belongs to all British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: I have to admit I’m a little taken aback at the member’s line of questioning today.

In forestry, the number of workers has increased by 13 percent — 58,200 people working in B.C.’s forest sector in 2013. Softwood lumber exports to China reached $1.4 billion. The forest product exports in 2013 were up 53 percent, and they now constitute 33 percent of B.C.’s total exports. We have increased, by the way, I should say on China, the amount that we export by 3,300 percent since her party was last in power.

Forestry is doing well in British Columbia. We have diversified markets. We worked hard to make sure that those markets happened. The forest industry and forest workers have worked hard to make sure that we have one of the most competitive, sustainable industries you will find anywhere on the globe.

[1415]

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I would say to the Premier that exporting raw logs is not sustainable. It does not provide sustainable forestry. I haven’t seen the Premier back in Kitwanga. I haven’t seen the Premier in Nanaimo at Western Forest Products, back for the photo op in front of all the workers who have lost their jobs.

Here’s another promise that the Premier made that — surprise, surprise — didn’t make it into the throne speech this week. The Premier promised eight new mines and nine expanded mines by 2015. Well, 2015 is three months away. We’ve seen three mines close in the northeast just since the spring, nearly 1,000 jobs lost in Tumbler Ridge alone — Wolverine, Trend and Brule mines, all closed.

The Premier is good at saying what she thinks people want to hear, but she doesn’t deliver. My question to the Premier: has she abandoned mining, or is she content to let the only jobs in mining go to temporary foreign workers?

Hon. C. Clark: A forest industry that was close to bankrupt after the last NDP government, a mining industry that existed in the most hostile environment in North America when the NDP last left government, a party that opposes every aspect of extracting and exporting natural gas to Asia, and now the member is on to mining.

I hope the member can answer this question for me. Fifteen new and expanded mines in the province — we are extremely supportive of that. We are working very hard to try and make sure…. I hope the member can stand up and tell us which mines she’s in favour of.

Is she in favour of the Ajax mine? Is she in favour of the northwest transmission line? Is she in favour of any of the things that the government has done, any of the investments that the government has made to try and expand the mining business? Every single….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I think, as the Minister of Finance says, we’ve hit a mining vein here with the opposition, quite clearly.

The tragedy of this discussion in the House is this: that the members stand up and they say that they support resource development at a very high level. They say it every day, and they think that that’s going to convince people.

But when it comes down to the details of what’s actually happening on the ground, when it comes down to actually supporting things project by project, when it comes down to supporting things like the northwest transmission line and other investments that government is making and that are crucial to growing our economy, every single time they stand up and they oppose it. That will not grow the economy.

We on this side of the House want to grow the econ-
[ Page 4586 ]
omy. The 15 new and expanded mines will support thousands of jobs all across the province. An LNG industry will support thousands of jobs, supporting our forest industry to expand markets in Asia — again, work we’re doing every single day. It’s all about the difference between us and them. They’re all about no; we’re all about yes.

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON JOB CREATION

S. Simpson: Stats Canada tells us that B.C. has the second-worst record on private sector job growth in this country, despite the Premier’s promises on September 11 that we would lead the country in private sector job growth. I assume that’s what the Premier means when she calls for people to walk the talk. That’s that job loss. That’s what she means.

Now in the throne speech we’ve seen the Premier run away from the claim of 100,000 jobs for British Columbians in LNG. In fact, the government is signing deals with China that will increase the number of temporary foreign workers working in that sector. What we know now is that none of the Premier’s claims around jobs are founded in fact — not one of her claims.

Why should British Columbians have any confidence in the Premier’s claims that jobs will be for British Columbians when the record is so, so dismal with this government?

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the picture that the member paints is obviously very, very bleak and, of course, one that comes from someone who’s affiliated with a party that had the highest income taxes in Canada, made British Columbia a have-not province, made B.C. last in job growth in Canada for five years straight, made us last in private sector investment in Canada.

Here on this side of the House we have worked very hard to create a different future for the province. That’s meant that minimum wage has increased, that earnings have gone up. It’s meant that unemployment has gone down. We are lower than the rest of the country. We are doing well in British Columbia in job growth, but we need to do better.

Doing better means planning, it means sticking to your plan with real determination, and it means making sure that you deliver on the steps of that plan that will get you to job growth.

When I say we want to support an LNG industry, what I mean is we need to support all the steps along the way that will get us there to make it happen — not trying to step on all the opportunities along the way. It’s a little rich to stand here and listen to the NDP, who oppose every single proposal for economic development, and hear them say they’re worried about slow economic growth.

We are concerned about that. The difference between us and them is we’re doing something about it.

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH
AND ROLE OF RCMP

J. Darcy: Yesterday in this House we asked the Health Minister about the status of government’s investigation into the fired health researchers. The minister dodged the question and then told reporters that “there was no call to the RCMP to take action.” However, according to the government’s own September 6, 2012, press release, his ministry asked the RCMP to investigate.

To be clear, not only did the ministry call the RCMP; it announced it was doing so in a press release sent to every media outlet in the province, a press release issued after a deliberate media leak, a press release that to this day remains on the government’s website.

To the Premier, will she finally do the right thing, call the RCMP and tell them that the government was wrong to suggest that they needed to investigate these dedicated public servants?

Hon. T. Lake: To the members opposite and to remind everyone in this House: 2½ years ago the private, confidential health information of more than 30,000 British Columbians was compromised. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner did an investigation. From Ms. Denham’s report: “Unencrypted portable storage devices were used in all three disclosures. Governmentwide policy on use of portable storage devices states that they must be encrypted.” Ministry employees downloaded “large amounts of personal health data onto unencrypted flash drives” and shared it “with unauthorized persons.”

The now Leader of the Opposition expressed concern about the seriousness of this breach of information — as he should, as we did. There was a breach of confidential health information. The RCMP were made aware of the investigation that the ministry was doing at the time. It is up to the RCMP to decide whether or not to take that up with a criminal investigation. That is their purview, and that’s where we believe it is appropriate to leave it.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Well, let’s just be clear that the minister has not answered the question directed to the Premier. The minister said yesterday that, in fact, the RCMP had not been asked to investigate by this government, and in fact they were. So it’s still up to the minister or the Premier to answer that question.

[1425]

Maybe the government can get this question right. Yesterday also, when asked whether Marcia McNeil would be investigating the past actions of the Premier, of John Dyble, of Athana Mentzelopoulos and of former
[ Page 4587 ]
cabinet ministers in these firings, the Health Minister said: “This review 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.” In other words, yes.

To the Premier, can she confirm for this House that she has made an appointment to be interviewed by Ms. McNeil, and can she confirm that she has instructed her subordinates John Dyble and Athana Mentzelopoulos to do the same?

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, this is not a process that is directed by an elected official. It is a process directed by the head of the Public Service Agency, Ms. Tarras. I’m advised that it is not a judicial or quasi-judicial process, but I’m also advised that Ms. McNeil is authorized, through the terms of reference, to interview anyone she deems appropriate.

I can assure this House that those working for the provincial government will be expected to cooperate with this review, which we expect to be completed by the end of the month.

A. Dix: A question to the Premier. This matter…. Her minister yesterday said that the decision to fire these public servants was the result of heavy-handed decisions and a rush to judgment. The Premier is ultimately responsible. Her deputy is head of the public service. She’s responsible for him in this House. The head of the Public Service Agency and the then Deputy Minister of Health were the key people involved in this decision.

The government claims its review of this matter ended in 2013. It claimed on Friday, in fact, that Mr. Brown’s review had ended and the investigation ended in 2013.

Given that the government smeared these people through a leak about an investigation to the RCMP, has the Premier — the person in this House responsible for the public service, whose deputy is responsible for the public service — ensured the RCMP received that report so that people who were smeared could somehow be unsmeared?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me again reiterate on behalf of the government and myself our deepest, heartfelt sympathy and apology to Linda Kayfish and her family. It is a terrible, tragic loss to lose anyone to suicide. In these circumstances, it was very appropriate that government apologize for what the Health Minister I think appropriately characterized as very heavy-handed actions. I’m glad that we were able to do so, and I’m very grateful, as well, that Ms. Kayfish has accepted those apologies as graciously as she has.

But this is also a matter where there was a very serious breach of the public’s privacy. Over 30,000 records were downloaded unencrypted to mobile devices. That’s something that the government takes very, very seriously, because people trust us with their privacy and with their information.

This review is going to be complete at the end of October. It is being directed by the public service. The terms of reference have been written by the head of the Public Service Agency, Lynda Tarras, and I have no doubt that it will be conducted thoroughly.

As the Health Minister said, the investigator has full authority to speak with anyone that she wants in the government. I have directed all members of the government, and this certainly includes myself, to speak to her if requested. I have full confidence, as well, that people who once worked for government who no longer do will also make sure that they participate, cooperate and speak with her.

It’s important that this review be thorough. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it, and that is what, by the end of October, we hope we’re able to do.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Ralston: I table a petition signed by over 1,000 people, largely in Surrey, asking the B.C. government to follow the compassionate example of the Ontario government and bring seriously injured children from Gaza to B.C. hospitals for treatment.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

J. Kwan: I continue my debate in the response to the throne speech.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The other issue that I want to highlight around the throne speech, of course, is something that this House worked on prior to us recessing for the summer. In this House we collectively made an apology to the Chinese community for historical wrongs. The very many years of historical wrongs, actions, policies, legislation enacted that was discriminatory towards the Chinese community were finally recognized in this House.

At the time, the Minister for Multiculturalism also said that the government was committed to bringing forward a series of legacy projects as part of the apology. I was looking to the throne speech in terms of the government’s commitment around these legacy projects,
[ Page 4588 ]
because what the minister released a couple of weeks ago around the legacy projects, in my view, is wholly insufficient.

I think it is very important — very important — to do the work that we need to do to ensure that those legacy projects come to their completion — not just talk about it, not just indicate that we would do something and then not really follow up.

The reason why I say that the Minister for Multiculturalism’s plan is deficient is severalfold. Let me start with this issue. The legacy projects — there were eight items that the Minister for Multiculturalism had identified. In these eight items, the government had allocated a very meagre budget to materializing these legacy initiatives. The meagre budget is meant to complete these eight items.

It is my belief, and many people in the community share this belief with me as well, that the budget that the minister had allocated is insufficient. The $1 million in getting these legacy projects done is completely insufficient. If the legacy projects do not have the funds to proceed beyond their initial planning phase, then these projects would not be completed and the apology, quite frankly, would be meaningless.

If the government wants to ensure that the projects are a success, they need to indicate, I think first in the throne speech, a sincerity in ensuring that these legacy projects come to fruition and then to follow up with that in the budget in February with moneys allocated beyond this initial phase to ensure that the legacy projects are completed.

Now, the opposition has indicated to the minister and to the government at all times that we are more than willing and ready and able to help, to work, to ensure that these legacy projects are completed to their fruition.

Now, I note also that the document that the Minister for Multiculturalism had released says: “Chinese Historical Wrongs Legacy Initiative.” That’s the title that the minister adopted for her legacy projects. The title in itself, in my view, is completely inappropriate.

[1435]

The phrase itself makes you believe that it is the Chinese community who had done the historical wrongs, as opposed to the community who received policies and had to face policies and endure policies and legislation that had done them wrong. Even in this work it shows, I think, the sloppiness, unfortunately, of the follow-up from the apology that came out of this House on that momentous day when the motion was passed unanimously.

The opposition had also submitted three names for the Minister for Multiculturalism to consider for the advisory committee to ensure that these projects come to fruition and completion. These names are Bill Chu, the Canadians for Reconciliation Society chair…. Bill, as we know, has done much work in the promotion of reconciliation of historical wrongs for both the Chinese community and the aboriginal communities.

He had been a leader on the call for the curriculum changes and historical site preservation. He has successfully led and continues to lead various delegations to visit the various sites as educational tours for both students and adults alike on these different sites throughout British Columbia. He had also led the discussion when the B.C. School Trustees Association adopted a motion to call on the province to adopt curriculum changes to reflect the history of historical wrongs towards the Chinese community.

Bill has done so much work in this regard, and in my view, he would be an excellent candidate for the government to put on the advisory committee to ensure that the legacy projects are done and done correctly and come to their full completion. I hope that the Minister for Multiculturalism will, in fact, choose to have Bill on this committee, who has volunteered his time and effort all these years. In fact, he took an early retirement from his job to embark on this work on behalf of the community.

The other person that the opposition has suggested to the minister to be on the advisory committee is someone that many members in this House already know and also recognize has done tremendous work in our community, and she’s Thekla Lit. Thekla Lit, of course, is the chair of B.C. ALPHA.

Thekla has a wealth of experience and knowledge in working with the ministry staff in the creation of learning resources and educational materials, especially for the Asian holocaust, back in 2001. Those materials were generated from the government support, in partnership with B.C. ALPHA, with Thekla in the lead there on behalf of B.C. ALPHA.

The learning materials that were adopted were not only utilized here in British Columbia in the classrooms, but they were also adopted by other cities, as well, in Canada. In fact, they took British Columbia’s learning materials and devised their own study materials and educational materials and curriculum in other cities across Canada. Thekla, with B.C. ALPHA, took teachers on study tours so that they could learn more about this material and then be able to effectively teach this material in the classrooms.

Thekla has had experience around curriculum changes and resource material development related to these kinds of historical issues. She would be, in my view, a tremendous contribution towards this committee. I hope that the Minister for Multiculturalism will also select Thekla to be on this committee towards the advisory committee for the legacy projects.

Finally, the third name that we submitted for the minister’s consideration is actually somebody from the aboriginal community. We submitted Don Bain, who is the executive director for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, to be on that committee. The reason why we chose somebody from the aboriginal community is that, of course, as we know, when we talk about historical wrongs, the
[ Page 4589 ]
community who’s experienced perhaps the most historical wrongs for the length of time since non-aboriginals came to British Columbia and to Canada would be the aboriginal community.

[1440]

I actually think that Don Bain, in association with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, would have a lot to contribute towards the legacy projects advisory committee. Their long journey on reconciliation and their experiences would also contribute greatly towards this work. We have a lot to learn from the aboriginal community in this regard. There’s no question about that.

I hope that the minister will put Don Bain on this committee. All three candidates will contribute and add much value to this work. I have no doubt in my mind that in their efforts they would be providing the expertise, the experiences and, at the same time, would work hard towards making sure that all of these legacy projects are completed and not just not see it to a finish.

Now, on the legacy projects, though, I do want to highlight a few other things too. One of the items that the minister had identified would be the historical sites and artifacts preservation. The document that the minister put forward talks about surveying the sites and determining their historical significance. There is no question that work needs to be done, and I would say that that’s your first phase of the work. But beyond that, we need to dedicate resources to ensure that the artifacts are found, are actually dug up and preserved and stored so that we can actually showcase the artifacts down the road.

In fact, as the first phase of the work, beyond determining the significance of these sites, I think resources need to be found so that these artifacts can be identified and stored. Then, with a longer-term plan, properly showcase these artifacts for both economic development purposes and for educational use.

I was hoping that maybe the throne speech would have some mention around this vision of where we would go with regards to this. Unfortunately, the throne speech did not provide any information, not a mention of this issue.

The component of the legacy project that I put forward for the minister’s consideration was centred around clan associations. Now, clan associations are, as we know, these old associations that were established by members of the Chinese community. They were established back in the day when there was rampant discrimination and racism and segregation that took place.

Many of these associations were established so that members of the Chinese community would have a place to go for access to housing, for social activities, for meals — all of those things that we now take for granted in our communities. Back in the day those things were not available to members of the Chinese community because of the discriminatory policies that were in place.

The preservation of these clan associations today is very significant. Now, the commitment to say that we would do a feasibility study is an important start and is the first step. But beyond the feasibility study, what else are we going to do?

I was hoping that the throne speech would have some mention in recognition of that, say that there would be efforts made to preserve these clan associations — in some cases to provide dollars to renovate these clan associations, perhaps for housing and for other uses that would be needed in our communities today. Again, unfortunately there is no mention of this in the throne speech.

I was hoping, too, that the government might seize on the opportunity to create partnerships with other levels of government. We know that the city of Vancouver has put some financial support toward clan association preservation projects in the city of Vancouver. Perhaps we can partner up with the city of Vancouver and other municipalities in this regard and also with the federal government, as another means to ensure that the legacy project coming out of the apology motion comes to its full completion.

[1445]

Again, I want to table this for the minister’s consideration. Given it wasn’t recognized in the throne speech, perhaps in the budget coming up in February there will be recognition of this and a budget allocated towards the legacy project.

The education component of the legacy project. I do want to just mention it for a moment. I think it is important to ensure that the learning materials are not just focused on broad statements and federal policies. The reason why, in this very Legislature, it was important for us to make the apology motion was because there were a lot of discriminatory policies and practices and legislation that this very Legislature had embarked on and adopted back in the day. So we need to ensure that that educational material goes beyond the federal policies and is actually made in B.C. and, very specifically, with B.C. materials.

I know that I only have about a minute left now of my time to speak to the throne speech. I’m simply going to wrap with this.

These are all important projects, all important proposals. I was hoping that they would be recognized in the throne speech, and they weren’t. The Premier and the minister talked a lot about it, with a lot of fancy words and a lot of commitments. All of those commitments mean nothing if they’re not followed up with actual actions — and actions that will bring it to its full completion and not just the initial phase and then after it’s all said and done, it’s forgotten.

If that happens, then the faith in this Legislature and in government would be lost by the members of the public. We cannot afford and we cannot allow for that to happen.

I hope that the Premier’s approach of simply saying the right things will be actually followed up with action so that it’s not just empty words that are meaningless, in
[ Page 4590 ]
reality, for members of our community.

With this throne speech, I’m very afraid that that might be the trajectory we are going down. I am raising these issues in this House in response to the throne speech to urge the government to take real action and not just simply offer empty words for members of the community.

M. Dalton: I’m happy to stand in support of the Speech from the Throne.

It’s always appropriate to give a few words of thanks, first of all. I would like to thank my constituents in Maple Ridge and Mission for again re-electing me for a second term to represent them in the Legislature. It’s a tremendous honour, and I’m happy to work within the communities to make a difference.

I do want to say a special thanks to my constituency assistants — Carly Fedyshen, Mark Duyns, Brenda Sieg — also to a new legislative team and, of course, to my lovely Marlene, my wife. The member here always refers to her as the lovely Marlene.

I’ve heard many remarks here from the opposition about just how short the throne speech is. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think the Premier and our government are focused on getting some key legislation in, particularly with regards to the LNG projects.

It’s been criticized as pie in the sky. I respectfully disagree with the opposition. I believe we have a real vision. It’s a quality good leaders have, as far as vision, and it’s being demonstrated by our Premier and our government. We can all think of examples of people who’ve had vision and through perseverance have made their vision…. They’ve overcome the obstacles, whether it be in sports or in business or almost any success story.

One that I can think of offhand is one that transpired just a few years ago. I refer to the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games. That took determination and commitment and quite a bit of time. Now, there were many naysayers, and there was a lot of political opposition. But it was, I must admit, one of the times I’ve been most proud.

[1450]

I’m sure millions of people across Canada and this province felt the same way — most proud to be Canadian. You know, singing O Canada on the street — this is an electrifying experience. I think of the Torch Relay going throughout the province in Maple Ridge and in Mission, thousands attending and showing off our maple leaf mittens.

Jack Poole was one of the people that really pushed this forward, the Olympic Games — the plaza downtown in Vancouver, by the torch, has been named after him — but he died right before the games. It was a vision that was worked on and persevered, and we saw these games accomplished.

It was more than just the great memories we have. We also have tremendous infrastructure projects: the Canada Line; the convention centre — people have criticized that, but it’s brought billions of dollars worth of investment and tourism and conventions into the Lower Mainland, to Vancouver and British Columbia; the Sea to Sky Highway; the Richmond Oval and the Fort St. John oval and other infrastructure projects.

Another example of vision I would like to speak about deals with one of our oldest industries, and that’s forestry. It’s an important economic driver and has been for over a century, a century and a half, throughout B.C., including in Maple Ridge and in Mission. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and myself toured Hammond Cedar. Actually, it’s the largest cedar mill in the world. It’s an Interfor plant in Maple Ridge.

I was just amazed as far as the technology and the complexity, how every single log is X-rayed as it goes through just so they can achieve the best cuts and no waste of the fibre. In Ruskin, also, there have been cedar mills there.

There are 58,000 great-paying jobs in the forestry industry. It adds $5.9 billion to our economy. It’s up 35 percent since the recession in 2009. B.C. is the largest exporter of softwood lumber in the world. We have 110 lumber mills, 27 veneer and plywood and oriented strand board mills, 80 other primary processing plants.

This industry could have been in a lot more dire of a situation today if it wasn’t for vision and perseverance. This would have been the case because of the deep recession that was worldwide, but especially in the United States, which cut deeply into our exports.

The number of housing starts in the States was down to half a million a year from about two million to three million normally, in the past. Compare that to Canada, which has about 200,000 starts with only one-ninth of the population. Our exports to the States have really suffered, impacting the number of people employed in the industry and also just the production, but we’ve been able to grow this industry in the past number of years. That has taken perseverance, and it has taken vision.

As was mentioned by the Premier earlier, in question period, in 2003 softwood lumber into China was $69 million. In the past decade it’s grown to $1.4 billion, or 20 times. That hasn’t just happened. It’s taken trade missions, face-to-face meetings and building trust.

I was speaking a couple of evenings ago, after an event, with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. He told me that the next morning, which was yesterday, he was on his way to China once again to have discussions with people in the industry in China. These are not relaxing trips. These are gruelling trips, but they’re paying dividends in spades. We are benefiting, British Columbians are benefiting, and communities are benefiting.

If I had to choose one word to describe the government’s efforts to grow the economy and create well-paying, rewarding jobs through LNG, it would be “perseverance.” Developing an export industry from the
[ Page 4591 ]
ground up, under the pressure of international competition, is not an easy task. It takes vision. It takes time. Above all, it takes perseverance, no matter how many roadblocks one encounters along the way. I have to give credit to the Premier for her vision and persistence.

The natural gas industry is nothing new in British Columbia. It currently employs about 13,000 employees and generates considerable revenues for the province. Over the past decade, it has paid some $8.6 billion in royalty to the people of British Columbia.

In June I was on a tour, along with other MLAs, of our natural gas sector in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. It was a tremendous eye-opener. I must say, I didn’t really understand the industry prior to going there. I’d read about it, certainly, and was aware of its importance.

[1455]

I wasn’t really aware of fracking. I know that some people get the heebie-jeebies when it’s mentioned, but, actually, it’s a good thing. It’s environmentally safe and has been around B.C. for over 50 years, I believe. They have a zero-spill policy of no water contamination. They’re very careful about this.

I thought essentially that, well, you drilled, you went into pockets where there’s natural gas, and it just kind of came up. That’s not the case. Extraction happens from the rocks or the shale. It’s split up in the ground, and the gas comes from the actual rock.

It’s caused a buzz of activity for a number of years up in that sector, and many young families are there. This revenue that’s been generated has been used to pay for things that matter to people in British Columbia, especially in health care and in education — in Vancouver, in the Fraser Valley, in Victoria and across British Columbia. It helps pay for facilities like the Residence in Mission.

The Residence is a brand-new, 195-bed complex care facility right next to the Mission Memorial Hospital. That’s actually part of the complex. That’s an amazing place. It has amazing staff. It’s segregated, if you want to call it that, into what they call neighbourhoods — just a place where there are relationships. In spite of people suffering from dementia and other challenges, other complex care needs, there’s a community. It’s a great place. It’s cutting edge.

Last year at the same Mission Memorial Hospital site we opened a 27,000 square-foot, $12 million facility for day patients. It has a diabetes centre and a seniors health centre. It’s a real win for Mission residents, Missionites.

There was a lot of concern just a few years back when I first got elected about what would happen to the hospital if it was on the verge of closing down. They were talking about the emergency room at that time that was being looked at and a number of other issues there. It’s so good right now to see that quite the opposite has occurred, that this is a growing facility as far as medical attention. It’s very positive for Mission.

The money has to come from somewhere. The resource sector provides a tremendous amount of revenue that helps cover these costs, but we do have a problem. It is a big problem. That problem is that our primary, and virtually our only, market for natural gas is the United States. Because of fracking, the U.S. is awash in natural gas and, for that matter, oil production. It’s skyrocketing.

As a matter of fact, this year the United States became the world’s number one fossil fuel producer, surpassing Saudi Arabia. U.S. production, our number one producer, our primary market…. They are needing less and less of the very important resource, natural resource — natural gas and oil from Canada.

Domestic prices are flat, and they’re not expected to grow any time soon. We can’t just sit where we’re at, on our laurels, and think things are going to just remain as they are up in the northeast sector and all British Columbia, as far as this industry.

Just a few years ago the province was paying down debt, and we had billions of dollars in surplus. Compare that to now, where we are above water; we are managing a surplus. It’s a tremendous task, and I commend the Minister of Finance and all the ministers for just keeping us on track. It’s tough.

What has been the difference? What has been the difference between just a few years ago and now? I would say that the primary difference is how much revenue that we are receiving from natural gas — the difference of about $3 billion a year.

We have to get other markets. We have to reach other markets where natural gas fetches a higher price because demand for the product is increasing. Specifically, as we know, these markets are found in Asia, with the rising economies of China, India — where the Premier is leaving for tomorrow — South Korea and Japan.

[1500]

That’s why the government has devised a strategy to attract international investment to British Columbia and build the facilities that we need to export natural gas in liquid form. A lot of effort is being put into this, including in this session.

There’s another reason why we have attracted so much attention to this industry. It’s because British Columbia sits on 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that’s known to this date. That’s 12 followed by 11 zeros. That’s enough to supply us domestically for generations and still have plenty left over for export. What customers abroad are looking for is a safe, clean and uninterrupted flow of energy. That’s what British Columbia is offering the world.

I’d like to compare what we have and our ability, our credibility, as opposed to other jurisdictions that have natural gas. One that comes to mind is Russia, which is Europe’s primary source of natural gas. There are a number of European countries, I’m sure, that wish they weren’t so beholden to Russia for their energy supplies. So that will be another market that will be a consideration.
[ Page 4592 ]

The government is committed to providing the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, primarily because we want to preserve and protect B.C.’s pristine environment. That’s a concern also for First Nations, and it’s a concern of government too. As some of you may know, I am Métis. I take significant interest in knowing that First Nations benefit from resource development.

First Nations participation is vital. For one thing, the aboriginal population is the fastest-growing and youngest population in Canada and in British Columbia. There are 200,000 aboriginals in British Columbia, of which about 70,000 are Métis. They live across the province, but the highest ratios are in rural B.C., where most of our resource industry is located. Many First Nation communities and leaders are interested in knowing how they can participate.

I met with a chief this week from the west coast of Vancouver Island who is working along with a company called Steelhead to bring an LNG proposal forward. They’re in the early stages of doing due diligence, but this demonstrates the interest, even among the First Nations communities, to participate in our economy, including the LNG economy.

Recently I also met with a First Nations youth. Well, he’s 27 years old. His name is Patrick. He’s in his mid-20s. He got heavy-duty-operator training with Kiewit when they were involved with building the bridges — the Port Mann Bridge and also the Pitt River Bridge.

Now he’s no longer with Kiewit, and the accountant can’t believe how much he is earning. I’m happy for him, but at the same time I’m a little disappointed in the fact that he’s attaining this wealth by flying to Fort McMurray for ten weeks and then eight weeks back to British Columbia. I’d like to see him. I’m sure he’d rather be working closer to home.

As a matter of fact, there is a very serious LNG project right next to his territory, his community. That’s Woodfibre, near Sechelt. If it gets going, it would just be a short drive from where he lives.

This year the government is targeting an additional $40 million for high-demand occupations and for programs for aboriginal youth — seeing them participate in the economy in these important jobs. We want to see more opportunities for our youth here. Our economy is growing. We have a 5.8 percent unemployment rate, but we want to have the best economy and the most opportunities that we can muster, that we can achieve.

That’s what we’re all here for, as far as MLAs — to see improvements in people’s lives and in the economy so that people can benefit. Yes, there are many detractors who say that British Columbia is just too late, we’ve waited too long and the competition is too great. Mr. Speaker, in the past decade alone the global demand for LNG has doubled worldwide. In the next five years the demand is expected to increase by 50 percent.

By taking advantage of our proximity to Pacific nations, British Columbia has a unique opportunity to develop a resource that will eventually exceed all of our current exports of forest products, minerals and agricultural goods combined. Our B.C. Liberal government wants to do all it can to seize the opportunity. It’s important for all of B.C., and all of B.C. will benefit — including Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, which are growing.

[1505]

Maple Ridge has about 80,000 people, and Mission has 38,000. Just my constituency alone has grown from, in the 2009 election, about 50,000 to now, last year, 58,500. So there’s great growth, and it’s a very desirable place to live. Maple Ridge and Mission are affordable and provide us direct access to world-class recreational opportunities. Think of Golden Ears Park, which is in the neighbourhood, and wilderness. It’s just a beautiful area.

I actually, a couple of weeks ago, had some neighbours that moved in next door, and my wife and I went over just to introduce ourselves. Their names are Mark — that’s a name I won’t forget — and Jennifer. I asked where they were from. They’re from South Carolina. “Okay, what brings you to Maple Ridge?”

They said they were in a position to go anywhere they wanted to, to set up a business, to live or for quality of life. They said: “You know, we looked everywhere, and we felt that it was this area right here — Maple Ridge specifically — because of the cost of housing and also just the opportunities in this area.”

I think that’s great. That’s something that’s right next door to me. I think that’s what we want to see. We want to see people moving in and establishing themselves. We have just a great province to live in that we’re all proud to be in.

People have been choosing British Columbia for generations. Maple Ridge actually just celebrated its 140th anniversary. It’s the seventh-oldest community. In August my caucus colleagues came and the Premier came to announce that the district of Maple Ridge would be changing its designation from a municipality to a city — B.C.’s 50th city. This designation recognizes the coming of age for Maple Ridge.

We’ll never leave our rural, agricultural heritage. This is my backyard. I’m not on the outskirts of town, but we have bears that just march by our backyard, and raccoons and deer and elk have actually started to come into the community. I hear even the grizzlies are starting to move more down this direction.

Maple Ridge and Mission are strong and vibrant because of their people — people like Val Hundert and Marco Terwiel, both strong community volunteers but who passed away. They made a tremendous contribution to the life of our communities, and they’ll be sadly missed.

Municipal elections are coming. I want to thank the mayors, Ernie Daykin of Maple Ridge and Ted Adlem, for their work, and also their council members. There are several of them that will not be seeking re-election:
[ Page 4593 ]
Cheryl Ashlie, Judy Dueck and Nelson Tilbury. I do appreciate their efforts, and I do look forward to working with the new mayors and council over the next term after the elections.

C. James: I’m pleased to rise with my response to the throne speech, which is a rare thing in the fall here in my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill. As people know, I have the luxury when the House is sitting to be able to walk back and forth to work each day. But I also have the luxury of being able to stay completely connected to my community each and every day as people stop me on the way to work and on the way home to talk about the issues going on in the community. It is a privilege to be able to do that and to be able to have that strong connection.

I also know that there’s a great deal of discussion about whether the Legislature sits or doesn’t sit in the community of Victoria. I think certainly the public expects that we will take our time, that we will look at the legislative calendar and that we will meet in this place as an accountability to them, the public — an accountability not simply for government but for government and opposition, an opportunity for the public to be able to have that accountability from their elected representatives.

I think for the public, knowing there was going to be a sitting, a rare sitting, here in the fall and then hearing that there was going to be a throne speech — which, again, is even rarer…. A fall session is rare to begin with, but to have a throne speech in the fall is also rare.

[1510]

What the throne speech does for the public is build up expectations. When the public hears there’s going to be a throne speech, the public expects that that throne speech is going to have things in it, that there’s going to be an issue addressed, that the government is going to respect and see the challenges that British Columbians are facing, that the throne speech will lay out a government direction, that a throne speech will lay out a government’s priorities.

A throne speech, most of the public expects, will speak to the challenges, as well as the opportunities, that are faced by our province and the people of this province. I’ve been in this Legislature now almost ten years, and I’ve heard a lot of throne speeches. I’ve heard throne speeches with lots of promises. I’ve heard the great golden goals. I think that was kind of the theme in the beginning when we first came into the Legislature in 2005.

I heard a lot about the most literate jurisdiction in the world. I heard a lot about big global kinds of great goals and commitments. But I have to say that this throne speech really does stand out in the midst of all of those throne speeches. It stands out for its emptiness and lack of goals, for its lack of focus on the issues that are facing families and individuals all around our province.

I think that really says something about a government and a Premier, when we’re already a year and a half into the government’s term. When they have an opportunity — when the public is watching, when the press are watching — through the Legislature to bring forward a throne speech and talk about all the priorities and to acknowledge and recognize the challenges faced by families in British Columbia, they don’t do that. That throne speech didn’t do any of that, and I’ll get a little bit into the specifics as we go along.

There’s no question that, to me, this throne speech certainly spoke to the government being completely out of touch with the reality that families and individuals in British Columbia are facing. But I actually believe that it’s more than that. It’s more than just being out of touch with the reality that individuals are facing. I believe that when the Premier and this government stand up and make grandiose promises about things that they’re going to do…. That’s what we’ve seen. That is really what the Premier is about.

They make grandiose promises to the public, and then they go off and do what they want themselves. They say one thing to the public when they think the public wants to hear it, and then they go off and do whatever they want to do. They’re breaking a fundamental trust with the public. I know there’s a lot of cynicism about politics. People don’t trust politicians. It is something….

People think every politician is the same. “None of them listen to us.” None of them do the kinds of things that they want to do. From the public’s perspective, when they see a Premier and a government stand up and make big, grandiose promises and then they’re completely gone a year and a half later when the throne speech comes forward, it’s no surprise to anybody that you see that kind of cynicism out there and that you see that people believe they can’t trust the people they vote for.

It’s the worst of the worst of politics. To me — I get angry about that, because I truly believe that being a politician is about public service. It’s about giving back to your community. It’s about providing your time and your energy and your commitment to the public who voted for you.

That doesn’t mean that we’re always going to agree. That doesn’t mean that everybody in a community is going to say that you as a politician are going in the right direction. But what it does mean is that you have the courage of your convictions — when you say something to follow through on it — and stand in front of the public and tell them if something is not able to be done.

We don’t see that. We don’t see that with the Premier or with the members on the other side — that they actually stand and deal with the issues that are there.

[1515]

There was an interesting line in the throne speech that says: “Leadership means being consistent…not saying what is politically convenient.” That’s a line in the throne speech.

I have to say I find it a bit rich that that’s the line the
[ Page 4594 ]
Premier decided to put in the throne speech because that’s exactly what the Premier and this government do. I guess they are consistent. They consistently say what they believe is politically convenient. That’s what we see. I found it incredible when I saw that line in the throne speech, when I saw the line that we believe leadership isn’t saying what is politically convenient. Well, that’s exactly what we see.

I want to look at the specifics that actually show that. Let’s start off, of course, with the key focus of this Premier, which is the issue of LNG.

What has the Premier said about LNG over the last couple of years? What are the specifics that she laid out for the public to say: “Here’s my commitment to you, as leader of this political party, as going to be your head of government. Here are my commitments when it comes to LNG”?

Well, let’s see. The Premier promised 100,000 jobs would come from LNG. The Premier actually promised that LNG would eliminate the provincial debt. “Debt-free B.C.,” if I remember correctly, was the slogan across the bus — that that was going to happen. Has debt been eliminated? No. In fact, debt’s going up. The Premier promised LNG would eliminate the provincial sales tax. The Premier also promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

When we talk about cynicism in politics, those are the kinds of things that the Premier has been putting out there around LNG, telling the public that those are the commitments, those are the kinds of things that are going to happen.

Well, here we have a throne speech. Here we have a throne speech that came forward. I would have expected, if the Premier was continuing on with actually sticking to her word, that this throne speech would have come forward and talked about those 100,000 jobs and that this throne speech actually would have talked about the elimination of the provincial debt.

After all, those were promises the Premier made only a year and a half ago. I would have expected that this was the throne speech, the opportunity for government to talk about their promises and commitments, so this throne speech would have been full of those kinds of promises and those kinds of commitments.

Instead, what is the exact quote from the throne speech? The quote is that LNG is “a chance, not a windfall.” The next quote is that LNG is an opportunity to “maintain the same…services we rely on.”

Wow. We’ve gone from LNG solving the world’s problems and solving everything that happens in British Columbia to: “LNG. Hopefully, it’s a chance. Hopefully, we’ll get this chance. And if we get this chance, we’ll be able to maintain the kinds of services that we have.” Not add, not create, not get rid of debt, not get rid of sales tax. We’ll actually maintain the services that we have. Well, that’s a long way from solving all the problems that British Columbia has.

No more eliminating debt; no more eliminating sales tax. Now the government’s scrambling, hoping that they’re going to get LNG to simply maintain services. I find that incredible in a year and a half. That’s not leadership. That is political expediency — say one thing when you think that’s what the public wants to hear, and then do another. That’s what we see in this throne speech.

What kind of hope does that give to British Columbians? What kind of hope can British Columbians have when the government says we hope that we’ll get LNG so that we can maintain services — which certainly the people in my community, and I believe the people in most communities across this province, know aren’t sufficient services to begin with, in most areas aren’t services that are adequate for the pressures that British Columbians are facing.

I think that’s pretty sad. I think that’s a pretty sad statement, that in simply a year and a half that’s where the public sits — maintaining services on a hope that we’re going to grab on to something.

[1520]

Is there a plan B? No. Is there any other opportunity that the government talked about in this throne speech? No, and I’ll talk a little bit about that as we continue on. No, there’s just a chance that we’re going to grab onto something to maintain services that we know aren’t adequate already.

The throne speech mentioned other things about leadership. It said we have to be “determined and unwavering” in our pursuit of opportunity. Again, words on paper, certainly not the reality in this government’s actions.

I have to say that I believe in the pursuit of opportunity. But I believe I have a different version of what opportunity is and the pursuit of opportunity than this government does. I believe in opportunity for every British Columbian, that everyone has something to offer, that everyone brings a skill in this province. Some people need a hand up to be able to utilize that opportunity and to be able to grab onto it, and that is the responsibility of governments.

I have to tell you that I am really humbled and honoured to serve the people of Victoria–Beacon Hill. It’s a rare thing to be a representative for a community that you’ve grown up in, a community that I have raised my kids in, a community that I now have grandchildren in. I feel very connected to this community, and I feel very fortunate to be able to represent it.

I also feel very proud of the extraordinary community that I see each and every day. When I look at opportunity, I see people in my community working to create opportunity and to grab onto opportunity every single day. I see not-for-profit organizations. I see individuals. I see small business owners. I see people coming together to do just that: to work together, to support each other, to
[ Page 4595 ]
provide that hand up to those people who need it.

I see people in my community every single day seeking out innovation, seeking out partnerships to make things work, putting a focus on sustainable economic development. I certainly see that kind of leadership, not the throne speech leadership, real leadership happening in my community every single day.

I also hear from people in my community that they don’t expect government to do it all. They don’t expect government to come in and solve all of the challenges. They don’t expect government to come in and fix all the problems. They’re more than willing to do their part. They’re more than willing to take personal responsibility and responsibility for our community. That’s what they do.

If I take a look at something like the Coalition to End Homelessness in greater Victoria, that has covered across a region and set a goal to actually make things happen for people who are living on the street, to do what they could to be able to resolve the issue of homelessness. They’ve actually been out there doing the hard work that needs to be done, working with other groups and organizations, pulling people together.

There’s something extraordinary that happens in our community in October each year called Project Connect. It’s provided at Our Place, one of the amazing community organizations here in greater Victoria.

Our Place is like a service fair. Project Connect that happens there is like a service fair. It provides an opportunity for every group and organization in our community to come together to be able to provide links and services for people who are living on the street, people who are at risk of homelessness or people who are living in poverty.

There’s everything from a chance for people to be able to get clothing, to get medical supports. My office helps out with ID, to help people be able to get ID and fill out the forms they need to. There are work and employment opportunities.

There are some personal connections there as well. There is a photo group, a business in our community who offers to do family portraits and portraits of individuals while they’re at Project Connect. I have to tell you, the tears that I’ve seen from individuals who’ve never had a portrait done, who’ve never had somebody take a professional picture, who know that they can go and bring their family, like most of us have done all the time…. They can go and bring their family on Project Connect day and get that done.

[1525]

Those are the small things and the really big things that are real leadership. That’s real leadership in our community. I would have expected that a throne speech from a government would recognize that leadership and would support it.

That’s what people expect government to be there for them. They don’t expect it to solve all their problems. They expect it to be there when people need it — support the good leadership that’s going on, support the positive things that are happening. I didn’t see anything in this throne speech that addresses those issues in my community.

I had the privilege this week of attending a breakfast launch by the Victoria Foundation. The Victoria Foundation provides something called Victoria’s Vital Signs each year. It’s a massive research effort that is done and provides a report that highlights the vital issues that affect the well-being of our entire region. It covers all of greater Victoria, and it looks at everything from indicators of wellness to what are the top issues that our community and our region believe are important and need to be paid attention to.

While I certainly recognize that every community has their own issues and there are things that are going to be different region to region, I certainly also know that there are commonalties across this province. I am certain that if you did vital signs, and perhaps they do in other communities, you would see some similarities of issues that are there.

For me, Vital Signs is always a really good touchstone. We all believe certain things about our community. We’ve lived here. We know the people in our community. Vital Signs reinforces that. It provides you with the data, the research, the hard information that actually shows: what are the most important things to people in this region? Where are the real challenges? What are the strengths, and what are the challenges in the community?

Again, if I look at my job as representing my community, this is a critical report. It’s an important report to take a look at because it reflects the views of my community, just as I would expect that a throne speech would be a reflection of the views of the people of this province. If a government was truly representing the people of this province, a throne speech would be a reflection of the views of the people of this province.

I want to take a couple of minutes just to look at the issues and then again take a look back at the throne speech and see whether they actually meet any of those.

What were the top issues facing our region in this year’s Vital Signs? As I said, it’s recent, just came out this week. The first one, I think, would be no surprise to anybody who’s spent time in greater Victoria, and that’s the issue of cost of living. That’s a huge crisis point for people in our region.

We live in an amazing place. They love greater Victoria. People are thrilled with living here. But it’s a huge challenge for families.

Cost of living is a massive issue when you take a look at the data and the hard research that came forward. What did the throne speech do to address that? Where in the throne speech did it say that cost of living puts great pressure on families in British Columbia and we’re going to
[ Page 4596 ]
address that, we’re going to begin to work on that, we’re going to help families with the challenges that they face? Wasn’t there. There wasn’t a reflection at all.

In fact, if we go back to February’s throne speech and budget, the government is going in the opposite direction. They are, in fact, making it more difficult for families. They’re making the cost of living worse for families with everything from increases in hydro, raised medical service premiums, increase of ferry fares, ICBC rates, tuition — you name it. The government, in fact, is making that situation worse.

At a time when that’s a top issue facing, I would guarantee, not simply people in greater Victoria but, I would imagine, British Columbians, the throne speech, the major document that shows a priority for this government, made absolutely no mention of the issue of cost of living and, in fact, has made it worse and done just the opposite.

What was the second most important issue that was identified by our region as something that needed to be paid attention to? It was housing, the issue of affordable housing.

[1530]

Not simply homelessness — that’s an issue; that actually came in at No. 4 — but the issue of affordable housing, everything from co-op housing to support for families — single families, working families.

I always think it’s important to remind people because I think the face of poverty has changed in our province. I think people often think the people who are poor are the people who use food banks, are the people who you see on the street. Yes, those people are challenged, but more and more you’re seeing working families utilizing food banks. You’re seeing two parents working in the families utilizing food banks — working minimum-wage jobs, working part-time jobs, not able to get full-time employment to be able to support their family, struggling with affordable housing and trying to manage.

Again, I talked about being disappointed and sad about some issues. There are issues that I also have to say I get angry about. The issues I get angry about are the issues when you see families and individuals doing everything they can themselves to get themselves out of the cycle of poverty, to be able to better their lives, to be able to move ahead, to grab onto that opportunity that we saw mentioned so many times in the throne speech.

The government not only does nothing to help them with that; they in fact make it worse and more difficult for those individuals when they’re doing the right thing.

If you’re a single parent, you have a couple of children, you want to go back to school, you get cut off income assistance, you’re told to go and get a student loan to be able to support yourself, and then you lose your medical and your dental support for your children, how would any of us in this House ever be able to manage, ever get yourself out of that cycle of poverty, when that’s the situation you’re faced with?

As I said, that individual doesn’t expect government to do it all, but they don’t expect government to make it more difficult for them. They don’t expect government to get in the way, to take away their ability to seek that opportunity. I have to say that is where I get angry, because I do believe that is one of the primary roles that government has.

Housing links to everything. It’s tough to find employment if you don’t have affordable housing. Pretty tough to be healthy if you don’t have affordable housing. Pretty tough to go to school. Pretty tough, as I said earlier, to look for that opportunity. I look through the throne speech, and was there anything to address housing? No.

The third area that was identified in the Vital Signs report that came forward from Victoria Foundation — and came forward from the members of our region as the third key area that needed to be paid attention to, that was concerning in our region — was the issue of mental illness. Probably, again, I’m sure I’m not unique. I’m sure most MLAs face this as well. If there is an area that is raised more often than any other in our community offices, it’s the issue of mental health and mental illness.

Again, I’ve had the privilege of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, and we’ve taken on a special project to look at the area of youth mental health. We’ve had the opportunity to be able to hear from parents, from youth themselves, from community organizations and from health professionals about the issues that they have seen in the area of youth mental health.

As we know, mental health and addiction often are connected. We’ve had individuals who’ve come forward and just put forward heart-wrenching stories for everyone on that committee to hear, issues about taking your child to find out that there’s a year-and-a-half wait-list, finding out that there is no assessment anywhere in your community. If you have the money to pay for it perhaps, but otherwise no opportunity for assessment. Finding no supports. Trying to navigate a system that isn’t a system.

We know that in the province of British Columbia we do not have a mental health system. We have bits and pieces of services that you hope you can connect with, that you try to connect with. I’ve often used the experience of my own family and some of the challenges we faced with my son in looking for supports. I used to say to individuals in our community that if I can’t find services and supports as an MLA, if I have trouble trying to navigate the system to provide support, think about a parent who doesn’t know anything about the system.

[1535]

Think about an individual who doesn’t know how to navigate, who isn’t sure who to phone, who is already stressed in trying to deal with their child with mental health issues. That’s the reality for most families and most parents in British Columbia today.

I’ve heard stories of bus tickets being given to people
[ Page 4597 ]
when they get out of the mental health unit. “That’s your support. Take your bus ticket. Head off somewhere. We can’t have you sitting in emergency the entire time.” Young people end up in the adult psychiatric unit because there isn’t a child service or support bed available.

I would have imagined, again, that there would have been something in this throne speech that would have spoken to those parents and to those children and to the hope that those people need. I didn’t see that in this throne speech either.

Vital Signs doesn’t simply look at the challenges; it also looks at the strengths of a region. I think, again, that’s a very positive message to put forward. It asks people, yes, “What are the challenges in your community?” but also asks: “What are the greatest strengths?” I’m a big believer in the glass-half-full kind of approach. I’ve always believed that you look for solutions, that you look for ideas and you look for approaches to try and improve things. You simply don’t complain without also putting your time and energy into trying to fix things.

I see that in my community every single day. I see people who have every right to be worn down with the kind of work that they’re doing. There’s nothing worse for someone, if you work in a social service agency or a not-for-profit, than to have a client come to you and have to say to them: “I’m sorry. There’s absolutely no service I can send you to. I don’t know of anything that’s available to support you.” That’s heartbreaking.

I think it’s important those people continue to work in a community to provide that leadership, to look for answers and to find solutions despite the challenges.

I expect, again, that a government would do that — that they would look, yes, at the challenges but also at the strengths and build on those strengths, support those not-for-profits, support all those people working hard in communities. But I didn’t see that in the throne speech either.

What did our region say are the greatest strengths? Our natural environment, our climate and air quality. Those were the greatest strengths of greater Victoria. Did I see anything in this throne speech that spoke to that? No. I saw a commitment that eventually we’ll get around to bringing forward the LNG bill, which will have the tax in that was supposed to come a year and a half ago, and we’ll also get around to addressing the environmental area.

Again, nothing around climate change. Nothing around how we’re going to address the legislative targets around reducing greenhouse gases that are in the government’s specific legislation now and that aren’t being addressed.

What opportunities were missed? So many. I know I’ve only got a couple of minutes left, but I think of what could have been in this throne speech. I think about the opportunities that could have been there: investments in education and child care, investments in the traditional industries in our province. That’s what’s missed, and that’s what should have been in a throne speech.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to give support to the throne speech. Like what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill said — she says that she’s a glass-half-full type of person — I’m definitely a glass-half-full type of person, and I saw a lot of positive things in the throne speech. That’s why I am going to talk positively about the throne speech.

As is customary in speeches when we get up in front of the House, we have some thank-yous to do. I’d just like to thank my three kids because they have to put up with their mother leaving to come over here, which is fine. They accept that, probably are having a nice little party. Bottom line is they will miss their mother. But the good news is that we have Thanksgiving next weekend.

I’d also like to put in a special thanks to my CAs. I have, actually, a new CA, Nick, who’s joined us.

Hi, Nick, and thank you very much for all the work that you do with Alysia back in our constituency offices making sure that everybody from North Vancouver–Seymour is well taken care of.

[1540]

Then, of course, we’ve got our team here in the Legislature. I’ve got a new LA, Janta, and of course our communications, Marc Wang; Stephanie for research; and the most important person, actually, in all of our caucuses, our IT guy, Greg Dunn. A lot of people forget about him, but we absolutely know he’s very important to us.

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents themselves in North Vancouver–Seymour. I feel extremely blessed to live in and represent such a beautiful, diverse and vibrant community. Our region’s geography and natural beauty go hand in hand with our local economy. We are a celebrated tourist destination — Lynn Valley Suspension Bridge and Seymour Mountain, two examples — a hub for local film and television production — more on that in a minute — and a big player in the province’s shipping industry.

Along with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, on that note, we were very pleased to be able to attend a steel-cutting ceremony at Seaspan a few weeks ago for the new B.C. Ferry cable ferry that will be doing the Buckley Bay–Denman Island route. Everybody was really excited about that — the B.C. Ferry people as well as Seaspan, obviously, because they got the contract.

With regards to film, I just want to mention film, because it’s something very near and dear to my heart, and give congratulations to Thomas FX, which is a special effects company in my riding, which is nominated as best business for the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards.

There are many, many high-calibre businesses that are nominated through the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce under six categories, and this is one of them.
[ Page 4598 ]
The highlight of the gala is like the Academy Awards. It’s coming up in November, and I’ll probably be speaking about that at another time. I just wanted to just give them a congrats shout-out because my son, who also is a student at the Capilano University film school is working on the actual video for the Academy Awards for that company, Thomas FX.

Then, of course, we can’t forget that tomorrow the Premier is leaving for India on one of her many trade missions, which have been very successful. But in this particular one I wanted to mention it, because there’s going to be a strong focus on film. I’m very proud to hear that Peter Leitch from North Shore Studios, along with many other leaders in British Columbia’s film industry, will be joining her on her trade mission to do whatever we can. And we will, because we’re buoyed from the TOIFA situation. We’ll be coming back with some great news, I’m sure.

Not to leave film quite yet, I just wanted to share with you how successful the film industry actually is in North Vancouver. My staff, Nick, did a bit of research for me with the district of North Vancouver, and this is what he found out. From September to now the district of North Vancouver has 13 productions. Of those, five were commercials and the rest TV or movie. Some notable examples include Arrow, Once Upon a Time, Falling Skies and 50 Shades of Grey.

The city over the past four weeks has had six productions, and North Shore Studios currently has seven productions ongoing: Backstrom; Falling Skies; iZombie; Maple Bay Lodge; Un-Real; 50 Shades of Grey, as I said; and Tripwrecked.

To sum it all up, over the past month and currently there have been 25 productions in North Vancouver. The film industry is booming, and we cannot be anything more than super proud.

It’s an honour to serve such a dynamic community, North Vancouver–Seymour, and I want to thank my constituents again for giving me the opportunity to represent them and be their voice in the Legislature.

But as we’re approaching a municipal election — I know that some of the other members have mentioned this — I’d like to put a shout-out to our current mayors, Richard Walton and Darrell Mussatto for the district and the city of North Vancouver, who are both seeking re-election, as well as Franci Stratton, who is the chair of the North Vancouver board of education.

[1545]

There are some good groups running for council and school board, and I’m wishing them all well, and I know that there will be some changes because people aren’t seeking re-election. I know that municipal elections are a very important time for all of us in British Columbia to pay attention to who we are electing in municipal councils and school boards.

This week’s throne speech was about getting down to business — getting back to work, setting aside our differences and working together to secure future prosperities for British Columbia. The stage for this type of collaboration was set last month when our government and the BCTF were able to come together and negotiate a six-year agreement — unprecedented, a six-year agreement and the longest term ever reached with our province’s teachers.

Franci Stratton, the chair of the North Vancouver school district, and I did a neat little video a couple weeks ago that you can see on my website or Facebook. We thanked the parents and the teachers and all of the staff, the principals and, of course, the students for being patient during the difficult times, the difficult months that went by.

This historic settlement will mean years of labour peace in our schools. It will provide more classroom supports for both teachers and students. It will mean educators will have more latitude to address the unique needs of every classroom, and it will mean a child in grade 8 will be able to graduate, without any disruption in labour, by the time they graduate from grade 12. It will mean that we now get to sit down and roll up our sleeves and begin to build a better relationship between government and teachers.

I always offer to come into schools. In fact, it’s something that I do every year in September. I send out notes to all of the schools in my riding and offer to come and talk to teachers, students and parents about any topic that is of interest to them. Some schools actually take me up on the offer, and it’s kind of fun. I like to sit and watch what’s going on. Mostly the students ask very intelligent, interesting questions, and it’s one of the best parts of my job.

I’m also a parent. As I mentioned, I have three children, so I can definitely appreciate what the parents are doing when they’re helping the schools, as well as the volunteers in the school. As I mentioned before, I was also a chair of the North Vancouver school district.

We have one of the best public education systems in the world, and that’s in large part to the dedicated men and women who are in the teaching profession. This long-term agreement that I just described provides us with a path, moving forward, and an opportunity to work together to enhance our education system and support student success.

There are lots of things going on that are really good in North Vancouver related to schools. Along with my North Vancouver counterparts from North Vancouver–Lonsdale and West Vancouver–Capilano, we were fortunate enough in April to launch, with the Minister of Education, the brand-new Queen Mary School.

Since I’ve been an MLA — I guess I’m on my fifth year — there have been several infrastructure projects that have been completed for schools in North Vancouver — Lynn Valley being one, Ridgeway, Carson, Highlands,
[ Page 4599 ]
Westview and the Windsor turf, the famous Windsor turf that has a nice soccer bubble, which was a partnership between the district and a private company and the school district and the soccer community. Argyle is next, and my number one priority right now is to get that one built.

The teachers’ dispute resolution and our ability to pay for the world-class programs and services are directly related to the shape of our economy. It’s fuelled by our resource industry, which is why the focus in this throne speech was on LNG. You can’t spend money until you make money. We are supporting the resource development of our province to boost our economy so that we can pay for education and health and everything else that everybody wants us to spend money on.

Today’s breakfast that I had with the Minister of Jobs, as well as many MLA counterparts, was with the B.C. building trades union. It was good to hear Tom Sigurdson say: “We build B.C. The trade unionists build B.C.” But I also liked when our Minister of Jobs got up and said: “We build B.C. too.” We’re building B.C. together, and that’s what makes B.C. so great.

[1550]

What are we building? Lots of stuff. There’s going to be a great announcement occurring in my riding — I won’t give away the big surprise, because I’ll be talking about it later — in transportation in a few weeks.

We’ve got the cable ferry that I mentioned before, as well as, even, bike lanes, the bike lanes that we have in the district of North Van — Lynn Valley Road bike lanes and Mount Seymour Parkway multi-use path. Several hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested to help people in my riding get to and from where they need to go, to make them less reliant on cars.

This throne speech laid out three pillars on which future growth will be built: through a balanced budget and controlled public spending; by fostering new trade and investment ties with the growing economies of Asia; and by developing the industry for liquefied natural gas, the world’s cleanest-burning non-renewable resource.

We are committed to making B.C. LNG the cleanest in the world. That means that it’s not only an opportunity to sell our resources to major consumers in Asia, but it also means that we can help them significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and meet their growing demand for cleaner, greener economic growth.

We’re expecting about one million job openings by the year 2022. More than 78 percent of those will require some form of post-secondary education. Taking advantage of the opportunities of our growing economy means ensuring that British Columbians are first in line for jobs and have the necessary skills that meet the needs of the industry.

As I mentioned before, we talked about that as well at the B.C. Building Trades union breakfast meeting this morning. We want to provide employment for locals first, then regional, then provincial, then national and then international. If we need international…. We need international to fill the jobs, but they come at a priority: local, regional, provincial, national and then international.

Our government is taking the steps to re-engineer education and training in B.C. through the skills-for-jobs blueprint. The blueprint provides a framework that will allow us to provide students with the best possible information about their options, provide more hands-on learning experiences in school and more opportunities for apprenticeships in the workplace. That will re-engineer apprenticeship programs so that we can better match the training and education with the jobs in demand.

Our Ministers of Jobs, of Education and of Advanced Education, as well as First Nations, are working very, very hard to make that all happen as a jelled package. It will also include funding for community-based training to ensure that First Nations are positioned to take advantage of those job openings as well. This comprehensive plan is part of our commitment to support industry and give young people a seamless path from school through to the workplace.

I’d like to talk a little bit about Education because I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Student Support and Parent Engagement. Next month I’ll be going to the BCCPAC convention in Nanaimo. I’m their go-to person when it comes to parent support. I did a video last year, which I will be relaunching, on anti-cyberbullying and educating parents and students on how to be safe on line.

I partnered with social media expert Jesse Miller, as well as the principal from Sherwood Park School in my riding and many parents and students. If you haven’t seen it yet, I would encourage you to. It’s on my website, and it’s quite telling because what kids are doing on line, the parents don’t necessarily know. Sometimes they can get themselves into trouble, not knowing that they’re actually sending this information to the world. I appreciate the help from folks like Jesse Miller to put that one together.

The member opposite, for Victoria–Beacon Hill, mentioned the special project that our Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth is working on with regard to child and youth mental health. Yes, we do have some challenges, and yes, the Ministries of Health, MCFD and Education and others are working to deal with those challenges. But what we also heard is that there are lots of positives.

The interior collaborative is a good example. They were very, very pleased to come and present and say, “These are the types of things that are working, if we work collaboratively with families” — and FORCE and other agencies and volunteers that help to improve the lives of those youth and children who are suffering with mental illness, as well as their families. Obviously, they’re affected.

[1555]

I certainly would be remiss if I didn’t mention last week’s grand opening of the new Greta and Robert H.N.
[ Page 4600 ]
Ho centre for psychiatry and education, the HOpe centre, which will be a major positive thing for mental health on the North Shore.

At $62.2 million, HOpe centre is located on the grounds of Lions Gate Hospital and replaces the hospital’s aging 26-bed in-patient psychiatric unit originally built in 1929. In addition to the in-patient psychiatric floor, the centre will include mental health out-patient clinics, the Djavad Mowafaghian UBC medical education centre, a clinical research trials unit, a resource centre and a permanent home for the B.C. Ambulance Service.

The HOpe centre will feature a comprehensive range of services, including the Kelty Dennehy mental health resource centre, which will provide information and materials on mental health issues to patients, families and the community, and a peer support program that will help youth, adults and older adults with a serious and persistent mental illness to achieve personal goals, learn new skills and link with community services. North Shore Adult Community Mental Health Services will also be based in the building, bringing more than eight different services and supports under one roof.

I’d just like to give a little plug to the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation. I’m going to quote Judy Savage, who’s the president.

“The concept of a visionary facility that promises to provide compassionate, comprehensive mental health care while also reducing the stigma of mental illness really resonated with our community. We are truly grateful to the more than 5,000 individuals and organizations who embraced our vision and generously supported the foundation’s HOpe centre campaign.”

Good on them, because, with that partnership, they contributed $24 million to this project, which is a humongous contribution. We are so grateful for the foundation and the other donors that helped to make that facility so successful.

Last month we received an update on the B.C. jobs plan. The plan was implemented in August 2011. It was designed to ensure that B.C. has the most comprehensive business environment for investment and that British Columbians are prepared for the expanding workplace over the next decade.

Since the plan was implemented, we have seen $7.2 billion in economic expansion and 50,000 new jobs. We also have single-digit unemployment rates in every region of the province. The jobs plan has strengthened our unique competitiveness advantages and has set targets to help drive new investment and economic growth.

This year there’s a focus on four cross-sector areas of strategic priority: aboriginal peoples and First Nations, international trade, manufacturing, and small business. These four areas work together to help drive economic growth and support the development of our LNG industry, which, as the Minister of Natural Gas described in his remarks yesterday, is going forward. We’ve got a lot of things on the go.

I attended the second LNG conference in May of this year. Apparently the first conference had about 500 participants. This year it was over 1,400. Something’s happening here, and it’s a big, positive step for British Columbia.

I also attended the Find Your Fit sessions with some students from Seycove Secondary from their FLIGHT program, which was kind of neat. I attended a demonstration, also, with the Minister of Jobs and realized that I’m not actually very good at any of the skills, working with my hands, so I’d better stay where I am.

The Premier mentioned several projects when she was asked a question today in question period. She did qualify that we still have — we have not forgotten about — the five conditions for environmental sustainability to ensure that we have the cleanest and the safest LNG industry in the world.

I’m proud of our government’s record. We’ve achieved a lot in this last decade and have much to celebrate. We’ve been able to capitalize on our competitive advantages and have a comprehensive plan to leverage our abundant natural resources and our knowledgable workforce to pave the way for a stronger economic future, but perhaps our biggest accomplishment has yet to happen. It’s coming around the corner.

I’m very excited about the direction we’re heading. It brings me hope that my children and my children’s children will have more opportunities than my generation did and that their children will one day look back and thank us for the steps, for the vision, that we’re setting today in British Columbia.

[1600]

R. Austin: It’s my privilege to stand in this House today to respond to the throne speech of a couple days ago.

Once again, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Skeena for giving me this great honour to stand in this place and to speak on their behalf.

This throne speech was very different from the ones that I have observed over the last, I guess, 9½ years now. Normally on throne speech day, the Legislature is packed to the rafters with people. There’s a buzz. There’s an expectation of euphoria, especially on the government side — a sense that exciting things are going to happen. We’re going to learn a whole bunch of new things. The speeches have always, of course, been visionary, not a lot of detail, but they have laid out a whole series of goals, big goals, that the government wants to bring forward in the next year.

In the past, when we had Gordon Campbell here, I can remember a real sense of buzz in this House. He packed the place with supporters — philosophical supporters, financial supporters, the movers and shakers of British Columbia. They’d all be here waiting.

But this particular throne speech was odd. I came in here, and the place wasn’t packed at all. It was like people were just coming for a regular day. I heard all the pomp
[ Page 4601 ]
outside of the Legislature. I heard the guns and the salutes, and everyone was dressed up. But inside the House, what came up in this speech, all 18 minutes of it, was not much circumstance, not many solid things to move forward on.

Maybe that just tells us what happens when a government is now in its fourth term. You know, maybe it’s just running out of ideas and things it wants to talk about. But I should be thankful, because at least the single thing that the government wanted to talk about in this 18 minute speech was liquefied natural gas. Who knew.

I was a little bit shocked a few days ago. We’ve known that this session was supposed to be about liquefied natural gas. In fact, we were expecting the legislation that’s going to come in this session to happen last year.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That was the government’s own commitment — to try and have the fiscal framework in place, the framework for greenhouse gases and how they’re going to deal with that. It was supposed to happen last year by November. That’s what the Premier had told the industry and told British Columbians.

But that didn’t happen. In fact, I guess as a result of them not being able to hit the right sweet spot, as the minister likes to say, the House wasn’t even recalled, and we didn’t have a legislative session last fall.

So here we are. I was expecting this to be coming in right away. But last Friday, just a few days before the legislative session was about to begin, I heard the Premier on CBC stating that they are still in negotiations with the companies and with the industry as to what this bill is going to actually be. It just shows you the extent to which this government is willing to promise big things, big ideas, and yet how challenging it is and how difficult it is for them to actually deliver on what it is they promise.

They promised several years ago that we would have 100,000 jobs coming out of this LNG industry. One of the things I’ve learned in spending a lot of time with people in the industry is that, yes, it is hugely capital-intensive. I think that the minister yesterday in his speech was alluding to the fact. He was talking about the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter in my community of Kitimat. Actually, he got the numbers wrong. He said that it’s now a $3.7 billion project — I think is what he said yesterday. It’s actually a $5.3 billion project. It’s gone over budget, and the board of Rio Tinto Alcan had to further another $1.6 billion in order to get this project to finish.

[1605]

Okay, so a $5.3 billion project in Kitimat with the smelter. Of course, there’s a lot of activity there with people in a camp, probably about 1,700 people in a camp outside the smelter. There’s about another 400 guys on a boat. The reason I’m mentioning this is that an LNG plant, unlike a smelter or unlike a mill, is hugely capital-intensive. Unfortunately, it’s not as labour-intensive as we would like.

Even if we were to have five LNG plants, the whole notion of us having 100,000 jobs from it is, unfortunately, pure fantasy. We would have some jobs during the construction, but it would not and could never have been 100,000 jobs.

I’d like to talk for a moment here about one of the commitments that has been coming from one of the biggest companies that’s been working in Kitimat. We have had now Apache Canada working in Kitimat for about the last 2½ years. They have moved a mountain of soil in preparation for this plant. Some people even estimate that they’ve spent $1 billion in Kitimat over the last two years.

You think of this company having now, unfortunately, pulled out and trying to find a purchaser to go along with Chevron. We in Kitimat all hope that they’ll be able to find one quickly, and we’re thankful that Chevron is continuing to make the investment and spend the money. But it just shows you the kind of scale of investment that companies are willing to make, which unfortunately our government is not willing to make at all.

I’ll give you an example. Apache has spent over $1 billion and now moved out. We have a bridge in Kitimat, the only bridge that goes from the west side to the east side of the Douglas Channel — the single, only bridge. It’s referred to as the Haisla Bridge. It is 50 years old. It is in bad shape, and the district of Kitimat has been seeking help from this government to fix this bridge so that it can be up to standard — required for all the industrial activity that’s happening on the west side of the Douglas Channel. Yet this government is saying: “No, we don’t have money for that. We have to wait for a final investment decision.”

Tell me this. Why is it that a company should spend $1 billion ahead of time and the government can’t even fix a critical piece of infrastructure in the community that would help any industrial activity happen on the west side of British Columbia?

I’d like to also for a moment just talk about how quickly markets can change in this industry. When I got elected in 2005, one of the first meetings I had — in fact, even before being sworn in here in this building — was a meeting with a woman by the name of Rosemary Boulton, who was the former CEO of Kitimat LNG. This is long before this government even knew what LNG was. This was in 2005. She sat down with myself and the local Member of Parliament, and she described a project that she wanted to bring to fruition in Kitimat.

She’d spoken to the Haisla. She’d spoken to the district of Kitimat. Her project was to import LNG from around the world and bring it into Kitimat, regasify it and then sell it on the North American markets. That’s 2005. That would have been in May of 2005.

Within 18 months of that meeting, the shale gas revolution had created so much natural gas in North America
[ Page 4602 ]
that the price plunged here. She was now saying: “Okay, we don’t want to regasify LNG. We now want to try and build a liquefaction plant and export it.”

I tell this just to explain to people how quickly markets change on the world scale. I think for the Premier to run around during the election with “Debt-free B.C.” on the bus and run around B.C. saying that she has the ability to attract all of these plants…. She doesn’t, unfortunately. These decisions are made in big corporate offices. They’re made based on world markets. They’re not made, unfortunately, because the Premier of B.C. decides that she’s now suddenly going to have 15 or five — or whatever — LNG plants.

An Hon. Member: How’s the housing market in your riding?

R. Austin: Someone’s talking about the housing market. Let me speak about the housing.

This is a very good point, because in small towns when you have a boom, it’s not like a large city. In a large city people come and go, companies shut down and new ones open. In a small town when you have a boom and a lot of workers coming from out of town and a lot of sudden investment into a small community — and Kitimat has 10,000 people; Terrace has, well, 20,000 if you include the area of Thornhill — what you have is a rise in rentals that is so hard that…. Last week I was in Kitimat and there were people renting houses that are unfit and have been condemned. They’re having to pay $1,500 a month.

[1610]

This is a community that has gone from….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speaker at a time, please.

R. Austin: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

When you take a small community and you go from a 42 percent vacancy rate with very low rentals, and you suddenly have a mini-boom, one of the challenges is: how do the people who live there who don’t come in earning the high incomes still afford to live in that community? You don’t want to just destroy a community by a boom.

While people are very happy to have these investments come to both Terrace and Kitimat, people need to also recognize that the government has to support and recognize that there are people who are left out of that boom and, in fact, are suffering. If you want to get B.C. Housing now in the northwest, you have to go as far east as Burns Lake. These are the huge challenges that happen.

I want to make sure that people understand that when we are looking at what the government has promised on LNG and what they are delivering, to be able to criticize it does not mean to say that we do not want LNG in Kitimat. People in Kitimat want LNG. I would say that the majority of people in northwest B.C. are in favour of having LNG, provided it is done in the way that the government says. It’s our job here in opposition to make sure that they actually are held accountable to it, to make sure that it provides jobs for British Columbians.

I would go further than that and say, actually, what we’d first of all like, before even British Columbians, is to have local jobs. We’ve seen in the last year and a half planeloads and planeloads of people coming in because, of course, we don’t have the labour force in northwest B.C. But we also have a large number of people in British Columbia in the northwest who have been unemployed for a long time, who haven’t had the training required to take jobs.

What we need now is to train more people in the northwest so that they can take those jobs, so we don’t end up like we’ve seen with the Alcan Kitimat smelter with just planeloads of people coming in from outside of the area.

We also want to make sure that there is a fair return to British Columbians for this resource. As has been mentioned here many times today, this is a finite resource. It’s non-renewable. We want to make sure that whatever tax regime is brought in is one that brings as much in accrued benefit to all British Columbians, who are the owners of that resource.

We also want to make sure that First Nations gain a lot from the economic opportunities of LNG. We’re seeing that, certainly, in Kitimat amongst the Haisla, who have taken a very enlightened position on it. I think that it’s fair to say that most First Nations in the northwest are in favour of liquefied natural gas — in strong contrast, I would say, to bringing diluted bitumen across in the Enbridge gateway project.

We also need to make sure that we mitigate any increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have had an airshed study take place in Kitimat, and that study has come forward in saying that there’s really no problem and that the airshed can contain any extra industrial activity. I think people are a little bit suspicious now of government officials coming and saying one thing. I think, because of things like the Mount Polley disaster that happened this summer, people are looking at that and are being a little bit less trusting of government.

In fact, in the next few days in Kitimat there’s going to be a public meeting where those who are involved in the environmental process and the airshed study will come and answer questions and discuss what it is that Kitimat can do to mitigate any increase in greenhouse gas emissions and to also take care of the airshed.

With the Alcan smelter being there, they have long monitored for five different toxic substances. The good news is that four of them are coming down drastically because there’s going to be new technology in the smelter. But one of them, SO₂, is doubling, and that is a huge
[ Page 4603 ]
concern for the people of Kitimat and for the people of Terrace who live in the same airshed.

[1615]

We want to make sure that any LNG facility that comes to fruition in the northwest really focuses on all the things that the government says they’re going to do. They say that they’re going to make sure this is the cleanest and the greenest LNG in the world. Let’s see what this piece of legislation is when it comes forward, but people are expecting that.

I would comment for a second here on another project that’s happening in my colleague’s constituency of North Coast. That’s the one that was spoken of in question period earlier today, the Petronas project.

Yesterday in the papers Petronas acknowledged that there are some environmental issues around their project. In fact, they themselves requested a 45-day delay on putting forward their environmental plan. My understanding now is that they are no longer going to be dredging in the Port of Prince Rupert’s harbour. They’re not going to have a camp on Lelu Island, and there’s going to be no major industrial activity on Flora Bank. I don’t know whether this will satisfy the environmental agencies that are tasked with giving an approval or not.

Certainly, I would say this. People who I represent who live on the Skeena River want to make sure that any LNG plant on the coast does not affect the salmon at the mouth of the Skeena River. So that’ll be seen, as to what comes out of that, but that’s certainly a challenge.

There are lots of industries that, normally, a government takes care of and speaks about and gives a vision for in the throne speech. We’ve heard, basically, since the election and prior to the election a government that has had one track: LNG, LNG, LNG. If you have a problem with housing, wait for the LNG. If you want to get better schools, wait for LNG. If you want to have more help for mental health, wait for LNG. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of a government to only focus on one particular area of the economy at the expense of others.

We’ve got a lot of other projects happening in the northwest. We have a new mine that is being built, or starting to be built, as I speak. It’s being brought in by Avanti, who are bringing back a large molybdenum mine in the northwest, in a community called Kitsault.

This is a community where the mine shut down in, I think, the 1970s. To give you some sense of where we have come, when that mine was operated in the 1970s, the tailings went directly into Alice Arm, directly into the ocean. That was the 1970s.

Now here we have a company that’s willing to invest $600 million or $700 million in a new mine, but this time the mine is going to be done properly with the environmental controls that we have today. They’re going to build a proper tailings pond, and that tailings pond will be constructed in such a way that we do not have the kind of disaster we saw in Mount Polley.

In fact, I met with them just a couple of weeks ago, and as a result of the Mount Polley disaster, they handed me a letter which said that in spite of them having a professional engineering company that has designed their mine, in light of what’s happened at Mount Polley, this company is going out and getting another series of experts to come and look at their expert who has designed the mine to make sure that nothing can go wrong — just to give confidence to the Nisga’a Nation and to others in the northwest, to make sure that we don’t end up with another Mount Polley.

So there are lots of areas of the economy which could be dealt with and could have been dealt with in this throne speech beyond LNG. There wasn’t even a mention of any agriculture or what has happened since Bill 24 was passed at the end of the last session. People know that was a very controversial piece of legislation.

About, I think, 45 minutes ago, while I was in the House here, I noticed on the government website that they have finally announced the commissioners for the rural areas, for the regions and the panels that will be on the Agricultural Land Commission. That’s come down, I think, in the last 45 minutes. But since the House last rested at the end of May to today, we’ve had an Agricultural Land Commission that was essentially out of commission. So what has that meant?

That’s meant that while the government is concentrating on LNG and LNG and LNG, families who have been trying to do things and trying to process things through the ALC have been left stuck. I’m hoping, now that we’ve got these new members actually appointed today, that we can actually see some work done by the ALC so that people can get on with their lives.

[1620]

I know of a constituent in my riding who is trying to build a home on a property owned by her daughter and her son-in-law. This woman has a disabled husband, so it’s very timely and very important that she is able to build a house on this land that’s in the ALC. She’s not seeking to take it out of the ALC. She’s just simply seeking to have it subdivided so she can put a house on it and yet has been unable to do this.

These are the kinds of things that we hope the government can pay attention to and take into account when it’s not just focusing on LNG.

I’d also, following the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, like to take a moment just to give a thank-you and a shout-out to a couple of retiring local politicians in my riding. Mayor David Pernarowski, after two terms, is not running again, so I’d like to thank him for his service, as well as Marilyn Davies.

Marilyn Davies first came to Terrace, I think she would tell you, 43 years ago. Like many people, she came for a couple of years and stayed a lifetime. She wasn’t just a city councillor — on I think two or maybe three occasions she was elected — but she also was a community mem-
[ Page 4604 ]
ber. She was a music teacher who brought the Northwest Music Festival to Terrace. I’d just like to take the opportunity to thank her for that.

Since we last sat in the Legislature, a lot of things have happened. I’d like to take a couple of minutes to speak about what occurred this summer in regard to the teachers.

I know that the previous speaker spoke about education and the importance of it, but I think it’s important that we don’t just speak about the importance of education. We all speak about it here. It’s a question of what we do about it that makes a difference. It’s very easy to say nice things about something. It’s much harder to actually do the right thing and support that.

Like everybody else in this House — I think I can speak for everybody — we are very thankful that we saw the labour dispute between the teachers and the government come to an end and our kids go back to school. Certainly, I know parents are delighted with that.

But while we have now an opportunity, a five-year window where there is a contract in place…. Even though it was a six-year deal, one year of that has already expired, so it’s five years. I am really hopeful, and in fact, I would beseech this government to once again fulfil the photo op that happened at the conclusion of that strike where the Premier and the leader of the BCTF said nice things about one another.

I hope that that can go from a photo op to really repairing this relationship with the teachers, because even though we saw a deal and the kids are back in school, we still have an ongoing court case. We still have a government that is ensuring that the contracts that they stripped…. They felt they had the right to do that. So we still have this ongoing conflict in the background in spite of the fact that our teachers are in school.

When you think of what the teachers gave up in terms of their salaries for five or six weeks standing there on the picket lines, the actual increases that are going into the classrooms, the classroom conditions are still a long way from where they were at the point of these contracts being stripped.

I’m hoping that in the ensuing years we will see this government build the kind of relationship with the teaching profession so that we have a Premier who can perhaps undo a lot of the damage that she did when she was the Minister of Education and actually use her status as the Premier to build the kind of relationship with teachers where they can speak to one another and recognize the harm that’s been done in terms of the learning conditions in our classrooms and bring them back to what I think everybody would like to see them do.

In Skeena I have a large First Nations population. I want to take a few minutes just to talk about the Supreme Court decision that happened this summer, the Tsilhqot’in decision, because it is extremely important for what happens throughout British Columbia, but particularly important for what happens in northern British Columbia.

Once again we have to recognize that First Nations have been mistreated historically and that we have to make up for that. You can see this in the court decisions that have come one after the other over the last ten or 15 years — court decisions which have gone heavily in favour of recognizing aboriginal rights and title.

[1625]

I bring this up because all of these projects that we talk about — whether it be a mine, an LNG plant or a pipeline — cannot happen without benefit and without consultation with local First Nations.

It’s a bit troubling that while we’re trying to build this relationship and while the Premier had, again, I hope, more than a photo op…. A few weeks ago she sat down with First Nations leaders for a day. I believe it was in Vancouver. What we need isn’t just a one-day photo op. What we need, again, is the Premier to sit down and build a long-term relationship with aboriginal people, with First Nations leaders, to undo the damage and to recognize the opportunities that can only come to British Columbians if that relationship has a strong foundation. One day won’t cut it.

In fact, as I speak here, in northern B.C. we have three or four roads that are being blocked by First Nations groups. They aren’t actually happening in the riding of Skeena. They’re happening next door in Stikine. But this just shows you the kind of tension that is occurring with First Nations who feel that their rights are still not being respected, and they are resorting to going and blocking public roads.

This is a real tragedy. The First Nations have done so well in the court system. They’ve had to go to court because politicians in this House and in Ottawa didn’t do the right thing over the last 150 years. They had to go to court to fight for their rights. Now, having won those rights, they still aren’t being heard and respected to the extent that they are now going and blocking roads.

What does that do to people who live in the area? Well, that’s a huge challenge. It’s hunting season now. We have people who take a week off work, who go and get a permit and are lucky enough to get a tag to go hunting. They drive for hours up to the Spatsizi or some area in northern B.C. They get there, and what do they find? A roadblock.

I’m not in any way suggesting that First Nations don’t have legitimate grievances. Believe you me, they do. What I’m saying is that this government has a responsibility — a responsibility to recognize the injustices, to sit down with them and to make sure that they don’t have to go and block a road in order to make a point.

They don’t need to do that, because if you have a government doing its job, then they should be able to sit down and create those kinds of relationships that mean that First Nations not only are not blocking roads, but
[ Page 4605 ]
they’re actually able to sit down and have conversations about how they can change their communities and make them better.

These are very remote, northern First Nations communities. Many of them have high, high levels of unemployment. They have huge social deficits in terms of their education, health care. You know what? They see the kinds of resources happening, the kind of development happening in northern B.C., where the government is talking about billions and billions of dollars coming to the coffers here in Victoria, yet they’re still living in abject poverty in these kinds of places.

I’m hoping that what we’re going to see — we didn’t hear about it in this throne speech — is a government that actually sits down and does what it says it’s going to do, which is to sit down and have long-term relationship-building with First Nations so that they become part of the process, so they get the training, they get the better health care, and they can participate in the economy and take advantage of the benefits of any kind of economic development that we see coming forward in this province.

Lastly, the thing that we didn’t hear in this throne speech, of course, was the major commitment that was made during the election last year. We did not hear in this throne speech, as we did in the previous throne speech and the one before that, about how we were going to get out of debt in British Columbia.

We had a Premier who for 28 days ran around with a big bus, and it had a gigantic sign on it saying: “Debt-free B.C.” In her term in office the debt in British Columbia has risen faster and higher than any Premier in the history of British Columbia. Say one thing; do another.

I can only assume that it wasn’t in the throne speech because, well, that’s a promise that has now gone by the wayside. That’s a promise made to get elected. It’s not a promise that’s actually made to govern on. That’s what we have to assume. But we sincerely hope that if we are able to have any new LNG industry or any large-scale development take place, we can have a government that starts to address the debt in this province.

They like to talk the whole time about having a good credit record. At some point people are going to go, “Look at the debt that B.C. is in now,” and our credit record will not be one that they will be proud of.

[1630]

It’s something they need to take care of. Like I say, you can’t just be saying on the one hand, “I’m going to reduce the debt and make it debt-free,” and on the other hand, pretend that it doesn’t exist.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech.

First, I would like to begin by mentioning that many members in this chamber know I am a locally focused MLA and believe in representing the issues of my constituents wherever possible in this chamber. I wish to begin by acknowledging the constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and thanking them for all their words of encouragement in our efforts, for their resilience and for staying strong through the challenges that have faced our region.

I am not only proud of my constituents, but I am also proud of our government for showing true leadership while presenting two consecutive balanced budgets in a row. It’s a government that believes that fiscal responsibility is one of the most important priorities in a framework that will create certainty for business and investment. Controlling spending and balancing a budget are an important fundamental aspect. Investing in the Cariboo and Interior is also very close and dear to my heart.

B.C. ranks in the top five among Canadian provinces for business productivity growth. Its productivity has increased by 2.8 percent over the last five years.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin and surrounding region are receiving necessary infrastructure improvements that will make life better and help ensure the vitality and continued growth of our rural community. Four-laning work on Highway 97 and on the Cariboo connector is ongoing. By next fall, phase 2 of the Cariboo connector strategy will be complete. These are needed investments to keep our province moving forward.

I listened to the member across the way, from Nanaimo, talk about child poverty. What is the answer for child poverty? More taxation for those who work hard and invest in our province? That is not the answer. Creating jobs in resource industries such as mining and LNG is the answer — creating good jobs so that child poverty one day does not exist.

Our history was made by people who knew that the resource sector not only can provide for our families locally but also for the entire province. That’s why we continue to create opportunities, so British Columbians are first in line for jobs. That starts with a firm commitment to find savings, continue to balance the budget and control spending.

It is because of natural resources that we can pay for things that all British Columbians use, such as health care, public education and social services, for example. Another beautiful natural resource was the one near Likely, which recently had a mine breach at Mount Polley. We have experienced this setback.

I know the people of our region are resilient, ready to take on new challenges and seize the opportunity before us to grow our economy.

This was a disaster unheard of. But our government and our communities are out there daily — in Likely, in Mount Polley and throughout my region — working to mitigate this disaster.

Our communities are strong and moving forward. Our pristine lakes in and around the Cariboo are open for business. I would like to say to this House that we need to support those people. We need to support our
[ Page 4606 ]
communities.

We need to tell the truth about what is happening out there, and that is what this government is doing. Our government will continue to work collaboratively with industry, communities and First Nations to create a bright future for us all.

[1635]

I know the power that comes from working together, from accepting challenges and not being defeated by them. Just recently the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, the MLA for Cariboo North, and I toured Likely with Minister Polak and announced $50,000 of funding for the Likely Chamber of Commerce towards help with economic development and long-term plans for the community. The community of Likely had sent a letter prior to receiving this fund, asking for $50,000.

New mining opportunities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region give us hope for a prosperous future. Mining takes up a very small portion of B.C.’s land, less than 1 percent, but it makes a tremendous impact on our economy. The B.C. jobs plan is a clear commitment to the mining sector.

B.C. is still a safe, secure place to do business for a number of reasons, including its strategic location as the gateway to the Pacific and growing global markets.

I look forward to leading a new rural advisory council as the key commitment to support rural development and create a strong new voice for rural British Columbia. This announcement was made by our Premier at the UBCM Convention last month.

The initial focus of the council will be to provide advice on issues, strategies and policy changes that can find ways to further grow and strengthen rural communities. It is also to ensure that rural British Columbians have regular and meaningful input to government policy decisions on how best to support rural prosperity and thriving rural communities across British Columbia.

It’s not just the people in the regions where the mines are located who are benefiting from them. It is right across the province. In addition to tax revenues that governments get from mining companies and operations for programs such as health care, public education and social services, mining benefits large communities as well.

For instance, Vancouver is home to some of the top mining companies in the world: Huckleberry, Orca Quarry, Wolverine, Perry Creek, Endako, Teck Resources, Goldcorp, First Quantum Minerals, Eldorado Gold Corp., Pan American Silver Corp. and, of course, Taseko Mines. These companies generated revenue last year anywhere between $8.3 million to over $9.3 billion on average.

It’s because of the natural resource sector in British Columbia that we have jobs right across this province, from corporate offices in downtown Vancouver and people who work in ports, such as in Prince Rupert and at Port Metro Vancouver.

Technology offices in urban centres are also there. Why? It’s because of the resource industries. It is because of revenues from natural resources that we are able to offer film and production companies generous tax benefits of up to approximately $330 million.

Rural communities in British Columbia, like the Cariboo-Chilcotin, have expressed their desire to see a greater understanding within the provincial government of the current challenges facing rural communities. Do we need more? Like everyone else, we only want our fair share — the opportunity for resource development.

Our government recognizes the importance and contributions of rural B.C. and is committed to work together with rural stakeholders and leaders to foster thriving rural communities.

As the parliamentary secretary for rural issues, I represent not only my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin but also the interests of rural communities across our province. My region, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, relies on several key industries, including forestry, mining, agriculture and tourism.

It was with great interest that I listened to the Speech from the Throne. The central theme of the throne speech was seizing on economic opportunities, leadership and securing the future of British Columbia families.

[1640]

Nowhere is this more important than in rural areas. B.C.’s natural gas industry has upheld admirable environmental and safety records for over six decades.

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

Last week our government released the three-year update of the B.C. jobs plan, which places a renewed emphasis on four cross-sector priorities: small business; manufacturing; international trade and small business; aboriginal peoples and First Nations.

Rural and urban regions in our province depend on each other. But the fact is that many rural areas in British Columbia are going through a difficult period as a result of the global economic downturn of the past few years. This includes many regions which will become the focus of our province’s future economic growth with the development of resources such as natural gas.

B.C.’s 150-year supply of natural gas truly is an opportunity to change the world. Natural gas and the development of LNG is the biggest and newest opportunity for large-scale job creation and economic prosperity for our province, and that will be realized by generations of British Columbians. LNG in B.C. means benefits for every British Columbian — from new job opportunities and stronger communities in my constituency and throughout B.C. Supporting our natural resource industry means stronger communities in the north and the
[ Page 4607 ]
Cariboo.

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

By investing in skills training for aboriginal youth and by listening and building a stronger relationship in these communities, prosperity will be achieved and realized for the current and the next generation of First Nations. I am proud to say that First Nations make up a significant part of my constituency in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

We know that the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Chief William case. When Premier Christy Clark travelled to the Nemaiah Valley in the Chilcotin to meet with the leaders of the Tsilhqot’in people on their traditional land on September 10…

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names please.

D. Barnett: Sorry.

…it marked the second historical event for the First Nations in the past four months. It was also the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia. Our Premier signed a letter of understanding with the Tsilhqot’in people, showing the government’s commitment to work together with the First Nations to achieve a just and lasting reconciliation and setting the stage for long-term negotiations.

All British Columbians will have to show the patience, understanding and resolve to carve out this new partnership. The B.C. Cabinet and First Nation Leaders Gathering was a very important day for government and for First Nations in B.C. It was an important opportunity to listen and hear from First Nations. We cannot grow the economy if we do not come together. There are no quick fixes. Partnership comes from sitting down and talking. It is a better path than through the courts.

The Supreme Court decision is a significant milestone that provides greater clarity on aboriginal title and the province’s rights and responsibilities. We are taking the time to fully understand the implications of the court decision and how we all need to respond and adapt so that together we can open doors to greater opportunity and prosperity for all in B.C.

[1645]

The clarity provided by the Tsilhqot’in decision may mean some adjustments are required to the tools B.C. has developed. We see this as an opportunity, and we will continue working collaboratively with First Nations, the federal government, industry and our citizens to determine what those adjustments might be. We are all working towards the same goal, and that is to make sure all British Columbians benefit from this generational opportunity, whether they are union or non-union, First Nations or not, urban or rural, younger or older.

Most of my constituents make their living from working in the forestry, agriculture and natural resource sectors. Jobs and economic well-being in the constituency depend on the health of these sectors. One that I’d like to talk about in specific right now is agriculture. As a young child, which was many years ago, I was raised in Richmond when it was just agricultural land and farms.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin in central British Columbia has a unique agriculture industry, mainly cattle ranching. All over rural B.C. there are farms ranging in size from a few acres to over 30,000 acres. I have been fortunate to work with the Ranching Task Force, looking at the many important issues facing our agriculture industry, such as predator control, range issues and meat inspection.

Our focus is about sustaining the farming sector and helping those who work in it. We’ve heard from some farmers that these changes the government has made represent a good balance, while others have expressed an interest in sitting down to discuss implications. It’s important to note that in zone 1 there are no changes under the new bill. Under Bill 24 the Agricultural Land Commission will remain independent and will preserve land for future generations.

Our government has always been committed to farming and agriculture producers. Our government’s ultimate purpose is to support farming and keep farmers on their land. Our focus is about sustaining the farming sector and helping those who work in it. We’ve heard from some farmers that these changes represent a good balance, while others have expressed an interest in sitting down to discuss implications they feel are necessary.

With the pine beetle devastation of the ’90s now taking its toll on our forest industry, we must move ahead with other resource industries. We cannot sit still, and we cannot stop.

Another area of partnership I would like to speak about today, in relation to natural resources, is the partnership, as I have said before, that British Columbians have with the mining industry — a resource that so many people depend on to support their families. It is important to remember that rural B.C. is not a uniform region with the same resources or the same needs everywhere else.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin another important industry is tourism. The Cariboo-Chilcotin coast is a land of limitless exploration. This is a region with a past rich history in the spirit of adventure, a land settled by entrepreneurs and outdoor enthusiasts, artists and explorers. The Cariboo-Chilcotin coast has a diverse landscape covering more than 100,000 kilometres of the province and relies on visitors from within British Columbia for accommodation and spending in the local tourism in-
[ Page 4608 ]
dustry. Tourism operators across this vast region remain open and ready to welcome visitors.

Recognizing the importance of mining to our province, we will be opening a broader dialogue about existing laws, regulations and policies in relation to the mining industry in British Columbia. Along with the independent investigation of the Mount Polley breach, this collaboration with First Nations will strengthen our oversight of the response activities and provide public confidence following this serious incident. Our government is devoting resources to work with local officials to clean up the site, mitigate any impacts to communities and the environment and investigate the cause of the breach.

[1650]

I want to let people know that the area impacted by the spill and tourism operators throughout the area are open for business. For those that say they’re not, I have spent, since the incident, many days in that region working and supporting and understanding the devastation but also understanding the beauty that is still there for those who wish to go and see.

Our government is ready to support workers and get them the resources they need. I have been working with the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association to improve tourism opportunities in our region, and I look forward to working with them in the future.

I will continue to stand up, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, and support our natural resource industries — specifically the mining, forestry, agriculture and natural gas sectors, like LNG. By developing British Columbia’s rich natural resource assets, we will ensure that our province will become a global natural resource leader.

I will continue to be working to make sure that every single person, whatever their origin, has an equal shot to thrive, seek wealth, provide for their family and live in a community that they love and feel safe in, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and our beautiful province of British Columbia.

This is a throne speech that I ask all British Columbians to support, and I will continue to support it.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to take my spot and also respond to the throne speech. First I want to thank the constituents of Kootenay West for once again giving me the honour of representing them. From the pristine little communities up in the north shores of the Arrow Lakes, like Edgewood, Fauqier, Burton and Nakusp, right up to the south of my constituency with the mountain community of Rossland, with its award-winning Red Mountain ski hill, I have an incredible community and an incredible constituency, a very diverse one. I’m really, really proud and honoured to represent them.

In all my years of listening and responding to throne speeches in this House, I have to say that this one had the least amount of information, the least amount of real commitments or any kind of substance. It’s something we’ve grown to expect from this government — lots of flash, but no substance.

It’s become so apparent that the past election promises for a trillion-dollar economic windfall that would fill a $100 million prosperity fund, wipe out B.C.’s $60 billion debt and create as many as 100,000 jobs was all nothing but empty promises, nothing that has come to fruition. In fact, the 100,000 jobs…. We are in ninth place in this country in job creation in the private sector. When are we going to see our 100,000 jobs? They’re very slow in coming.

Now we learn that the proposed LNG is not going to create this economic windfall that we were promised. In fact, according to the throne speech, it’s just for maintaining the status quo, ensuring that core services already promised by the B.C. Liberals will only be built, will only be maintained if this LNG comes to fruition. It seems like there’s a great deal of information floating around. One hardly knows who to believe anymore. It seems that this was almost a veiled threat to British Columbians: “It doesn’t matter what it costs us. We need the LNG just to continue to provide core services.”

With the public sabre-rattling going on between this government and the companies looking at LNG in this province, it’s a real worry that the Premier and her ministers will be giving away our resources just to save face, more than anything else. Now it’s under the guise of saving core services for British Columbians.

In countries where they actually, really care about people, care about the core services, they have a different opinion on natural resources. They control them. They don’t give their natural resources away.

[1655]

Take Norway, for instance. I understand that my colleague from Nanaimo also referred to this yesterday, but I think it’s worth repeating. Years ago Norway told companies that if they wanted their natural resources, they’d have to pay for them. Now, companies didn’t run out of that country. They didn’t scream anti-business slogans or throw up their hands and say they couldn’t do business in Norway. No, they bought in. Not only do they have extremely successful operations; Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, close to $1 trillion.

It provides much of the services to the country’s citizens. They give their citizens security for core programs like child care, health care and services to seniors with the funds there if they need it. They had the courage to actually stand up to the big companies and tell them they were only too welcome to do business in their country as long as the country and their citizens got their fair share too.

Just to compare, Norway charges a 70 percent tax. Alberta, for instance, only charges a 10 percent tax. Again, all the companies in Norway are doing just fine. It’ll be really interesting to see what kind of a tax rate the B.C.
[ Page 4609 ]
government comes up with for these companies that are coming in and are going to benefit from our natural resources.

Also, Norway has five million citizens. B.C. has 4.5 million. Fairly close, fairly similar in populations. You wonder what’s going to happen here. It’s not looking like we’re going to be able share in this. We’re not looking that we’re going to have an opportunity to actually share in the resources in this province. Instead, we have a throne speech big on fantasy without anything substantial.

If this throne speech is accurate, we won’t see much-needed child care programs being built, social programs being sustained, hospitals being built. We were told that in the throne speech. There won’t be additions to certain hospitals in this province if the LNG doesn’t come to fruition. What about seniors services that need to be provided? I could go on, because the B.C. Liberals have chosen to put all their eggs in one basket — LNG.

This throne speech said to me that nothing is going to get done in this province until LNG is here. When will it be? We don’t even know that. We have no commitment from this government that it’s arriving any time soon.

The government promised companies last year that it would know by last year what the tax regime would be. One of the companies is now saying very definitively in the media that we need to know. We need to know what this tax regime is going to be well before the end of the month, and we’ve heard that we’re not going to get that legislation until the end of the month. It still needs to be debated. It still needs to come before the House.

What does that mean? What does that mean to the companies that are saying: “We want to invest in this province, but we still are yet to hear what kind of investment we have to make, how it’s going to work”? What this government has done is waited. They’ve known for over a year that this legislation was needed. What the heck were they doing?

We waited for the legislation this last spring. It didn’t come. We finally have a fall session. Once again, we’re waiting for it. No legislation. Where is it? Why hasn’t it already been tabled in the House? Why don’t we know what kind of tax regime the companies are going to be up against? Why don’t we know how British Columbians are going to benefit from companies that are going to take our natural resources and benefit well by them? How are the people of the province going to benefit? How are the citizens going to benefit? We’re not going to know until we actually see that legislation.

We want to ask: what are the standards going to be? What kinds of regulations are going to be implemented? Will it be done at any cost? I know that the minister who is responsible spoke yesterday about ensuring a future for his grandchildren. Well, I want to ensure a future for my grandkids, too, but not at any cost. It has to be a future that not only is economically sustainable but environmentally sustainable also. We ought to make sure that we don’t sell our resources to the lowest bidder and cost our grandkids a legacy, an opportunity to truly benefit from our resources.

[1700]

When I was thinking of this, it reminded me of what the B.C. Liberal–appointed board members of the Columbia Basin Trust did about ten years ago. They decided that they were going to sell the assets of the trust, that in their so-called wisdom, they were going to take the dams, and they were going to sell them and put that money on the stock market. Can you imagine? Can you imagine what would have happened?

We all know what happened to the stock market in 2003 and 2004. What would have happened to our grandchildren’s legacy, our children’s legacy, if those dams had been sold and that money had been invested in the stock market that crashed after that?

Thank God that the people of the region, the people of the Columbia Basin, rose up and said a definitive: “No, you are not taking our legacy. You are not taking that away from the people of this basin.” And now there’s millions of dollars that can be invested back into the community.

Let’s hope that the B.C. Liberals don’t think: “Okay, we’re giving away our legacy this time too.” Let’s hope that they have a mandate to know that they can actually ensure that the resources will be there for our kids and grandkids.

It’s frustrating, because what we heard from the throne speech was not much substance, just: “Hurry up and wait. Trust us. We’re going to take care of things.”

It concerns me, when I go around and talk to communities in my new role as an economic development advocate for the Interior, that communities are worried. I think it’s important to talk about the fact that we’re advocates. We’re people that are there for the communities that aren’t hearing their issues resolved, that aren’t feeling that their voices are being heard.

A lot of those communities are really worried, because they don’t have LNG. They don’t have any LNG in their communities or in their regions, and they’re feeling left out. They feel that LNG is the only game in town. So where is the support for those communities? Where is the support for the things that they wanted to implement, the things that they want to see happen?

They’re saying: “Where is the discussion about the forest industry?” We’ve heard about the job losses in the forest industry. It’s well documented.

Agriculture. I mean, this government has the least amount of investment in agriculture out of any province in this country. And it continues to go on. I am intimately involved with agriculture, and I listen to the people that are involved in it and hear about the lack of commitment from this government in agriculture.

We know what’s happening in mining and tourism. We know that this government has decimated the public ser-
[ Page 4610 ]
vice to the point where we don’t have enough boots on the ground to adequately ensure that there’s proper monitoring in place, to ensure that all of the people who utilize the land base respect that land base. It’s just not there.

We hear it from folks who work in the public sector. Whether it’s a need for professional foresters, qualified environmental professionals or conservation officers, there’s just not enough of them. So many of them have been let go. Things are being let go in this province. It’s not being properly monitored.

The fact is that the companies are expected to monitor things themselves. Some companies in this province do an excellent job. They do an amazing job of ensuring that they are making sure they give back to the land base as much as they take from it. There are other companies in this province who aren’t, who are saying: “As long as we can get away with the basic regulations in this province, we’ll do whatever it takes to meet the bottom line as long as our profit is what it is.”

That does nothing to ensure sustainable and environmentally friendly operations in this province, to ensure an economic driver that doesn’t take away from people in this province, take aware from resources. It’s a real concern when you talk to people.

I, too, travelled to Mount Polley and Likely a couple of weeks ago. I travelled up with our leader, and we met with local steelworkers affected by the breach. I have trouble calling it a breach. I saw it. It’s an unmitigated disaster. We toured the minesite. We saw the devastation. We met with people in Likely. We met with local business people, and we heard their anguish. We had the opportunity to hear how these people are really feeling about the government’s response to this disaster — or, I should say, the lack of response.

We met with the Borkowskis, Sharon and Skeed, who hosted us at their beautiful Northern Lights Lodge. If anybody wants an incredible opportunity to see a beautiful place, they should travel there. The apple pie is to die for; it was incredible.

[1705]

Hon. N. Letnick: Where?

K. Conroy: At Northern Lights Lodge. It’s great. I have to tell you that I had a number of really jealous family members because I sent pictures of sitting in the great room there at the lodge with all these amazing animals hanging on the walls — I mean, ten-point elks and an incredible moose and a grizzly bear. It was just an amazing array of what they can do up there. I know a lot of the folks in my family were really jealous I was there.

We heard from Sharon and Skeed. We heard from the Biggses, who operate the High Country Inn; Steve and Aileen Peterson, who operate the Valley General Store; and the Zorns, Gary and Peggy, who have this first-class ecotour operation, providing services to international tourists, visitors from all over North America and Europe. These folks are struggling. They’re struggling and don’t feel the government has lived up to their commitment to help.

Peggy told us…. She said that when they met with the Premier, when the Premier finally got up to Likely and they brought in the minister and the local MLAs in early August…. When the Premier finally got there, she took Peggy’s hand, and she said: “If there is anything at all I can do for you, let me know.” All they asked for was some funds so that those four businesses could mitigate the damage done to their businesses, so they could do some damage control to ensure that their businesses would survive during this incredible period of uncertainty, and that they would thrive.

Did they get anything? No. They finally got an answer to their letter a few days ago. They got money; a small stipend was given to the chamber of commerce. Did these people feel, did these folks really feel, that the government listened to them, that they are there for them?

I mean, they are open for business. They are there, but they are very concerned. They’re not hiding their heads in the sand. They are concerned with the plume of green gunk that is flowing into the pristine Quesnel Lake. They are concerned about what is happening to their water supply. They are very concerned, and they want something done about it.

They did nothing to deserve this. They did nothing. What are they getting back in exchange? They are not getting the support and help that they should be getting from this government. They told me that, yes, they are open for business, but in fact it was the quietest Labour Day weekend they have ever had in the history of providing services up there.

We all have to do better. We all have to make sure that the people of Likely are not lost in this entire fiasco.

To me, it says once again that the Premier’s there when there are cameras. Then when the cameras are gone, where is she? Where is she for the people of Likely? She has not been back there. There have been a few ministers that have been there, but even the people of Likely have said their questions haven’t been answered by the ministers. They haven’t been answered by the local MLAs. They are concerned. They feel abandoned by the ministry and by the people that should be helping them.

These are really good, hard-working folks that through no fault of their own are facing very real struggles to ensure they continue to provide the amazing opportunities to visitors — amazing opportunities. When you go on their website and look at what they can provide to people across the world, it’s amazing what they can provide. They’re a true economic driver for their region, for the province. My heart goes out to them.

I know we will continue to be advocates on their behalf. We will continue to work on their behalf. We will continue to make sure that this government stands up
[ Page 4611 ]
to its commitment of standing beside them, because it’s something that they don’t feel has been done.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: I’m only saying what I’ve been told, so if the shoe fits. I know the truth is hard to take at times, but the truth is what it is that I’m speaking.

You know, what worries me as I stood there and I looked at the empty tailings pond…. I tell you, it looks like a moonscape. Then I looked at this enormous chasm where the breach had occurred and saw the devastation. It’s the devastation of what has been a pristine creek. It looks like an excavator came and took out thousands and thousands of loads of trees and dirt. It just created this gulch down this creek.

[1710]

It took the trees. Trees that were once full-grown trees ended up looking like pickup sticks, looked like they’d been through a debarker. They ended up in piles in pristine Quesnel Lake. There were no limbs left, no bark, nothing. They looked like they’d been through a sawmill and a debarker.

It’s been cleaned up. Yes, it’s been cleaned up, but there is more to be done. There is so much more to be done.

I thought back to a year ago, just over a year ago, of what happened in my own backyard — devastation on a much smaller scale, but still devastation to the people of Slocan and Lemon Creek. Ironically, it happened just before the August long weekend last year, too, when the tanker truck full of jet fuel emptied into Lemon Creek and the Slocan River. A year later it’s still not cleaned up.

The people of the area, who were so badly affected — again, through no fault of their own — have had to bring about a class action lawsuit to try to ensure that they can get some kind of compensation recovered. A year later people are still finding jet fuel in their water.

This spring they found a large boom. I’m getting a shaking of heads. Well, the minister should come up and talk to the people, because there was a large boom left from the cleanup, the so-called cleanup. This spring it was found there, soaked in jet fuel. I mean, what kind of cleanup is that? What kind of a guarantee is that? You’ve got to think: “What is happening?”

I hope — I only hope — that this government doesn’t leave the people of Likely like they’ve left the people of Lemon Creek and the people of Slocan. A year later there’s still no redress. Is that what this government has come to? They show up for the photo ops and then walk away and are not there to carry through on what needs to happen. God forbid.

I challenge all of you sitting in the Legislature on that side there: you make sure that your government stands up for the people of Likely, that they make sure mitigation is carried out so that they are not there a year from now still unable to provide the services they need to provide. Make sure the guidelines are actually in place so this doesn’t happen again. Make sure that the mines that are out there operating in our province never have the opportunity to make this happen again — never.

I know all of you who have mines in your own constituencies, like I do, have had people calling and saying: “What is happening? What is happening?” We’re saying: “We know mining companies that are operating excellent, excellent mines, that are very conscientious about what they’re doing.” But people are worried, and you can’t blame them. People saw the pictures. You can’t blame them.

I’ve talked to folks in the mining industry, and they are worried. They also feel that this devastation that has happened has affected them. They say that they have excellent, environmentally sustainable operations, and they are worried about what’s happening to the mining industry. I don’t blame them. They are worried. They feel that there are delays now that are unnecessary. But they are projects…. They are only too willing to ensure due diligence, that it’s carried out on their operations. Now they face this.

You ask yourself, if the government had only listened to the request from Imperial mines: “Would this have happened?” It’s really shortsighted, but we have to ask ourselves. We have to ask: “How does this help the economy of our province?” These people have said: “We need help. We can’t bury our heads in the sand.” That’s exactly what these people have said to me. We can’t bury our heads in the sand. We have to stand up and say: “This has happened, and we need to get help.”

I hope that the government isn’t waiting till LNG comes along to help people in situations like this, because that would be a terrible disservice to the people in our area and in the entire province.

When I think about LNG coming, them saying that it was only there for core service, it brings to mind the highways in our interior. Since I’ve got this new critic area, I have spent a lot of time travelling on the highways in the Interior, and I have some real concerns. We know the government spent a heck of a lot of money down in the Lower Mainland on the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the Port Mann Bridge, Highway 1, which is great. Fair enough. Billions of dollars, I think. That’s great.

[1715]

The problem is, for those of us that live in the Interior: what about our roads? Those trucks are driving down to that port, and then they’re bringing it back. I’ve talked to the mayors of Highway 3. They’re concerned that there is just not enough being done for those trucks. I mean, talk to the people that are on Highway 1. Talk to the people going through Rogers Pass. There’s a real concern about the highways in the Interior. Every time I go to a community, whether it be Kamloops, Penticton, I talk to people who are really concerned about the condition of the roads.
[ Page 4612 ]

I sat with the mayors from Highway 3, who met with the Ministers of Jobs and Tourism and of Transportation and the Premier. I listened to them give their plea, once again, to ensure that Highway 3 had the much-needed upgrades. We all agreed that there have been some upgrades done. But how much more needs to be done? Where is it not getting done, and what are the safety issues? What are the issues around the roads that go all through these mayors’ communities?

The mayors — it’s an amazing coalition. It’s led, very ably, by our Castlegar mayor, Lawrence Chernoff. I applaud them for their persistence. They come to UBCM every year. I’ve talked to a number of them. This year I applaud them for the collective voice they brought to the meeting. It was great to see. They’re unified and all working for the same cause: the betterment of Highway 3 across the province, regardless of whose community the work is being done in.

They all agreed more needs to be done. They talked about actually getting a rebranding to make sure people recognize Highway 3, where it is, that it’s a major link across our province. That was the commitment they got: to rebrand Highway 3. I thought, “Okay, that’s great,” but my concern is: how much more traffic can Highway 3 take? There are some parts of it that are a little sketchy, as with Highway 1.

And I’m telling you, these are our major highways. They’re major highways that should have much more work done on them. They should be taken care of so all those trucks down at the port can get out to the Interior and deliver what they need to deliver.

I think it’s really important that we support the work to be done in the Interior of the province as well as the Lower Mainland. I don’t think there are many Interior MLAs that would disagree with that. Let’s hope not. I look forward, actually, to hearing the minister of highways talk about actual upgrading to Highway 3 and Highway 1 and not just another consultation session. The people in the Interior don’t need to be consulted anymore. They know what needs to be done, and the ministry knows what needs to be done, so let’s not stall anymore. Let’s get it done.

I talked about the communities when I spoke to mayors who are really concerned about not having LNG in their communities. It’s interesting, because not all the municipalities are asking for handouts.

I want to talk about the city of Trail, for instance. In Trail there’s an old bridge. The government owned it for half its life, and then they sold it to the city for a dollar. The city now owns it, although they’d be only too happy to sell it back to the government for a dollar. The bridge is over 100 years old, and over the years, in spite of upkeep, the bridge has begun to wear away — it has eroded — to the point where it had to be shut down. It can’t be utilized. It can’t even be used as a walkway.

It also houses a major sewer pipe that connects one-half of the community to the treatment plant. The city recently passed a referendum allowing a rocking bridge to be built across the Columbia River that the sewer pipe can be attached to. The problem is the old bridge. It needs to be dismantled, and at a significant cost. The city can’t borrow money from the Municipal Financing Authority as you have to have an asset to borrow money on, and you can’t borrow against a dismantled bridge. That’s definitely not an asset. Then there’s a problem with the sewer pipe.

The city has asked the government not to pay for the cost but to actually share the cost of dismantling this bridge. They’ve been asking the province for this for I think it’s well over three years now. I’ve been at every meeting, and I’ve listened to the minister’s rationale of why they can’t fund.

[1720]

But keep in mind that if this bridge collapses, which it could potentially do — you can’t even shovel snow off of it in the winter, because you can’t go on it — you can imagine the unmitigated environmental disaster of a sewage pipe dropping into the Columbia River, which runs into the state of Washington. You have to think of not only the environmental issues with that but the diplomatic complications. The city has just asked for funding to share the cost. It’s not even that great.

I keep looking at the throne speech, saying: “What’s here for the people in the Interior?” Will Trail get help to dismantle a bridge? Can we ensure that our schools continue to fund, that our hospital continues to operate? Because there’s not LNG in place yet. I worry about that.

For that reason, I think that the throne speech was shortsighted. It was full of substance. It did not have what we needed to have. It did not have the ability to show us that there are other opportunities in this province that we need to look at. It didn’t do that. It concerns me that a government would put so many eggs in one basket — not have the wherewithal to ensure that we’re taking care of our province, that we’re taking care of our citizens — just keep smiling and saying, “It is all about LNG. That’s going to be our saviour,” when it’s a bit shortsighted, I think. I think we have to recognize that.

For me, it’s a concern. It makes me think that the government has not done what it should be doing, that it hasn’t made sure that the investment that needs to happen in this province could carry on, when we’re still ninth in this country for job creation. There are so many other issues that one could talk about. It’s frustrating to think that for this government it’s all been about LNG. We are only too happy to support economic resources in this province but not at the cost of everything else.

L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, it’s always a pleasure to stand before you, and it’s great to be back in the House after a long summer away. I love to talk about my riding of Chilliwack-Hope and the people in it, to describe how the Speech from the Throne relates to them.
[ Page 4613 ]

Of course, I want to thank some people. I want to thank the people who elected me. The people of Chilliwack-Hope have given me a great privilege in allowing me to come and represent them here in Victoria. I always love doing that.

I also want to thank some people who help to keep my life in order. In my work, I’m thinking of Gabrielle Loosdrecht, who is my constituency assistant in Chilliwack. I think of Sheila Denis, who does my scheduling in Chilliwack. I wouldn’t arrive anywhere if she didn’t help me out. I think of Helen Jeschek, who fills in on a part-time basis in my Hope office and, of course, Heidi Scott, my legislative assistant, who helps me to keep my life in order here in Victoria. I wouldn’t be able to do my job without their faithful service day after day, and I want to thank them very sincerely.

Now, I want to report to my constituents a few things that I’ve been doing over the summer, because I’ve been working hard. I have a large riding. My riding is 10,000 square kilometres. It’s a massive area. It means that I spend a lot of time on the road. I drive around in my riding, also in and out of Vancouver and Victoria for meetings with government. In fact, over the last 16 months I’ve travelled about 5,000 kilometres a month to get to just about every area of my riding to do the business of the people.

I’ve been very much on the move, and I’ve spoken with a lot of constituents. I’ve met with hundreds of constituents, attended many public functions. I’ve been to numerous meetings dealing with my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections and my roles on two cabinet committees, as well as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Just last week the Public Accounts Committee met for two solid days, and we’ve done that twice this summer.

In other words, I want my constituents to know that I’ve not been slacking off this summer. I’m working hard on their behalf.

There have been tangible improvements all over my riding. On November 16 we will have municipal elections all over the province. Specifically for the community of Cultus Lake, our government passed a bill to streamline the Cultus Lake Park Board, for which that community is very grateful.

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development was also able, after I consulted publicly with the community over a several-month period, to reduce the size of electoral area E and create an entirely new electoral area district so that the Cultus Lake region will now have its own representative on the Fraser Valley regional district board. We’re all looking forward to the accountable government that that is going to create in that area.

[1725]

I’m so pleased to say that we have a healthy slate of candidates who’ve already declared their interest in running for that board and the electoral area district because of what we’ve done.

Our government has invigorated democracy in my riding. It has people talking and thinking and looking forward to elections, and I do believe that the turnout in that area, contrary to some other places in the province, will be very high indeed.

Now, we’ve been able to obtain some highway improvements around my riding. I would mention safety improvements at Herrling Island on the Trans-Canada Highway. I would mention repaving on Highway 3 at Sunshine Valley.

We were also fortunate, in the wake of the deadly slides that occurred in Washington earlier this year, that the Minister of Transportation authorized a geotechnical study on the slopes opposite Sunshine Valley just to make sure that the residents of the valley are safe.

The ministry has undertaken other improvements. A few weeks ago I attended the opening of a new rest stop in the beautiful town of Yale, which is also a way to encourage travellers to stop and see the historic sites there. I would remind people in the House that Yale is one of the most important historic landmarks in B.C. It was there that the gold rush began, which was really the beginning of the development of this province.

The Yale Historical Society has done a beautiful job — with a good deal of provincial help, I would add — in restoring the church of St. John the Divine, which is one of the oldest churches in B.C., and restoring Creighton House and Shaw House. Society members have created a lot of other authentic historical exhibits that tell the story of the gold rush and the railway and the geography of that wild and beautiful community beside the Fraser River.

It’s been a real privilege to enjoy the hospitality of Yale by attending two community meals there. There could be no more generous or hospitable or friendlier place to go. I very much enjoyed the time I spent there.

I could also mention the time I spent in Harrison Hot Springs, where the province has helped to beautify its main street to assist in tourism there. I could talk about a new community pavilion called the Raymond Pavilion in Boston Bar, named after Frank and Betty Raymond, who are principal citizens of that area. I could talk about the recreation centre in Agassiz. The district of Kent that the province has committed $750,000 to — I will attend its grand opening in November, and I’m very much looking forward to that. There have been dike improvements in Chilliwack.

There have been things happening all over my riding, as my government continues to express its concern and its care for my constituents.

Now, before I move on from my summer report, I also want to take a moment to pay tribute to my father, Herald, who passed away this summer, in August. He had a wonderful, long, healthy, peaceful and productive life. He was one of the great generation, as we call them, a gen-
[ Page 4614 ]
eration who went through the Great Depression on the farm and came out as poor as church mice but also with a work ethic second to none. He and my mother, Edna, raised five fine children.

Interjection.

L. Throness: I like to count myself among them, yes.

My dad was a pastor for 45 years throughout western Canada, ministering in places like Tofino, Fort St. John, Penticton, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Richmond, Surrey and Vancouver. Dad was a spiritual man of high ideals, a good preacher who spend his life and energy and considerable talents on a pittance of a salary, working to build the kingdom of God and his Christ rather than the kingdom of this world. I can only hope to match his Christian faith, his integrity and his commitment.

But he is not alone. There are thousands of people like him from his generation who built B.C. and made it what it is today, and I want to pay tribute to all the members of the great generation.

This summer ended with several serious events — first of all, the breach in the tailings pond at Mount Polley. Although it didn’t affect my riding directly, it did affect all British Columbians, because mining and the future of mining, in part, depends on supporting and encouraging economic development while not sacrificing our environment.

In that way, Mount Polley is a serious threat to the industry, which is why the minister took action. He struck an independent task force of very knowledgable people to do a comprehensive and rapid evaluation of that incident. The inspector of mines has mandated inspections of all tailings ponds of all other operating mines.

I think the government has mounted an aggressive and uncompromising response to this tragedy and has been very transparent about its actions, and we all look forward to the reports to follow. I believe that something positive is going to come out of this. We’re going to make our industry better, and we are determined to do so.

Then, of course, we have to talk about the teachers strike. This was an especially difficult and protracted negotiation. I received a lot of feedback during the strike from teachers in my riding but also from parents and from others who were involved.

[1730]

There was a wide range of views expressed. People were very anxious about it. I think when all is said and done, something positive is going to come out of this as well. Because we were willing to wait for that positive thing to happen, we were able to come to a negotiated, rather than a legislated, agreement.

It’s a six-year agreement. It’s of historic length. We came to a settlement that provided a reasonable wage increase for teachers but one that was also affordable for taxpayers and one that addressed a principal concern of teachers, and that is class composition.

Nearly every teacher I spoke to, and I spoke to many of them, said the conditions in the classroom are unsustainable as they are. I have a lot of sympathy for their plight. I passed that concern on to the government, as did others, and the government listened. I’m proud to be part of a caucus that listens, that makes economically responsible decisions but is also responsive to the legitimate concerns of constituents, including teachers.

The Mount Polley spill and the teachers’ strike were two of the principal events of the summer and fall, but the final event I want to talk about was sort of lost in other news. It was perhaps just as significant. It was the economic update that was delivered by the Minister of Finance on September 14, and this update was good news. We are on track to balance our budget. In fact, we’re projecting a slightly larger surplus at the end of March than we predicted in February.

There are many pressures. For example, the fire season. It was a difficult one this summer. We budgeted $63 million to fight fires, and it ended up costing the taxpayer $350 million. You cannot foresee expenditures like that.

The good news is that there are some revenues that are up, and we’re still projecting a budget surplus of $266 million on a budget of $44.8 billion. I would point out that this isn’t a large surplus. In fact, our budget is balanced on a razor’s edge. It’s like making and spending $1,000 a month and having $6 left over at the end of that month. That’s not very much.

In an economy the size of our provincial economy, where our GDP is about $210 billion, if anything — and I mean almost anything — goes wrong in the economy, our balanced budget will be in jeopardy. That’s why it’s so important for us to hold the line on spending, why we’re so determined to keep union settlements reasonable and affordable this year, and we’re going to continue to be disciplined in our spending.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Here I want to congratulate our government and our Premier and our Finance Minister on the achievement of two successive balanced budgets, which is still very much worthy of note in Canada. Although some provinces and the federal government have improved their situation of late, the situation on a continental scale is still pretty grim. When we look at budget deficits across North America, we see that Ontario, Canada’s largest economy, is still projecting a deficit of nearly $12 billion this year. Quebec will still have a budget deficit of $2.5 billion, and the Atlantic provinces are all in deficit.

Most worrisome of all, the American government will still post a deficit of $492 billion this year, even in better economic times, which would translate roughly to a deficit of $50 billion in an economy the size of Canada’s. In particular, the national debt of the United States will
[ Page 4615 ]
reach the truly gigantic sum of $18.7 trillion at the end of this fiscal year.

And I would repeat, as I’ve been saying over and over since I was elected, that one day interest rates are going to rise. The chickens are going to come home to roost on this American debt, and it will result in an economic shock. British Columbia needs to insulate itself from this economic shock.

What about the future for B.C. in terms of economic growth? As the Speech from the Throne said, it has a lot to do with demographics. During the ’80s and ’90s our population grew at a faster pace than it is growing now, and a major reason is that our society is getting older. It’s aging. The greying of our workforce results in slower economic growth and will for decades into the future.

This was the conclusion, for example, of a report from the Bank of Montreal that came out in May this year. There are many other institutions that say the same thing, but I want to quote from the Bank of Montreal report, which said this:

“Average growth rates will be slower. Get used to it. Canadian real GDP growth has been stepping down the staircase since the 1960s, with each decade slower than the previous period…. From nearly 6 percent average real GDP advances in the 1960s, we cooled to 4 percent in the ’70s, 3 percent in the ’80s, 2.5 percent in the ’90s — to the point where 2 percent is now seen as nearly normal. The Bank of Canada officially estimates that potential growth is now 1.9 percent. Get ready for another step down the staircase in the coming decade.”

[1735]

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that our budget is forecasting GDP growth in B.C. of exactly 1.9 percent this year. Furthermore, B.C. has one of the highest proportions of seniors of any province in Canada. Currently, 17 percent of B.C.’s population is over 65 years of age compared to 11 percent in Alberta. B.C. is a wonderful place to retire. But it means that our province will age more rapidly than most others in Canada, and this situation presents both challenges and opportunities.

First, I want to talk about what I see as the biggest challenge posed by demographic aging, and it’s this. As people get older, they need more health care. In fact, the Canadian Institute for Health Information said in 2011: “While Canadians older than age 65 account for less than 14 percent of the population, they consume nearly 44 percent of provincial and territorial government health care dollars.”

This presents a special problem because it just so happens that health care is the largest expenditure of our provincial budget by far. The health care budget this year is $17 billion. It’s going to reach $18 billion per year by 2016-17. Health care spending is growing at the rate of 2.5 percent per year, which is a third higher than the rate of growth we’re projecting for our provincial economy — which presents us with an enormous and almost immediate public policy problem which will endure decades into the future, where health care consumes an ever-increasing share of our provincial budget.

This year 38 percent of our provincial budget is taken up by health care, and because health care is a life-and-death matter, it tends to take priority over any other issue. It means that we’re squeezed when it comes to spending on other programs.

More than one of my constituents contacted me recently during the teachers strike, asking for more spending on education. But they also asked for more spending on health care. We already spend nearly two-thirds of our budget on just these two priorities — health care and education. It’s very difficult for our government to spend more on them without seriously underfunding other critical programs, whether it’s transportation or infrastructure, social services, justice or the environment — all of which are imperative. Health care is that first challenge.

The second great challenge is very simple, and it’s this. In the future, as our society ages and our workers retire in ever-greater numbers from the labour force, there will be fewer and fewer workers to replace them, and the productivity of the province could fall, which could result in even lower economic growth and less prosperity than we see today.

In order to meet these great challenges, I see rising to meet them five great public policy opportunities. I’ve already touched on the first, and that is to continue to budget responsibly by refusing to spend more than we take in. Balanced budgets and even small surpluses will allow us to begin to reduce our debt, which will have all sorts of positive spinoff effects.

A second opportunity to meet the challenge of our aging society is to replace retiring workers with new technology in order to maintain and even increase the productivity of our economy. Let me give you a homespun, real-life, down-on-the-farm example.

My late father told me that when he grew up on the farm, they still employed horses in agriculture. But when they bought their first tractor, they were able to sell 40 horses. Imagine the time that it took to care for 40 large animals, let alone to harness them, to train them, to drive them into the fields to work — slower than a tractor would do. Think of the risk of working with animals who might get frightened. Think of them becoming sick or injured. The tractor marked an immediate increase in worker productivity as well as worker comfort and safety.

In fact, replacing labour with capital is really fundamental to the very idea of capitalism, which has brought us a cornucopia of high-quality consumer goods at very low prices that has made our lifestyle enormously more healthy and wealthy and more comfortable than in the past and, I would argue, more satisfying as well. This is because machines by definition do less complex and more repetitive tasks so that many mundane and boring and dangerous jobs are now done by machines, leaving people to do more safe and interesting and creative and fulfilling work.
[ Page 4616 ]

Although it’s obviously unsettling to have one’s job replaced by a machine, history tells us that the results are preferable to the status quo. It suggests that the foundation of job security in the future lies not in the commitment to one job for life, as it used to be, but in a commitment to ongoing education, to keep on qualifying ourselves in a changing economy that is constantly growing through advancing innovation and applied technology.

[1740]

The need for innovation is heightened by our tightening job market, in which there are already labour shortages throughout the province. These shortages would only increase as we consider our plans for future industry, so for a number of reasons, it’s more important to B.C.’s economy than to others in Canada that we focus on innovation and technology. Our government should use all the public policy tools it can to increase worker productivity.

An example of this was sent to me by my constituent Gary Senft the other day, and I’d like to thank him for doing that. It was a video news report which told of new and inexpensive diagnostic technologies using a smartphone to monitor heart and blood sugar levels. They even demonstrated a hand-held ultrasound machine. All can be operated by the patient and the results shared remotely with a physician in real time. It eliminates the need for time-consuming and costly tests.

Because the physician can diagnose immediately, these kinds of devices facilitate better health care as well as more convenience. It’s a win-win-win scenario for doctors and patients and government budgets. The principle of applying new technologies across many different industries, including health care, can help to improve productivity across the British Columbian economy.

A third opportunity, to reduce the impact of societal aging, is to create new streams of revenue to be sure that we can be prosperous far into the future — streams of revenue that will outpower and overcome the effect of our aging population so that we can maintain our social and other programs. That’s exactly why we are presenting the legislation that we’re going to be tabling later this month.

As the Speech from the Throne said, we need to reach out and grow. If we stay where we are, we will stagnate and fall back. We have to move forward, which is why economic development is the way out of our economic predicament and the way up for our province.

In terms of our investment, we have risked nothing but shoe leather in reaching out to develop this industry, but the possible gains are spectacular. We would be foolish not to try. I believe that because of our hard work and the vision of our Premier, we are on the cusp of something great, something that could create limitless opportunities for our children and their children as well.

Now, the fourth opportunity, to mitigate the effects of demographic change, is a natural one that will flow from a new LNG industry. We expect to create a lot of jobs in B.C. In fact, the Labour Ministry’s publication Labour Market Outlook 2010-2020 said this: “Over the longer term, more than one million job openings are expected throughout the province over the next ten years.”

That’s not a politician’s estimate. This is a Ministry of Labour statistic, and it was an estimate made in the middle of a recession. Now that the recession is over, there are already labour shortages around the province.

A friend from Fort St. John told me that just to build a house in that city takes a year and a half, just to line up the trades, like plumbing and electricity. This need for workers will draw people from all over the world. That’s why a new LNG industry will have the natural effect of helping to reduce the impact of societal aging by attracting more working-age people to live in our fair province, to contribute to our communities and to the tax base that supports our programs. There are all sorts of positive benefits to this new industry, without dramatic environmental side effects.

The fourth opportunity I see is the development of B.C.’s north. As we know, even though northern B.C. drives the provincial economy with its vast resources, only 8 percent of B.C.’s population lives north of 100 Mile House. That works out to about 350,000 people. Most of the population lives in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, where it’s more mild, but northern B.C. is also a beautiful part of our province.

I can say that with experience, because I spent all my elementary school years in Fort St. John. I was reminded of its beauty when I travelled there this summer. It’s a youthful, growing place. There’s a special energy there — a wonderful area for people to live and to raise their families. LNG is going to help to develop B.C.’s north.

The fifth and final opportunity I see is that through LNG we’re going to be able to reduce our historic dependency on the American economy — which, as I have said, offers a lot of risk for B.C. in the medium to long term and a risk to the social programs that support an aging population.

We need to engage more with Asia, diversifying our trading partners so that we’ll be better placed to endure any financial shock that will come if the debt bubble bursts south of the border — something, of course, that we all hope never happens.

[1745]

We’ve already worked hard to diversify. Although we will always benefit from a close trading relationship with our American friends, and although we have already diversified in the past decade by expanding our trade with China, for instance, by 500 percent, an LNG industry that trades more with Asia will enhance that insulating effect for our economy.

So far, our plans for the new industry have gone very well, and 18 consortiums have expressed interest. Some are spending money already. In fact, it was reported today that Petronas has already spent $8 billion in pursuit
[ Page 4617 ]
of LNG in B.C. But things rarely go without a hitch. I do not underestimate the magnitude of this task.

This leads me to expect opposition to our plan, not only in this House but from other quarters as well. I will say that I’m always stunned that instead of prodding the government to move faster to capture this great series of opportunities, all we hear is naysaying and negativity from the other side of the House. We hope for change in the future as they see things come to fruition.

Nothing worth doing ever comes easy. There will be setbacks along the road. There will be hills to climb. Things may look bleak at times, but something is going to continue to propel us toward our goal, which is a great goal of eliminating our provincial debt, of developing our province, of making First Nations an integral part of the economy, of continuing to provide world-class programs.

What will keep us going, even in the face of difficulties in this endeavour, is simple faith. It takes faith to grow and improve our province. If we didn’t have faith in the future, we wouldn’t get up in the morning. We’d never try to do anything. But when we believe that something better is possible, even if it does not yet exist, when we believe that something good is going to happen to us, even though it hasn’t happened yet, we are motivated to act, and that action tends to bring about what we believe. In this way, faith is creative, it is active, it is bold, it is optimistic, and it is daring. Faith envisions that which does not exist and calls it into being.

Years ago Preston Manning wrote a book with the title Think Big. He is a man of big ideas. He first envisioned the Reform Party of Canada. He created it out of nothing. He motivated good men and women to go to Ottawa and serve there. Many Reform ideals have found expression on the national stage through one of the most enduring reformers in Ottawa, and that is a person named Stephen Harper.

Big ideas have a big impact, and LNG is a big idea. It’s a bold expression of idealism. Believing that a better future is possible and working toward it is integral to good government. I’m proud to be part of a government that has a vision for something that doesn’t yet exist and has constructed a bold, positive plan to create it. I, for one, believe that we are going to arrive at that better future.

The legislation we are introducing this fall, announced in the Speech from the Throne, is perfectly timed for the economic and social circumstances in which we find ourselves. It lays out a positive future for our great province, and that’s why I am speaking in full support today of the government’s Speech from the Throne.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I’m pleased to stand to speak about the throne speech, but I must admit, in hearing the throne speech, I wondered if I’d missed it. In fact, I had some people say to me: “Oh, there was a throne speech today?” Of course, one of the things on line they do now is: “In case you missed it.” The comment was: “In case you missed it, you didn’t miss it, because there wasn’t much there.”

Throne speeches are supposed to be vision documents. They’re supposed to grapple with the challenges of today, offer suggestions, offer solutions, offer leadership on what to do about those problems, about what to do about the opportunities ahead and — well, what are some of the biggest crises? I will speak on those in just a moment.

First, I would like to thank the good people of Vancouver–West End and the good people of Vancouver–Coal Harbour. Of course, they’re together in one riding. The West End and Coal Harbour are the people I represent. I also want to acknowledge my constituency assistants, who work very hard for the constituents when I’m over here and, of course, each and every day: Murray Bilida, Chantile Viaud and Parm Kahlon. Here in Victoria I get the benefit of working with my legislative assistant, Elizabeth Parkinson, and of course our research staff and communications.

[1750]

I’m very ably supported, but of course the community supports me as well, giving me ideas, suggestions, criticisms and the like, because of course, you can’t do this job alone. We are 85 members, but we don’t do this job well unless we are supported in our community and across the province and that we actually reach out to those people for their support and their ideas as well.

I’d like to acknowledge the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Squamish, whose traditional territory I get to represent, and, of course, the Songhees and Esquimalt, whose traditional territory we are on today. I think that is very important to acknowledge, and to acknowledge each time we speak in this House, because that is our history, and that is our future — acknowledging and working with the First Peoples of this province.

I’d, of course, like to thank my husband, Romi Chandra Herbert, and my family for their support as well.

Now, when I talk about crises, when I talk about problems, it’s easy to get stuck in the negative. As the environmental spokesperson, looking out across the globe and across this province, we can see a lot of problems. We can see a lot of concerns. As an MLA, I hear them in my office as well, not just on the environment but about social justice, inequality, etc. I’m going to go through a few of them, and I’m going to offer some suggestions, because we did not hear those problems echoed in this throne speech. We did not see or hear a vision to deal with these issues.

It’s troubling because one of the biggest problems, one of the biggest issues we face in this world today is climate change. We are one province in this world, but we are a province with a big impact. We, of course, as you know, hon. Speaker, put out more pollution than much of the developing world, per capita. Our citizens, in the way our economy has been developed, pollute a lot more. We put a lot more of the cost of our economic well-being onto the planet through pollution. Climate change, I think, is
[ Page 4618 ]
the biggest example.

Some will say — maybe this is why it didn’t appear in the throne speech — that, well, climate change is always out there, and maybe they forget about it. I know some have recently written books about this issue. When we see a problem which is causing billions of dollars in damage to our economy every year, when we see a problem like this which is leading to mass die-offs of species, not just because of climate change but, of course, our other actions on this planet…. We’ve seen approximately 40 to 50 percent of all the species that have lived on this planet go extinct.

When I was a young boy, I wrote one of my first letters to the editor of the paper around species going extinct and how we needed to do more to stop the loss of such rich diversity on our planet. Well, we’ve continued down that track. It’s gotten worse, and climate change is getting worse.

In this province, of course, the impact has cost thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs in forestry with the pine beetle. We’re seeing the impact on our shellfish industry as well, with ocean acidification, massive storms, tidal rising, etc. On and on it could go. We could speak for hours and hours.

Thick reports they provide each and every year, the scientists bring us — the 97 percent of scientists who agree that climate change is a problem. They’ve shown us, and we know that this is hurting us now. It’s not a future problem. It’s a today problem, and it’s only going to get worse.

But because the problem is all around us — we can’t see it when we walk out the door, necessarily — we forget about it. It becomes one of those problems. “Well, maybe we’ll deal with that tomorrow. Yeah, it might impact us a little bit today. If we try to fight it, if we try to stop the emissions, maybe it’ll hurt the economy,” as some people argue in this House, if we fight climate change. So we push it off to tomorrow. Maybe we’ll emit some more greenhouse gases, and maybe somebody else will come up with a way to solve it. Jeez, those other guys over there aren’t doing too much about it, so maybe we don’t need to either.

Well, this is failure in leadership. I say that because it’s my generation and the grandchildren and grandchildren and grandchildren down the road that so many like to speak about who are going to suffer because of this failure in leadership here, because of this failure in leadership from the Canadian government and because of the failure of leadership internationally. We all have to do our part and do it now, not tomorrow, not “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day.” No, now. Now — not tomorrow.

Maybe I will share a short quote to illustrate some of what I think we’re facing. I come from a theatrical background. I used to work in the arts, producing theatre, producing dance, doing some direction and that kind of thing. That was my background, a professional artist, before I came to this House.

[1755]

One of the playwrights I find interesting is Howard Barker. He has a quote where he says: “You emerge from tragedy equipped against lies. After the musical, you’re anybody’s fool.”

Well, this is a government that seems to like to dress up tragedy as a musical. They seem to like to pull out the photo ops and say that when a dam break sends 25 million cubic metres of tailings into a lake, destroying the Hazeltine Creek and putting garbage into a pristine lake: “Well, it’s just like a mudslide. It’s just like an avalanche, a natural disaster. Don’t worry about it. Everything’s fine.” They’re trying to dress it up like a musical so people will be fooled.

Well, the people are not fooled. This was a tragedy, as, thankfully, the throne speech acknowledges, and people are seeing it. They’re coming equipped to deal with lies, and they don’t like what’s being fed them by this government. They don’t like the fact that they cannot get good information on what’s going on.

But I digress. I will return to the challenge of climate change. A throne speech like this could be issuing a challenge to all of us to join in the fight to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; to put out good ideas about how we will do this together; to say that we are going to renew our building code in this province so we don’t have to be wasteful in our electricity, we don’t have to be wasteful in burning gas, as so many homes unfortunately are; and to issue a challenge to the construction industry that we are going to have some of the best environmental building codes in the province, in Canada, in the world.

We could do this, as well as launching a building retrofit program which could go through people’s homes — the people who are struggling with high hydro rates, as the government has continued to jack up the hydro costs by percent upon percent upon percent each and every year. The homeowners that come to me…. And I don’t have a lot of homes in my constituency. I’ve got a few houses, but those people are coming to me, so I can only imagine what constituencies which have many houses in them are saying about the cost of hydro.

They want to make their homes energy-secure. They want to reduce the amount of heat that goes through drafty windows and out the roof. Unfortunately, our buildings were not built as best as they could be, so a home energy retrofit program like the LiveSmart program on steroids would make an incredible difference. But the government got rid of that program as they abandoned the fight against climate change.

What else did we need with that building code? We need to actually engage the people of this province, not close our ears, shut the door and hide the light, as this government seems to like to do about most everything these days. They’ve gone from being the most open government — in their words — to mute. There’s nothing be-
[ Page 4619 ]
ing said. People can’t see it. People cannot become part of it. People are not becoming involved in their government.

A throne speech could change that. It could set out a new course of action for this government to engage the people of B.C.

Now, what else could we do about climate change? I’ll repeat it again because the government didn’t hear it the first time, the second time, the gazillionth time from the people of B.C. That’s invest in transit and good transportation across this great province of ours. But instead they say: “No, we’ll take no leadership in ensuring that the Lower Mainland can cut the gridlock, end the gridlock, get people out of their cars and into fast buses, SkyTrain, etc., or if they have to drive, as many people do, that there’ll be less gridlock that they to face, less congestion so they can actually get to work on time and not get stuck in horrendous traffic jams.”

But investing in transit takes leadership. This government has abandoned leadership on the transit file, instead choosing to advocate for single-occupancy vehicles, choosing to advocate for a mode of transportation which pollutes way more than if we actually collaborated and got people onto transit or made our roads faster by getting people out of their cars and onto transit, for those that have to drive, including truckers, including the trucks that drive our economy through imports and exports in many cases and helping to improve the viability and the prosperity of port-related businesses as well.

This is an argument that’s being made by our board of trade in Vancouver. This is an argument being made by people from all walks of life. But the government has abandoned leadership on transit. They don’t want to do it. They won’t talk about it, except to say that it’s not our problem.

[1800]

You know, I found it interesting in the throne speech that a lot was being talked about how we were going to end pollution in China. I like that. I think we should be helping to support ending pollution in China. But you know what? It’s hard to do when here in B.C. we can’t even admit that there are huge sources of pollution in this province that have no carbon tax, that continue to shoot up through smokestacks and that while the people pay it, these large corporations don’t.

We used to talk about a cap-and-trade scheme where, just like Quebec and California have done, we would involve those businesses in ensuring that they paid for their pollution — pollution which is hurting our health, pollution which is hurting our economy, pollution which is sending our children’s future into higher heat, lower heat, storms and continued devastation to our natural world as the planet’s ability, its equilibrium, is thrown out of balance because of climate change.

But no, the government doesn’t seem to think that’s a priority either, and that’s wrong. That’s abdicating our responsibility to act for the future.

You know, we have incredible innovators in this province, people who have embraced clean energy, who’ve embraced green energy, who’ve decided that that should be their priority because it’s both good for the economy and it’s good for our environment. But no, the government’s abandoned that file, largely, too.

Instead of urging the rest of the world to embrace some of our innovations in clean technology, in green technology, the government seems to believe we should lock into climate change. That is wrong. That’s going to cost us now. That’s going to cost our future. Unfortunately, because you can’t see climate change every day unless you really look for it, the government seems to think that they’ll get a pass on it. But the history books will frown upon us all, because we all have a role to play.

It’s not easy to point at just one person and say, “You’re responsible,” because we all are. We all are in the choices we make. This government has chosen not to act, has chosen to abandon leadership.

We have an opportunity to grow our economy by truly moving to a low-carbon future, by embracing net-zero housing, by embracing a future where our homes do not pollute, where the pollution that does get created through economic activity is actually captured, is actually accounted for, so the true economics of what our economy is being run on are actually listened to by market signals, by the public and by the wider economy. We need to be leaders again.

Another challenge — and, of course, with this is the question of Enbridge and Kinder Morgan — is the government has stopped talking about oil spills. They’ve stopped talking about actually improving how we respond to these issues. I guess it’s because the people of B.C. are not too pleased with them right now about how they protect our environment after the Mount Polley spill, and I understand why. They are equipped to see the spin that the government is trying to sell, because they don’t believe it’s a musical. They don’t believe it’s a photo op, that we should all just smile and hope it all goes away. They see the problem facing us today.

That brings me to another challenge, a crisis, that has not been addressed by this government, and that’s the challenge of inequality. That’s the challenge of affordability, the challenge of the very rich making more and more, taking more of the pay home — or to, I don’t know, the Virgin Islands or somewhere else across the sea where they take their vacations.

Meanwhile, those in the middle are being squeezed and those at the lower-income level are making less and less. People are falling farther and farther behind, while those at the very top echelons of our society are doing better and better.

Well, that is a problem. Why? Because I think that those people that work hard should actually see an increase in their pay. They should see an increase in their ability to provide for their family. What do we see? No,
[ Page 4620 ]
more and more of that’s getting taken out of the province as these people fall behind and as their bills get bigger and bigger, whether it’s hydro or what have you. This government has decided making life more unaffordable and making life less affordable for people is just okay, and it’s not.

In my constituency you see many people struggling to stay in the West End. They don’t have cars. They got rid of them — too expensive and you don’t need them, thankfully, because it’s built well, for the most part. Some have cars, and the car payments, the rent payments, etc., on and on and up it goes, are really squeezing them.

[1805]

They’re not feeling that they’re secure. They’re feeling that the government does not care about making their lives better but only adds on more costs.

It’s not a progressive taxation system. It doesn’t recognize that those who have the most should do more for community. It’s a system where if you get the most, you win. Everybody else: keep rolling those dice with the hope that you might win one day, knowing that the reality is that most aren’t these days.

No, we need a progressive taxation system, one that values everybody and ensures we’re all in it together, because the kind of community that I live in is one where we look out for each other. It’s one where we want all of our neighbours to succeed, not just those in the penthouses but those on the ground floor and those that are living on the street because of homelessness continuing to be a real challenge due to high unaffordability in our communities — due to the fact that this government, unlike pretty much all other governments in Canada, refuses to actually take action against poverty with a poverty reduction plan. No, this government does not seem to care for those people.

That, too, is hurting our economy. That, too, is hurting our prosperity. Those folks that are struggling at the lowest margins need support, and you know, that support costs money.

If you’re homeless…. It costs a lot more for someone to be homeless — with all the illness, all the legal challenges, etc., that go with it — rather than making sure they’ve got a hand up so that they can get off the street, get into housing and get any sort of medical support they might need. Sometimes that’s mental health support. Sometimes it’s just getting a roof over their head so that they can become part of this economy in some form, part of our community.

It’s not just about economy. It’s also about community, a word that I don’t hear this government say very often anymore, just like we do not hear them say “citizens.” We only hear “taxpayer.” Well, I think that children, who are not taxpayers, are also part of our community. They’re also citizens. We should be thinking about their future too — not just those who pay taxes but everybody.

Many of my constituents are insulted when they hear they are just taxpayers. They do so much more for our community than pay taxes. They volunteer, they work their butts off, and they care. They’re citizens. They want to be involved in the democracy that we have here, not shut out, not just be told: “You’re a taxpayer, and that’s your function.” Well, no. Their function is to be democratic citizens.

How do we address that inequality and that affordability gap? There are many ways. One is education.

Of course, this government tried to pat itself on the back about one of the longest teachers strikes that B.C. has ever seen. They thought that was an example of good negotiating. Well, when the Premier decided to attack teachers in just about any chance that she got in the media by claiming that it was just about money, that was disrespectful. That was rude, and that was wrong. We need a different tone from our Premier.

We need a Premier that actually embraces education, that actually embraces what our children and what our adult learners, as well, bring to our communities, bring to our economies. Educated people do better. It just is proven, society after society. Provinces with great education systems do better too. But this government decided it was better to marginalize and attack teachers, using our own tax money, than to deal fairly with them in a respectful way.

That leads to long-term economic problems. When our kids are not getting the education and the support they need to achieve their dreams, to get the education, what happens? They suffer. We all suffer, because when one of us hurts, we all hurt. I believe that very dearly. We have a challenge, of course, with the education system because this government has decided it’s not a priority. It must be. But it’s not just that.

It’s also housing. When we have cases in my constituency and across this province, as a few people, a few landlords…. By and large, most landlords are good. They want to be good corporate or just citizens, and they support their tenants. But in some cases some of them are motivated by just greed, pure greed, and they will abuse the Residential Tenancy Act to try and force people from their homes.

In many cases they’re successful. They will make threats. They will issue multiple eviction notices under false pretences. They will go again and again until people leave their homes.

[1810]

Not everybody understands the act. Not everybody reads it. Not everybody has access to the Internet to learn about it, and many people don’t know their rights. You know what? The law is supposed to protect those people.

It’s supposed to be there so that if somebody is breaking those laws, hurting those people, costing the taxpayer, the citizen, a lot of money through endless arbitrations, endless mediations through the residential tenancy system — which costs a lot of money, costs all of us —
[ Page 4621 ]
they’re supposed to say: “No, you can’t do that, landlord. You know what? Because you’re breaking the law again and again, we’re going to fine you. We’re going to penalize you. We’re going to make it so it’s not in your business interest to break the law.”

But what have the Liberals done? They’ve refused, absolutely refused, to use administrative penalties to penalize those bad apples, as the minister for Housing often calls them. No, instead they continue to support the bad apples. They continue to say to the landlords, effectively: “Go ahead. Continue to break the rules, because we won’t do anything about it.” That’s the Liberal record, and it’s shameful.

Constituents, people, should feel safe in their homes. They shouldn’t worry, when the door gets knocked on or a letter gets shoved under the door, that they, too, may be facing evictions. I don’t understand it. A government that should be trying to enforce its own laws has abandoned the field, letting these people abuse the system, waste our money — all so they can make a short-term buck while people suffer.

The throne speech could have addressed that issue. It could have spoken up for those people who are abused under the law and said: “You’re right; we’re wrong. We are going to take action.” But no, the Liberals instead provide sympathy and empathy for those people who break the law.

Unfortunately, that’s the way it goes in this House, and that’s the way it goes with this government. Some may be grinning on the other side about it. I don’t think it’s funny, and I don’t think it’s something that we should allow in this province, But they seem to think it is. That is shameful.

No, we have a potential in this province to make a huge difference. We have incredible natural bounty. I was taking a number of young students from Lord Roberts Elementary School around this House earlier today, pointing out to them some of the beautiful stained glass and the beautiful paintings in this building around some of the earliest industries in this province — which, of course, are natural resources.

Now, in the West End, Coal Harbour was originally seen to be a great place to get coal for ships to be able to burn, and for houses. There wasn’t much there, so it’s been named Coal Harbour. There wasn’t a huge coal industry there. But many people in my constituency have worked in or have connections to the natural resource sectors across the province, whether or not they work in offices downtown that support the regional resource operations elsewhere or whether or not they travel outside of Vancouver to work for a while and then come back in mining — as one woman I recently spoke with.

They tell me that they are very concerned about what happened at Mount Polley. In fact, I’ve heard from a number of people in mining about it. They say it’s going to slow everything down for them. Because the B.C. Liberals decided to cut enforcement, to cut regulation and to basically allow people to do whatever they want to do, they feel that their jobs are at risk. They want their mining industry to succeed.

I want the mining industry to succeed, because it’s brought so much to our province over the years. But it’s a heck of a lot harder to do that now, when you’ve got the biggest mining disaster in the province’s history. You know what? It is shameful that this was allowed to happen under the government’s watch.

We will see what that does for our economic future. It’s not good, because people don’t trust the government anymore. The tragedy has been brought out in front of us, and people’s eyes have been opened. No longer can they believe the government when they claim to have world-class standards, because — you know what? — we had a world-class disaster here in our backyard under the B.C. Liberals’ watch.

That has hurt our resource sectors all across this province, because this Liberal government has not cared for ensuring that they do their due diligence and ensuring that they balance the need to protect the environment with the need for economic development. No, they gave it a hands-off. They said: “Forget about it. Just trust us.”

Well, no, the public will not trust them with our natural resources anymore because the B.C. Liberals have tried to give them away and have turned their eyes away when violations of our laws happen.

[1815]

It’s not just the Residential Tenancy Act I was talking about. But the Mining Act? No, in ten years they’ve had no penalties under the Mining Act. Oh, what else have they done? “Well, a little spill here, a little spill there. We’ll look the other way.” That’s the B.C. Liberals’ modus operandi. That’s how they work, and you know, hon. Speaker, it is wrong. It is not what we should accept.

People in the mining industry will tell you this. They want the regulations to be enforced. They say that leads to certainty, because the public can see that they care, that they are doing their job.

But when a government has basically gone hands-off and you have a disaster of this size — and disasters in other areas of this province too — that fails us all. That fails the provincial budget. That fails our schools. That fails our health care. That fails our children. That fails our citizens. And this is the government’s record. This is the B.C. Liberal record. While they may not like to hear it, it’s the reality.

Well, what did they say in their attempt to turn a tragedy into a musical? They said: “The water — sure, you can drink it.” You know what? Later on the health authority said: “Well, if it’s cloudy, you really shouldn’t drink it.” So the Premier showed up and said: “Yeah, drink it. Drink it. Go ahead.” The health authority later said: “No, don’t drink it, because it’s full of mine tailings.” That is wrong.
[ Page 4622 ]

When I was up in Likely…. I’ve been there a number of times. It’s a beautiful place. The whole Quesnel area, the Quesnel valley, the river, the lake — incredible, beautiful place, beautiful people and an incredible tourism possibility there. But they’re struggling now because this government failed in taking care that mines operated well. They failed the tourism industry there that is struggling now. They’re really struggling because of this government, the B.C. Liberal government.

You know, when you go there, what used to be clear water…. You can’t see the bottom anymore because there are mine tailings in that lake — 25 million cubic metres in Quesnel Lake. Unfortunately, the Liberals may try to turn the page on it while they play the music, they sing, they dance. But that’s their record.

I think it’s time for a change, for honest government, for a government that tells truth, for a government that involves the public, for a government that addresses climate change in a forward-looking way that builds our economy and for a government that addresses inequality and decides that everybody matters in this province — not just their insiders, not just their wedding bridesmaids.

No, they need to involve everybody, because that’s who elected us — not just insiders, not just industry but the people of this province. That’s who we should be working for. That’s who everybody in this government should be working for rather than singing and dancing and taking photo ops while tragedies occur across this province. People hear about tragedies in their office, but they need to act on them rather than singing and dancing and just smiling, hoping that tomorrow and tomorrow….

You know, the sun will rise tomorrow, they say. Well, the sun is up, and it’s not looking pretty-pretty as it shines its bright glare on this government’s failures, on this government’s tragedies that they’ve brought upon the people of this province. We need a government that listens and acts for the people.

P. Pimm: It’s always nice to get up in this House and respond to the throne speech. My response this time is going to be a little different than it has been in the past.

It’s always nice to follow someone that’s so positive, like the member from West Vancouver and get all that nice positive flow going in this building. When he talks about the green grass, I have to tell you, I have a new adoration for green grass after what I have come through this past year.

But I’d like to start…. First off, I’ve got new staff. I’d like to introduce all of them. Georgia Green and Carly Dick are my CAs in my constituency office in Fort St. John. Chantel Elloway is my LA here. I have Ryan Yardley as research officer and Monika Weatherley as my communications director. I want to thank them for the good job that they do. I had some time this year when I wasn’t actually able to be a part of this, and they kept me up to speed on everything that was going on.

[1820]

I had a daily report that I did. It’s actually worked out really quite well, because I continue to use that daily report. They send me stuff, paragraph by paragraph, of every person that comes into my office, and I get to deal with all that and then send a response back. That’s been such a fantastic thing, and we’ll keep it going on.

I also want to thank my wife; my daughters, Jennifer and Kristi; and my sons, Matthew and Shane. Obviously, I had a bit of a tough go this year, and they stood behind me so much. It was harder on them than it actually was on me. It’s always harder on your family than it is on the person that’s actually going through the challenging times in your life. I have to thank them so much because they stood behind me so well.

Like I say, a bit of an interesting year this year. You might call it interesting. You might call it challenging. You might call it a lot of things. But I did have some really positive things happen this year too. Number one, I’m here. I’m looking at that green grass. But probably the most important thing that happened to me this year was I had a grandson that was born in March, and I mentioned that yesterday in the House.

That’s my new inspiration, and that’s why I don’t allow the opposition to get under my skin anymore. I’m just kind of looking forward to all the positive things that are going on around here. I’m just looking forward to when he can run around and be part of the daily operation. Right now it’s kind of interesting. You get him there. I always get in trouble because I’m feeding him ice cream and I’m not supposed to — that kind of stuff. But that’s what granddads get to do. I’ll just be careful and only do a little bit of it.

I’d like to talk a little bit and let this House know and let the general public out there know what I went through over the past year. It started last December. I got diagnosed with colon cancer. That’s something that often upsets you an awful lot. It makes you rethink your life and what you’ve been doing and how things are going for you.

But I have to say that through the whole process, our health system, our doctors, our nurses, our medical staff, were all so fantastic. I can’t say enough, and I want to thank them publicly in this House for all the great work that they did and what happened to me when I went through the process.

Like I say, I got diagnosed in December, but it started earlier than that. I was doing a fall tour last summer, and I started having some difficulties, you might say. I had gas pains. I really kind of wrote it off as nothing too serious, went and had my annual checkup.

The doctor said: “Yeah, we’ll get you lined up for some tests and that sort of thing.” He wasn’t too concerned. That’s the thing about cancer. It can sneak up on you, and you don’t even have a clue that it’s there. You don’t know until the test actually comes back on that final day that something is actually there and has been bothering you.
[ Page 4623 ]

Once I got that, I lined up. My surgery was in January. I went through that, no problem at all. It takes three or four weeks to get all fixed up from that. But when you have your surgery, there are tumours that are there. My tumour was obviously cancerous. When you have that tumour removed, it actually comes out with lymph nodes attached to it. If there’s no positive cancer in those lymph nodes, then you’re in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, mine had cancer in those lymph nodes, cancerous cells.

Now you have to go into the next stage. You have to go into chemo treatment. You have to kill those little cells before they run around and attach themselves to some other part of your body. They’re looking for a kidney or a pancreas. They’re looking for whatever they can find, and they’re pretty aggressive about it. Once they get into your lymph nodes, you have to get serious about it and pay attention. So that’s what I did.

My doctor, my oncologist, put me on an injection system. I was having chemo injections. I was supposed to have 12 cycles. They’re two-week cycles. So you have one week where you’re on the chemo, and then you have one week where you’re off the chemo. That’s supposed to be your week where you’re recovering, and you’re ready for the next shot.

You go in on a Monday. You get your testing all done, make sure you’re healthy enough to have the chemo. Tuesday they give you a four-hour injection. Then they send you home with this little infuser bottle that is tied to you, and that injects in over the next two days, slowly.

You’re kind of tied to your house at that point in time. I got through the first cycle and was extremely…. I thought: “Boy, this is going to be a picnic — walking through this.” It didn’t bother me hardly at all. The second cycle — a little bit tougher. I thought: “Well, I guess I’m going to have to pay attention now.”

[1825]

Then on the third cycle, that’s when everything kind of broke loose. I was trying my best to get down here and be part of the spring session. I wanted to get here and introduce my legislation that was so important to me. My colleague here from…

An Hon. Member: Kelowna.

P. Pimm: …Kelowna. That’s not the exact word, but Westside-Kelowna, I think it is.

An Hon. Member: Lake Country.

P. Pimm: Kelowna–Lake Country, that’s right. I’m sorry. The new minister did a great job of introducing my legislation, and I thank him very much for that.

During that third cycle my body rejected the insulin that was being injected into it. Halfway through the Fuser injection it wouldn’t take it anymore, so the wife had to take me into the hospital. That was a challenge, getting me out of the house and down the steps and all of that kind of stuff. But she got me in there and wheeled me into the hospital, and all was fine.

The nurse in the cancer centre took the Infusor off, and everything was fine. I was still feeling fine. Then they decided they’d better wheel me over to the emergency and see how things were going. Halfway over to the emergency I lost all touch with what was going on. I don’t remember getting to emergency. I had three days thereafter that I don’t remember a whole heck of a lot. That’s fairly stressful on your loved ones. That’s for sure.

We managed to get through that. Like I say, the hospital staff — I just can’t say enough for the work that they did and that they do. You know, I can tell you some of the things that happened to me. I won’t go into that graphic detail, but for them to do the job and look after you the way they do is just absolutely phenomenal.

I spent seven days in intensive care and three more days in the hospital, so ten days total. That takes us to about the middle of April. After the middle of April my doctor’s advice was, “We’re going to take a month off this chemo and get your strength built back up,” which we did.

I have to say that after that month I felt really, really quite good. I thought: “Boy, oh boy, if I’m not 100 percent, I’m, like, 95 percent or something like that.” I went back in, and they said: “Okay, we’re going to try something different. This time we’re going to try putting you on the pill-type chemo.” That was about the middle of May that I started the pill type. It’s a lot different. Everybody responds differently to chemo treatments and to cancer.

When I got on the pill type, it was now a three-week cycle instead of two weeks. I had 5,600 milligrams of chemotherapy pills put into my body daily, so 2,800 in the morning and 2,800 at night for two weeks. Then you take a week off, and that’s your healing time, and on you go.

I went through six rounds of that and, quite frankly, I didn’t have any trouble with that chemo whatsoever. But what had kind of put me over the edge, what put me into the hospital, was that I didn’t realize I was borderline diabetic, and nobody had told me that.

What I was doing…. I had such a dry mouth with the chemo injection stuff that I was doing everything I could to make that go away. I was drinking water. I was drinking pop. I was eating cantaloupe and watermelon and doing all of those things that are not that good for you, especially when you’re borderline diabetic.

What I did was I actually went into renal failure because I put so much sugar into my body that I almost killed myself. If you ever get this little disease that I’ve got, be very aware of the sugars that you’re putting in. Don’t be afraid to test yourself and find out how much sugar is in your body, because it’s very important. It’s one of the things they don’t test for when they’re starting the testing, so if there’s a little bit of advice I can give anybody, that’s it on this thing.
[ Page 4624 ]

Anyhow, I have finished my stuff. On September 20, I finished my chemo treatments, and here I am back in the saddle, back here in Victoria and living up to my duties in this Legislature.

It’s nice to know that I had two CT scans and they both came out exactly identical. I had one when they first took me in, in December, that showed there was no progression past the colon. When I had my second one in April it actually showed that there had been no change.

[1830]

That’s a good thing. It’s a bit of a weight to be lifted off your shoulders, I have to say. I know that the “remission” word is only that: it’s remission. The doctors have told me that I’m now in remission. I still have to go through a whole testing procedure. I have to have colonoscopies once a year. I have to have CTs every six months to a year and blood testing every three months, just to make sure.

If I can get through the next five years, which I’m going to, I will be then declared cancer-free. But it’s going to take five years, and it’s going to take a lot of good, hard effort to make that happen. That’s definitely what I’m planning to do.

Anyhow, enough about me. I think I’ll try and talk a little bit about what was actually in the throne speech. I have to say that the stuff that’s in the throne speech is very good stuff. LNG — we have such a huge opportunity in front of us. I say that because I come from a community where we develop the natural gas.

The northeast…. You know, we need this deal more than anyone else in the province. It’s a huge benefit for everybody, but if we don’t make this deal happen, it’s a huge detriment to our region. We need to have the LNG facility so that we can take our natural gas, flow that gas out to the coast and hit that Asian market.

In the northeast there was a time…. I hear one of the members earlier was talking about the fact that they were going to have an LNG facility in Rupert or Kitimat. But that was to import. You know, that’s not that far away. That was, like, ten or 15 years ago. We were looking at a declining natural gas industry in this province.

In Fort Nelson they were looking at shutting down facilities and how they were going to deal with that. Then all of a sudden we’ve now got three of the largest shale gas plays in the world. These are world-class plays, and we can’t take that lightly.

Right in my backyard we’ve got the Montney gas play, which is rich with liquids and is very active at this point in time. In Fort Nelson they’ve got the Horn River and the Liard Basin. The Liard Basin is probably going to be the largest gas play of all of them, but it’s going to be the hardest to access as well.

In Fort Nelson right now they have dry gas. They don’t have the wet gas that we have in the Montney area. That wet gas is very important, because all your liquids and butanes and propanes…. You strip that out of the gas, and that gets them an extra $2 to $3 per Mcf. That’s a big deal. When the price of gas is running about 4 bucks or $4.50 right now and you get that extra $2 or $2.50, that’s the difference between actually being able to produce and not produce.

In Fort Nelson they’re not able to go and drill right now because it’s borderline. They can’t even make enough to cover their costs, so it becomes extremely hard. For them, it’s critical that we get this LNG stuff done. Having our tax being brought into this House this legislative session and getting it dealt with and giving that certainty to the industry so they can make their final investment decisions — I think that’s going to be so critical for all of us as we move forward.

If we’re only successful with one LNG plant…. I think we’re going to be more successful than that. But even if it’s just one plant, one plant with four trains in it is going to be equivalent to the entire amount of natural gas that we have in our system today that comes out of northeastern British Columbia.

Now, they’ll change everything. They call it million metric tonnes and all that stuff. I’m not familiar with that term, so I’m just going to use terms I’m familiar with. Right now we put through three bcf a day. Three billion cubic feet of natural gas a day comes into our system. We’ve been drilling for 60 years up there in the north country, and that’s what we’ve brought into the system. That’s what we’ve maintained. That’s what we have now.

Over the past five years we’ve put about one bcf into the system, so we’re definitely gaining on it. But one plant, one train, will take about 750 million cubic feet of natural gas. Two trains — 1.5 billion cubic feet. Four trains is three bcf. That’s what we have in our system today.

[1835]

So even if we didn’t have any tax that we had to get from these facilities, just doubling our amount of natural gas that it’s going to take to get those facilities up and running would generate about an additional $400 million per year into our coffers.

Right now the northeast produces, to the royalty revenue of the province, about $375 million to $400 million a year even at this low price of natural gas. When natural gas was at 9 bucks…. The former Finance critic acknowledges that we used to make about $2 billion at $9. But when it comes down to $2…. You lose about $300 million for every dollar that the price of natural gas drops, so that’s pretty substantive. But even at our low price, we will put about $400 million in from the northeast, and we’re pretty proud of that.

One plant, we could double that royalty. So people who say that we’re not going to see any royalty revenues or that this isn’t going to work in our favour have to look a little deeper than what they’re looking at.

What if we do actually get the five plants that we’re talking about? Now that’s five times the royalty revenues. So I think that even without a taxation structure, which we’re going to have…. We’re going to have a very
[ Page 4625 ]
competitive taxation structure, and it is going to benefit everybody in the long term for this province.

Is it going to happen tomorrow? No, it’s not. Is it going to happen by 2015, 2017? No, it’s not. But when these plants comes on stream in 2020, if they’re putting three billion cubic feet of natural gas through those plants, from that day it’s going to benefit each and every one of us, just on the royalty side.

That doesn’t count the land sales. Land sales in our region in the last year were $220 million — just for land sales. They’re not buying the land; they’re just buying access to it. And that $220 million, you know, that’s standard. That seems to be a number that stays there year on, year on. If we happen to get some final investment decisions, that $220 million is going to rise dramatically, because people are going to have to have more land. They’re going to have to find more places to drill. I’m looking forward to that.

In September we had $25 million land sales. Nobody even talks about that. That’s what we take for granted from our facilities every year.

When I talk about the four different facilities…. You’re talking about Kitimat LNG; that’s the Chevron plant, the Chevron-Apache. They’re one of the major players that have been in this game the longest. We’ve got LNG Canada; that’s Shell. We’ve got Pacific NorthWest LNG; that’s Petronas. Prince Rupert LNG; that’s the BG Group. Those are the four companies that were there in 2012. Those were really the only four that we had.

Since then, as of today, we’ve got 18 LNG companies that are actively seeking LNG. Are we going to get them all? No, I don’t think so. I think you’re going to see partnerships. I think these companies are going to partner up. But I can’t predict where that’s going to end up. Are we going to get some? Yeah, we’re going to get some. We’re absolutely going to get some.

Of those 18 LNG proposals that British Columbia has right now, they’re all at various stages in the process, but nine of them already have their export licence, and about half of them are already well into the environmental assessment process. So they’re moving forward. Is it a slow pace? People in the northeast, we say it’s snail pace. We want to see this happen. People in downtown Vancouver, they go: “God, it’s going way too fast. What are they going to do to our whole landscape?”

Well, we’ve been doing this stuff for 60 years, and I can tell you that it’s going to all work out. There’s no question in my mind. The process seems slow to me. I know that with a few speeches I’ve had over the past couple years, it feels like I dust off the same thing and put the same message out there. But you know what? The dates are moving closer and closer. We’ve been saying that by 2015 we’ll have investment decisions, and you know what? Come 2015, we’re going to have investment decisions. And it’s going to benefit all of British Columbia, and northeast and northwest especially.

[1840]

To date we haven’t missed one date. We haven’t missed one date with one company. When we’ve said we’re going to do something, we’ve hit all of the dates. We’ve hit all of the deadlines. I can go back through my notes, and it actually shows that. I kept all of my notes going into this process. Every time I turned around, I said, “2015 — that’s when we’re going to have our investment decisions,” and 2015 is when we’re going to have those investment decisions.

When you look at the whole, overall picture, is it all positive? It’s not all positive, but it’s pretty darn positive. I can tell you that last year in my part of the province we had…. A year ago Petronas had three drilling rigs drilling in my region. Six months ago they had 30 drilling rigs drilling in our region. Now they’re back down a little bit, but they’re certainly…. They’ve gone through, and they’ve tested. They’ve tested throughout their system. They’ve proved that their gas is there, and they’re ready to go.

You know, there’s some posturing going on or whatever. I’m not too concerned about that. They’ve spent a lot of money getting to this point. They’re very active in our communities. Progress Energy is one of the best corporate citizens that you could possibly imagine having in your community, and that’s what we have up there right now. They put a lot of local people to work — Progress, Petronas. I’ve heard people talk — foreign workers and all of that kind of stuff. Progress Energy is the number one company for putting northeastern folks to work on a daily basis, and I congratulate them for doing exactly that.

There are some things that bother us as well, and they get talked about from time to time. We don’t like the fly-in, fly-out situation that this is going to bring before us. We think we have to deal with that somewhat. We’ve got a company right now that’s building a new camp between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. It’s going to house 2,500 men. That’s happening right now.

Do you think these guys aren’t gearing up for some fairly major stuff? They’re gearing up right now. But those camps don’t benefit the communities a whole lot, so I think we have to do something about that, and I’m advocating for it. I’ve sent a message off to CAPP. I’ve sent a message off to some of our ministers. I think that we need to have some sort of advocacy or some sort of thing that those camps can contribute into the local economies a little more. They pay $175 a day in those camps to just keep their men there. I’m thinking an extra five bucks a day to put into our health care for the region, to help with facilities.

We’ve got doctor shortages right now that are a huge problem for us. We lost ten doctors in the last year. We went from 32 doctors down to 22 doctors — very, very serious stuff. We have to find ways to attract them back into our communities, and I think a fund coming from fly-in, fly-out situations is something that we should be
[ Page 4626 ]
looking at. I think it’d be very attractive for the communities and something that could help make our communities more attractive to live in.

At the end of the day, we’ve got a B.C. jobs plan, and it says we’re putting British Columbians to work first, putting Canada to work second and foreign workers third. I think that’s wonderful, and I’m going to make sure that I do my part to make sure that’s happening.

I hear a lot of discussion about water — when you’re fracking, that sort of thing. There’s no doubt we do use a lot of water. But when you look at it in the big scheme of things, it’s not as much as people think. The entire natural gas industry in northeastern British Columbia uses the same amount of water right now as the city of Fort St. John does in one year. It’s the same amount of water in one year that the city of Fort St. John uses. I just wanted to say that again so people understand.

That’s Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson — the entire region. That’s how much water we use. It’s an amount. There’s no question about it. They can bring a lot of that water back. Anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of that water now gets recycled and reused again, so that’s a good thing. There’s been a treatment plant built in Dawson Creek where they actually use modern water technology. They’re taking that wastewater from sewage. They’re re-treating it, and they’re using that for fracking. That’s Shell that’s doing that operation.

Encana. They’ve got operations where they’re actually going into deep saline pools of water. They’re pulling that water out. They’re treating it, taking the sour gas out of it and using that water to frack as well. I think there’s got to be more of that done, and I think that the companies are looking at doing more and more. There are lots of deep saline pools out there, and it’s something that we should be looking at in a big way.

[1845]

The other major point that we have is we’ve got an OGC that actually regulates water, and they do a very good job of it. We’ve got a tool called NEWT. I don’t know how many of you in this House have looked at it. It’s the NorthEast Water Tool — extremely wonderful tool. It’s on the OGC’s website. Just go on the website, you find NEWT, NorthEast Water Tool. They have taken and mapped out all of the watersheds in the Peace country — all of them. They’re all on this list.

You can click on the Sikanni watershed, for example. You just click the button. It brings up the Sikanni watershed. It shows you the 12 months of flow that run through the Sikanni, and it shows you the highs, the lows. Obviously, water runs mostly in May, June, July and August in our region. In the winter months, obviously, there’s not much running at all.

Lots of times I think that…. With these water licences, we say: “You need to draw so much per day.” I think you have to draw way more during the high-flow times and way less in the low-flow times. I think we need to get to that somehow, and I think the OGC looks at that sort of thing, and they know that that’s something we should be doing as well.

Anyhow, if you get a chance, go on and look at that NEWT tool, because it shows you all of the applications. It shows you who’s got water licences. It shows you who’s got temporary water licences.

I can tell you right now, I think there are about 350 water licences in the Peace country, and four of the long-term water licences belong to oil and gas companies — four. They deal with short-term licences. That usually gets them through their drilling time, and then they deal with it at another time. Eventually, they’ll get a long-term licence.

Right now the agriculture industry has those licences. If there comes a time when the industry actually runs shallow on water — when you get into September, October when the flows are not there — the OGC actually shuts down the industry. If it drops below that 15 percent of the total flow, they shut the industry down. Industry is the first one that gets knocked out. We don’t touch the licences of the local agriculture folks because that’s their livelihood, and we certainly want to maintain those licences for them. Certainly, they’re looked after well.

I think I’m kind of running short on time here, so I’m going to just jump a little bit to our B.C. jobs plan. I just want to acknowledge the fact that in Northern Lights College’s area, in my region of the province, we have now got 75 more trades seats, just acknowledged here about two weeks ago. They’re going to be seats that allow 32 electrical apprenticeship seats, 16 welder foundation seats and 27 welder apprenticeship seats.

All of those things are working their way to helping us get ready for the onslaught that could be coming. We’re going to be looking for manpower. I can tell you just from my own little company…. It’s not mine now; it’s been transferred to my daughter and her partner. We went to look for labourers this last year, $20 an hour, and I couldn’t get one application.

Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member. It’s great to see him back. You’re looking great.

B. Routley: I was moved by much of what the previous speaker talked about with his health issues. I’m glad that he’s back in the saddle again.

I also agree with him that we want real communities in British Columbia, not a bunch of camps. We want real communities with real families earning a living in northern British Columbia, so you’re right on with that one as well. But there are some things….

You know, I’ve heard some of the speakers in here suggest that we in the NDP don’t support LNG. We support LNG. We just have a more focused, reasonable plan — one that protects the people of British Columbia, makes
[ Page 4627 ]
sure that we talk about the environment, that we protect our people, we protect our community. That’s what it should all be about, not about just playing games.

[1850]

What is extremely concerning to me now is that what we’re hearing is a complete reversal. This government has now completely softened their approach. They’ve gone from “Oh, sugar plums, and it’s going to be wonderful days ahead” to now, “Well, not so much. It’s just a chance now, just a chance.” Well, we should be pretty alarmed about “just a chance,” but I would say that this is as close as it gets to a full admission by this Liberal government of election jiggery-pokery.

There’s lots of verbose bafflegab and just a whole lot more jiggery-pokery. It’s hard to take this Premier at her word anymore. She knows what to say, but then she does what she wants. She’s backed down on every major commitment she’s said about LNG. The throne speech was completely devoid of the 100,000 jobs she promised.

They have abandoned mentioning eliminating the provincial debt. Oh, it’s just a chance now. There was the magical prosperity fund — gone, vanished like yesterday’s news — and I suspect there won’t be any real action on a carbon reduction plan at all. Remember the promise was that B.C. would have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

You know, hon. Speaker, the one thing we can agree on is that we may need more skilled workers. But they should be free workers — free of the label of being a temporary foreign worker, free of being controlled and manipulated by one company, free of being manipulated by the boss and under the boss’s thumb. They’ve got to have the right, working people in British Columbia, to stand up and be free in their workplace.

You know, this government’s plan in just running off to federal governments and saying: “Bring on more foreign workers….” That means we’re going to have no action by this government to protect the workers, just more of the same. Take them, use them up and throw them away like yesterday’s news.

The Premier promised to eliminate the debt, the provincial sales tax and more, but now I question these Liberals. Are they really in secret negotiations with Petronas? We heard the Premier talk about 15 others. They’re in negotiations, and yet they are still unready to unveil their plan.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

So they’re in a tight spot. I would suggest that they’ve been negotiating by leading with their chin, because you don’t go into bargaining telling the world all of the money you’re going to spend when you haven’t even got a plan — no taxation plan, nothing to really unveil.

You know, by starting bargaining claiming you know the results — that is an absolute failure. Bargaining 101 tells you that you don’t lead by saying what the end result is going to be. Can you imagine? Now, let’s use this example for just a minute. Can you imagine if I bargained that way when I acted and represented thousands of forest workers in the forest industry for more than 50 different companies?

Imagine if I’d said to the workers: “Brothers and sisters, you can vote for me, and I will bring you in bargaining a prosperity fund so large that we can have a pony in every yard and a Mustang in every driveway. Vote for me, and I will invite you to the jobs and prosperity fund that I will create for you, a magical mystery tour beyond your wildest dreams. Not only will you be debt-free, brothers and sisters; soon you will no longer have to pay any taxes either. So how do you like me so far?”

That’s what we were witness to — that kind of nonsense. Inevitably, the reality has come home to roost, and now they’re under the boss’s thumb getting their instructions — awaiting their instructions, I would suggest. When you think back to the Liberal spin doctors drumming up all these visions of sugar plums, they could have gone even further.

[1855]

Just think of this. You could have really had fun. You might as well dream big or go home. And if you’re dreaming big, why wouldn’t you announce that with the prosperity fund, there’s so much cash that we can’t even take the time to count it? We’re going to just stuff some of the cash down in a room in the basement in the Legislature. We’ll have so much overflow cash from the prosperity fund that, for a small fee, British Columbians can go into the Legislature and just throw the cash around for a while. Or they can turn on a big fan and have a bit of a rinse in all of the cash, just roll around and have it blow all over you. Wow, what wonderful fun.

Now, there’s an election platform you could get working people all wrapped up in with one nice little bow, but remember….

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour.

B. Routley: Hon. Speaker, I’d like to reserve my right to come back and speak tomorrow.

B. Routley 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 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:56 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