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)

Monday, October 20, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 15, Number 7

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

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Personal Statement

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

B. Routley: I would apologize to the chamber of commerce, to this House, to my colleagues and to anyone else that I have offended regarding my comments in the Legislature on October 9, 2014.

In responding to the Speech from the Throne and supporting the development of B.C.’s LNG resource in a way that benefits the province and its citizens, I turned to the important issue of skills training, particularly for First Nations workers. During this part of my speech I talked about the activities of the Duncan Chamber of Commerce in a way that I deeply regret.

I am very sorry, and I apologize. Those comments do not reflect my views of the local chamber or the many chamber of commerce organizations throughout the province. I know how important local chambers of commerce are in the work of building strong networks amongst business people and building strong communities throughout B.C. I thank the local chamber of commerce for graciously accepting my apology, and I look forward to meeting with them this coming Friday.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

COMMUNITY LIVING B.C.

L. Larson: I rise today to speak in support of Community Living B.C. and the many organizations it supports throughout British Columbia who every day work to improve the quality of life for those individuals living with a developmental disability.

[1005]

Community Living B.C. was created in 2005, in response to feedback from the community living sector, to support adults with developmental disabilities and to help them live fully and as independently as possible in their communities. So 15,942 adults were registered for services with CLBC as of March 31, 2014, and 711 adults with FASD or autism were registered under the personal support initiative. As October is Community Living Month in B.C., I have had the privilege of visiting several of the amazing service providers and organizations who work under the umbrella of CLBC to deliver some of their programs.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

AiMHi in Prince George helps support over 900 people throughout their region, providing services to infants, children, families, adults and seniors. Three hundred of those individuals are supported by programs funded by CLBC. Their infinite employment solutions program is focused on finding the right match between employer and employee and, where appropriate, getting the individual with a developmental disability out into the community in meaningful employment.

One of those businesses who stepped up is Game Quest. The owner, Kelsey, hired Krystal after she completed her work experience through AiMHi’s job club. Krystal stocks shelves, sanitizes the games and helps with the cash register. Krystal is a real whiz with electronics and has a well-rounded knowledge of technology and games. Kelsey says that he never has a depressing day when Krystal is around and she’s a real asset to his company.

Another client of AiMHi is Wayne. He attended a training course called Pathway to Employment, and during that time he identified a desire to work at Tim Hortons. He presented himself for an interview, and the owner, Robin, was so impressed, he hired him. Wayne was supported throughout his training by an AiMHi infinite employment solutions consultant and has now been employed for over a year.

There are many other employers in Prince George who have stepped up and benefited from AiMHi’s program — including Cineplex; Brink Forest Products; the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; and many others.

The Prince George friendship centre provides culturally appropriate programming to meet the community’s unique and diverse needs, with a focus on First Nations population. Their social enterprise, the Smokehouse Restaurant and catering services, is a well-established business in Prince George but also a training centre for the culinary arts, just one of the avenues used to help move people into employment. Work and work experience are part of a continuum to help people achieve their employment goals, and the friendship centre offers support through a philosophy that encompasses the whole life of the individual and their families.

In Kelowna the teaching independence, employment and responsibility program — TIER — has many clients working throughout the community. Dale has Down syndrome. He has been working at Starbucks as a café manager for over six years. Starbucks works with TIER support services to employ nearly a dozen hard-working and valuable employees, from West Kelowna to Vernon. Dale’s wife, Leanne, also works at a Starbucks.
[ Page 4688 ]

They have been married for 16 years and live independently in their own apartment. They also offer mentoring to others with developmental disabilities and their families.

Joanna, another client of TIER, works at Pihl Law Corp. and has been a valued employee for eight years. She has outlasted four managers, proving again and again that people with developmental disabilities can be exceptional long-term loyal employees.

The Richmond Society for Community Living, for more than 30 years, has offered many programs to support 206 individuals with developmental disabilities. The RSCL employment services supports clients with resumé writing and job preparation. There are many employers in Richmond who have benefited from the programs that support these clients, including Tim Hortons, Kal Tire, Home Depot, Boston Pizza and at least a dozen more.

Another program, Avenues, has a focus on the arts and cooking. Richmond city hall currently has art from this program in their foyer for the month of October, and a sale of the art will be taking place later this fall. RSCL supports many events that publicly focus on the work of their clients, including an amazing Christmas bake sale.

The Delta society for community living solutions employment services supports individuals on a person-by-person basis in getting a job that is customized and sustainable for the long term. The Delta society, in recognizing a gap in support for transitioning youth to adult, developed a pilot project called LEAP. It is funded through support from the Vancouver Foundation, a one-time donation from Vancity and other fundraising initiatives.

[1010]

Focusing on young adults who are transitioning from school to work, it includes youth trained as peer coaches to mentor their group of job seekers who have developmental disabilities. In its first of three years it is proving to be very successful.

Shawn is one of those successes. He used to spend most of his time in his basement alone on his computer. He now works for Telus, teaching people who have purchased new electronic devices how to use them. The support of LEAP unlocked his potential, and his family is overwhelmed by the positive changes in Shawn’s life.

The Delta society went outside the traditional box to develop a program to fill identified gaps in supports for young adults. Under the umbrella of CLBC and with partnerships in community and business support, many people with developmental disabilities have turned their challenges into triumphs.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity from the member for Boundary-Similkameen to talk to the Legislature and to the people of B.C. about Community Living B.C. I believe that the member did a good job of outlining the very worthwhile work that organizations that are funded through Community Living B.C. do in communities. I have some examples in the communities in the constituency I represent, in Stikine, as well.

The fact is that these organizations are being asked to do more with less. They’re doing the good work that was outlined, and that we all know they do, despite the direction of this government and not because of it. I’ll talk a little bit about that in my response to the member here.

One of the organizations that provide these kind of services in Stikine is High Road Services Society. Their executive director, Dana Gorbahn, has been in this line of work…. Well, the High Road Services Society has been a society since 2007, delivering services to the Bulkley Valley, but he’s also been in this line of work as a professional since 1997 in the province.

He recently wrote a letter to the minister responsible, the minister for social services and innovations, and I’d just like to quote a little bit from that letter in response to the member’s opening statement. From Dana Gorbahn:

“The population growth of adults with developmental disabilities is projected to be at around 5.5 percent, and over the next five years it will be 35 percent. Our individuals are living longer and longer. Over and over, the provincial government has provided a flatline budget for our sector. That’s a zero increase. How can this work — increased capacity needs without additional funding — while wrestling with increased cost pressures of operations?”

This is what the front-line organizations are facing, and the response we’ve seen from this government is…. They’ve failed to explain how reducing budget and increased budget costs to these organizations is not going to be harmful to adults living with developmental disabilities. The recent cuts have included, in residential services, a drop by 3.5 percent, whereas residential client needs were expected to increase by 5 percent over the next couple of years.

I have another example directly from Mr. Gorbahn and how these play out on the ground in the community. He wrote to me:

“Just a few short years ago we were required by CLBC to explore the cost-saving initiatives of a residential redesign. This requirement was because of CLBC’s budget shortfall. We went through this process and were able to find some cost measures. However, with those cost savings came increased risks in the lives of those people that we serve” — increased risks.

Here’s what he goes on to say.

“I asked one of our individuals about the effects that this residential redesign had had on him. Because of this redesign, he has lost some of the after-hours services and monitoring. We now have struggles protecting this individual from the predators that lurk around him and prey upon him, knowing that his supports are not around to protect him from his vulnerabilities and his trusting nature.”

There is the cost of these reductions. That’s the reality on the ground about how the direction this government is taking with CLBC is playing out at the grass roots.

I’d like to add a final thing around this question, and that’s what front-line organizations are expected to do. They’re expected, through the so-called cooperative gains process of this government, to find the cost savings within their organization that are downloaded onto them.
[ Page 4689 ]

[1015]

Again, I don’t know how you can increase services — obviously, the services that are needed — without having an additional increase and, in fact, in this case, a decrease in the budget.

I’d like to offer a final response to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, again from Dana Gorbahn: “Where is CLBC’s representation at treasury? CLBC, as a Crown corporation, cannot raise the rates to cover their costs, like other Crown corporations. They need to have a true representation of the needs and the future needs of their service delivery requirements and then have the capacity to do so.”

That’s what this government should be doing. That’s what the minister should be doing — making a strong case for increased CLBC funding at Treasury Board — but the evidence on the ground is that we haven’t seen that. Again, we’ve seen increased loads on these front-line organizations through things like more people aging out from care. The children’s representative just recently outlined in a report that we have more children aging out in care, and that’s why this government needs to get behind CLBC and the organizations it represents.

L. Larson: CLBC’s developmental disability caseload growth for 2013-2014 was 5.9 percent. Over the last five years the caseload growth has increased by 25 percent. In 2013-2014 CLBC provided new or additional services to 3,000 individuals and in 2014-2015 expects to add another 2,500.

The provincial contribution to CLBC’s budget increased to $799.8 million in 2014-2015, an increase of $71 million over the previous year. The increase includes new funding of $10 million for transitioning youth and further development of employment and related services, and $61 million to increase base funding. Over the three-year fiscal plan, Budget 2014 allocates an increase of $243 million, and 93 percent of Community Living’s B.C. budget goes directly to providing services and programs to individuals and their families.

Government has made good progress on the comprehensive plan unveiled in January 2012 to address issues around CLBC and the governmentwide system of supports for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

A new integrated service delivery model to help youth transition to adulthood has been developed and is now available in Prince George, Haida Gwaii, Surrey, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Parksville, Qualicum and Courtenay. Another site in Burnaby focuses on the 55-and-older age group with specific programs and services.

This integrated service delivery model includes a new navigator position to act as a single contact for individuals and their supporters to help them to plan and access cross-government supports during times of transition. Youth who are transitioning into adulthood, and their families, receive a minimum of $2,800 annually to help pay for respite and other services when the individual is eligible for CLBC supports. B.C. also has the highest-allowable income in Canada for people receiving assistance, at $800 per month.

The Rick Hansen Foundation has also partnered with the B.C. government to help people with disabilities gain meaningful employment. With a grant of $125,000, six individuals will assess 300 businesses, venues and public spaces in the Lower Mainland for their accessibility. The project wraps up in April 2015.

Also, $3 million in annual funding is committed to assistive technologies to help people with disabilities reach their employment goals, adding to the $19.5 million already invested. Since 2012 more than 700 people have received assistive-technology support through the employment program of B.C. and Work B.C. centres.

Government has recognized the workplace value of people with disabilities and, through CLBC and its service providers, is connecting people with employment all over the province.

FERRY BENEFITS

C. Trevena: Today I’d like to talk about the B.C. economy and a severely neglected part of our provincial infrastructure, the ferry system.

We have the privilege to live in a large and geographically varied province. Our economy is still largely driven by the resource sector — logging, mining, fishing, and fish and shellfish farming. In areas where those sectors are depleted or dying there has been an investment, with the encouragement of the government, in tourism. It’s not surprising that many people want to come and visit the wild and rugged landscapes of B.C.

[1020]

A healthy economy needs to have a well-maintained infrastructure. In countries where the economy is developing, governments usually invest heavily in infrastructure. If you cannot connect people, communities and businesses with each other and with their markets, you’re going to undermine your economic strength.

It would seem to be a no-brainer, particularly for a government like this in B.C., which has been advertising itself as a friend of business with an understanding of the economy. But this government has flagrantly ignored the infrastructure to keep the coast vibrant — the ferries. If it truly comprehended either macro- or microeconomics, it would have acted very differently over the last 13 years. It would have recognized that B.C. is not just on the mainland.

We are a province with communities up and down our coastline and, yes, here on Vancouver Island, home of not just the provincial capital but also of significant sectors of the resource economy. About a quarter of the prov-
[ Page 4690 ]
ince’s population live and work in coastal communities, whether here in Victoria or in Port Hardy, in Bella Bella or Masset. We, of course, have our road network, but we are also connected by a marine highway.

Now, when someone travels on most highways, they go from A to B not worrying about the cost. People understand the dynamics of government financing. You pay your taxes; you get your services, whether it’s public education, provincial parks or the pavement you drive on. When there is a major investment in that pavement, there is usually a recognition that it’s for the public good. It’s going to help communities, and it’s going to help the local economy.

However, when it comes to the marine highway, that basic approach is somehow just dismissed. Instead of accepting that investing in the marine highway through capital expenditure as well as investing in operations is part of the responsibility of a government with an economy based in coastal communities, this government lets the free market play.

Just for a moment, think if the same rationale was used for our roads in rural and remote parts of B.C. Maybe you’d have to start to pay per kilometre to go to Fort St. James or to Wells or to Stewart — that is, if it was worth keeping the road open. Because using the rationale brought in with the government’s recent round of cuts to the ferry system, there might simply be too low a utilization to even keep the road open and operating.

Inconceivable, really, but this is the reality that people working and living in our coastal communities face. Businesses trying to get their goods to market or people wanting to get on with their lives — whether that’s doing the shopping, visiting the doctor or seeing family and friends — are unable to do so because of the cost of using their highway.

A couple of quick examples. For one person and a car to go from Vancouver Island to the Lower Mainland return: $142. That’s a pretty damn high toll for Highway 1, the Trans-Canada. A person who is just walking on the ferry without a vehicle, going from Queen Charlotte City to Prince Rupert — it costs more than $90 return. That’s a lot of money to go on the Yellowhead Highway, Highway 16.

Just by looking at those figures, you know that it’s going to have an impact. It’s going to have an impact on casual travel, it’s going to have an impact on tourist travel, and it’s going to have an impact on business. That impacts our economy. Which is astounding, as this is a deliberate policy from this government to drive into the ground — or perhaps under the water — a central part of our infrastructure.

A recent report commissioned by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities found that this government’s policy has already cost the province $2.3 billion. It’s an incredible figure. A peer review of this report, in fact, found that the author was lowballing that. And it didn’t have to be.

If back in 2001-2002 the government had done an assessment of the economic impact of the ferry system on our provincial economy, it would have realized that it is not a frill; it is part of our infrastructure. It would have learned the base economic tenet that increased costs drive down consumption, and increased fares have driven down ridership on the system. This same report found that the decrease in ridership drove down tax revenues for federal, provincial and municipal governments by more than $600 million.

Now I confess that I’m not an economist, and neither is my friend the Minister of Transportation, but I do have an understanding that this has a huge impact on our economy. The minister, instead of accepting that work his ministry maybe should have done back in 2001 or even in the last few years before announcing swingeing cuts at a time of continuing increased cost….

[1025]

He should have conducted an economic and social impact study of the ferry system. Instead of accepting that, he wrote a blistering denunciation of both the elected officials and undermined the professionalism of the author of the report.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is private members’ statements. I’ve let you have considerable leeway, but we’re beyond that at this point.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s not just UBCM that’s concerned about the economic impact of the neglect to our marine highway. It’s not just the communities that are suffering, whether it’s Bella Coola…. It’s seen a 70 percent drop in its tourism. The businesses in Haida Gwaii are seeing the numbers of sailings cut, so they know they’re not going to get fresh produce delivered.

Chambers of commerce know the importance of the ferry system — and not just those who have a ferry terminal in their community. Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce presented to the Finance Committee a few weeks ago. Williams Lake is what was once termed part of the heartland. But that chamber said: “Our provincial government needs to acknowledge that B.C. Ferries and their transportation and trade routes are an important and essential piece of transportation infrastructure to British Columbia.”

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has called for B.C. Ferries to be a component of the provincial transportation infrastructure. But I would assess that the government has put its head in the sand, and people ask me why. I’ve given up trying to find a reason, but I look forward to hearing whether my colleague from the opposite side has a reason for me.
[ Page 4691 ]

M. Hunt: Well, it’s my pleasure to rise to speak on the issue of B.C. Ferries. I thank the member for North Island for raising the issue, because she brings some very interesting points to the table.

The reality is that we are a coastal province. The challenges that a coastal province has are enormous, because we have to have ferries for the islands, for running up and down the coast. It’s a tremendous challenge.

That’s why I’m proud of this government. This government has begun to look at having guiding principles to guide and direct how we’re going to spend the money that we have to work with in the ferries. In the midst of that, we’ve always got to recognize that the challenge is that there are only so many dollars at this point in time within the economy.

Our job, yes, is to grow the economy, so that as we grow the economy, we’re going to have more dollars to be able to spend on the various challenges that face this coastal province. But as we look at those guiding principles, the guiding principles are affordability, efficiency and sustainability for the ferry system.

First of all, of course, is the issue of affordability, because we only have so many dollars. Ultimately, yes, there is a partnership here between the provincial government, the corporations — they’re using the services — as well as the users themselves. That’s a piece of the puzzle that we constantly have to recognize: that there are users that are using this, and they need to be able to afford it. But by the same token, who has the control over the gas prices, the price of diesel, the price of bunker fuel?

Fortunately, right now the price is going down, but that’s thanks to Saudi Arabia. That’s not something that we can take credit for, but it’s a reality that we’re able to enjoy the benefits of for a period of time. But invariably, we can recognize that that price is going to go back up. So affordability, trying to keep the ferry increases trending towards the consumer price index and working with the cost of living.

Obviously, efficiency is a major issue within the ferry system where we try to embrace innovation, try to deal with emerging technologies, ultimately operational efficiencies and continuous improvement.

I know, myself, when I was on the TransLink board when we took over from B.C. Transit back in 1999, I would have individuals giving me videos of the bus system going by. Here the bus is at 5:30 in the morning. There it goes by. Oh, look at that. The driver is all by himself. Six o’clock comes, 6:30 comes along, and finally we get a few passengers. Those are some of the challenges of having a scheduled system where you simply put out the service and the customer decides when they wish to be there. Obviously, operational efficiencies are a very, very critical issue.

[1030]

I remember in the news…. Was it last summer, I believe? I can’t remember exactly when, but at least a year ago over in Village Bay on Mayne Island, as the ferry was coming in — I believe it was a Sunday morning — it got caught in the wind. It had an accident into private wharves. But in that, you got the statistics that there were in fact — I believe it was — two passengers and a lot more crew on that ferry. We have to look at efficiencies within the schedules that we have. We have to take a look at how we can be as efficient as possible, saving as many dollars as we can for the taxpayer while at the same time providing the services for the users.

Obviously, sustainability is a critical issue as well, as we look at trying to build a safe and reliable transportation system that will be there for future generations. We have to replace the ferries. We have to work with that. We have lots of money to be spent and lots of challenges that we’re facing, but in doing that, we have to be efficient, obviously getting federal government money in this as well.

I found it interesting that we talked about the Trans-Canada Highway. I come from Surrey, and to get from Surrey to anywhere north of Surrey…. If you go the brand-new Golden Ears Bridge, there’s a toll on that. The brand-new Port Mann Bridge and all the connections that are to that freeway…. It’s a massive freeway, being paid for at the courtesy of those who use the Port Mann Bridge, yet there are other users of that highway that are in fact getting these tremendous improvements for free.

We go over to Quebec, is it? Montreal. There’s a bridge there that they’re talking about…. The federal government is talking about replacing that bridge. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. We have a federal party that is saying that the Quebeckers should get their use of the Trans-Canada Highway bridge for free, but we can’t here in Surrey. Obviously, anomalies within the system.

C. Trevena: I thank my friend from Surrey-Panorama for his comments about the ferry system. However, he talked about the need for affordability and efficiency, and I think that his very examples prove that the ferry system — under its present governance structure, with the Coastal Ferry Act — is neither. He mentioned that we wanted to keep fare increases around the CPI. Well, on certain routes it’s been more than 100 percent, which is certainly not within the CPI. On average, fares have been going up year on year, just within the price caps, at about 4½ percent — which, again, as I say, is highly above the CPI.

Nor would I say that there is much efficiency in the service with the recent cuts we’ve seen. If the member would go on, I would say, most routes, he would find that there have been massive overloads because their system is not designed for the use that it’s getting. So I think that while the member has some concerns, obviously, I would hope that he studies the ferry system a bit more closely and, also, again, tries to understand the link that while you’re maybe paying $3 each way or up to $5 each way on the Port Mann Bridge, it’s a little less for a carload of people than it is per person on a ferry.
[ Page 4692 ]

I would like to use my remaining time to talk about the other benefit of ferries for B.C. — or the potential benefit of ferries for B.C. — that has been severely neglected again by this government — and that’s building our ferries here, building our ferries in B.C., creating jobs here in B.C. by rebuilding our shipbuilding industry. Again, it is a huge economic driver. It would create hundreds of skilled jobs. As anyone who has an understanding of the economy would realize, there is the multiplier effect. You start employing people here, they’re spending here, and you are really generating the economy.

B.C. Ferries plans to commission 18 more new vessels. The last three they sent out to Poland. Previous to that, it was to Germany. You can’t say that German ferries are more cost-efficient. In fact, B.C. Ferries says that when they transfer to LNG, the ferries that were built in B.C., the Coastal class, will be more efficient than the German ferries that were brought in with great fanfare. That is according to B.C. Ferries itself. So if you’re actually building those ferries here in B.C., it could benefit our economy by more than $378 million and 1,100 manufacturing and construction jobs.

The reality is that B.C. shipyards do have the capacity to build ferries in B.C. if they are allowed to. As I mentioned, the Spirit-class vessels were built here, not just in one yard. B.C. yards were able to work together. In the Kootenays they’re building ferries without even a yard. Up in Nakusp, for the Ministry of Transportation, there’s a brand-new ferry.

[1035]

I would hope that the government actually realizes there are great benefits from B.C. ferries — the use of them, the economy of them and the construction thereof.

REMOVING PROVINCIAL BARRIERS

G. Kyllo: It’s an honour to rise this morning to speak on the issue of interprovincial trade and growing our economy. It should be a surprise to British Columbians that currently it is easier to trade with other countries than with other provinces, despite the fact that nearly 40 percent of Canada’s trade takes place within our own borders. The value of internal trade in Canada is $366 billion, or 20 percent of Canada’s GDP.

British Columbia has long been of the view that there should be no impediments to trade between Canadian provinces, to maximize the benefits for all Canadians. Ensuring the free flow of people, goods, services and investment is essential for Canada’s prosperity. We are a stronger nation if we are striving to reduce barriers to trade quality, Canadian-made products.

That is why Canada’s Premiers have agreed to continue to strengthen and modernize the agreement on internal trade, the AIT. This agreement will help allow goods, services, capital and workers to flow freely across provincial borders, helping to boost trade, make it easier for businesses to expand into other provinces and lower the costs for businesses and taxpayers.

Past efforts have made it possible to attain real and concrete progress in areas such as labour mobility, but we believe that more can be done. B.C. businesses and our provincial economy would benefit greatly with a revised AIT that would provide access to all provinces from coast to coast, rather than just our longstanding agreement with Alberta and Saskatchewan in the case of the new west partnership.

The new west partnership is a model of breaking down internal trade barriers, helping to increase mobility of goods, services, investment and people across our shared borders, and we want to promote our model to the rest of Canada. The NWP has created Canada’s most open and competitive economy — a single economic region encompassing all three provinces, with a market of almost nine million people and a GDP of roughly $585 billion.

Nationally, we need to create an agreement that helps us strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of doing business across Canada. This will result in new opportunities to grow and diversify our economies.

That is why we welcome the interest of the federal government in examining a rewrite of the agreement on internal trade, the AIT, as the current agreement that was established in 1995 is antiquated. However, for the initiative to be truly meaningful, we believe that the federal government will need to reduce trade barriers of their own. B.C. businesses and our provincial economy would benefit greatly with a revised AIT that would provide access to all provinces, rather than just Alberta and Saskatchewan, as is currently the case under the NWP.

The leadership of the Premiers of the new west partnership sent a joint letter on July 9 of this year to all Premiers in Canada, urging them to support an ambitious new internal trade agreement for Canada’s internal economy. The letter focused on the new, comprehensive renewal of the existing AIT based on a negative list approach — as broad as possible, where provinces and territories negotiate what is out, not what is in; full coverage for all procuring agencies; straightforward, accessible language; continued vigilance on labour mobility; and strong enforcement mechanisms with the teeth to make sure that we all play by the rules.

The Premiers noted that the original AIT, first signed in 1995, was a giant leap forward at the time. The fact is, however, much has changed since then, and the AIT has not been able to keep up with the changes in the economy and in internal trade. All three Premiers are calling on their colleagues across Canada to work together to overhaul and modernize the agreement on internal trade. Their goal is to create an AIT that eliminates as many barriers as possible and provides opportunities for businesses to grow and economies to diversify.

However, we should not sit on our hands and not act on opportunities to liberalize interprovincial trade today.
[ Page 4693 ]
That is why I’m pleased to see further progress on the NWP, with an announcement on August 28 of this year between our Premier and the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan agreeing to review the list of expectations to the new west partnership trade agreement to make trade in the new west even more open.

[1040]

The continued efforts of the new west partnership are being well received by Canadian businesses. Dan Kelly, the president of the CFIB, regulates the partners’ efforts, stating: “It’s terrific to see the three western provinces showing leadership on this issue and resolving small but important examples of challenges to interprovincial trade.”

Another great advancement in our interprovincial trade with one of our NWP partners comes from the trade barriers lifted on products made by B.C. wine and craft distilleries. Consumers here and in Saskatchewan will have greater choice and convenient access to locally produced wine and craft spirits as a result of an agreement between the two provinces.

Previously consumers were restricted to wines or spirits that were available for sale through Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority stores in Saskatchewan and the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch and private liquor stores in B.C. Once implemented, consumers in both provinces will be able to order B.C. or Saskatchewan wines and craft beers directly from producers and have them delivered to their doorsteps.

Saskatchewan joins B.C. and Manitoba in offering direct access to Canadian wines and is an example of growing consensus among industry and government towards the need for liberalizing internal trade. Miles Prodan, president and CEO of the B.C. Wine Institute, notes: “B.C.’s wine industry has earned a strong reputation internationally for quality and value, and thanks to this agreement, more people right here in Canada will be able to enjoy the high-quality B.C. VQA wines grown and produced in B.C.”

And why shouldn’t they? This agreement is a result of efforts made since March 2013 and from B.C. working extensively with other provincial and territorial officials on looking at ways to open up domestic markets for our wines. The terms of this particular agreement will be drafted in the coming weeks for implementation on June 17, 2015.

Moving forward, our two provinces have agreed to continue discussing options to liberalize trade in craft beer. Improving trade in high-quality goods is not only a common-sense solution for governments but also an essential element in growing our respective economies and, in the end, benefiting all British Columbians.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo seeks leave to make an introduction.

Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I notice in the gallery this morning that Kurt Beens is here from Nanaimo, accompanied by a friend whose name I unfortunately don’t know. I’d ask the House to please make him welcome to his Legislature.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I thank the member for Shuswap for introducing this issue. I’m pleased to get up and have an opportunity to make a few comments in regard to the question of internal trade and the question of how we do business in this province with other provinces across the country.

The member talks about the wine industry. I think we’re all in agreement that we would love the opportunity for everybody else in this country to enjoy the fabulous wines that are produced in British Columbia, which are world-class by anybody’s standards, and that there should be a greater opportunity for that to happen. I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. I could say the same thing about craft beer. You’d say the same thing about a number of other products. All of that is good, and we do need to get there and make that happen. I’m very supportive of looking at how we do that.

But we also know that in all trade agreements, whether they be an internal trade agreement for Canada or they be international trade agreements, the devil is always in the details of these. That’s what we need to look at hard. There are instances, I believe, where there could be challenges to business in British Columbia — challenges that need to be addressed.

I would hope that as this discussion goes forward, there will be a meaningful consultation, as there should be — with business people, with consumers, with others in British Columbia —about the implications of significant changes around trade.

We want those changes to be beneficial. We want those changes to be supportive of B.C. business and of B.C. consumers, and we want them to be fair and balanced for everybody in the country. I believe there needs to be a conversation here not just among governments but among the people in the province, too, so that there’s the opportunity to get increased input into what makes sense as we look at a change or a liberalization of those.

[1045]

The other thing we see — and we see this in the international agreements — is that we’re now starting to see some push-back. We saw with the agreement with Europe, between Canada and Europe, the concerns raised by Germany. We know there are similar concerns now being expressed by some governments around the NAFTA agreement. This is the question around what the
[ Page 4694 ]
role of corporations is, their ability to challenge government public policy and their ability to do that in ways that are less than transparent — to challenge in those ways. A rethink is going on, in many cases, that that’s not something that the governments should necessarily want to be able to occur.

It appears that’s the concern that Germany, certainly in the European-Canadian discussions, has been raising — and other countries in the European Union — about whether in fact that’s something they want to see.

So what I would say to the member is that I’m glad he raised this issue. I think internal trade is a legitimate issue. It needs to be addressed. We do want to broaden the opportunities here, but it is about the detail. It is important that British Columbians are able to be part of that discussion — not just governments but British Columbians —and that input be available and that we all understand that before those deals are finalized.

I would urge the member, if he’s speaking to the Premier or speaking to the appropriate members of cabinet who will be advancing this discussion, that he encourage some level of engagement with the broader public and with consumers, in addition, of course, to consultation with the business community, who obviously have a keen interest in this.

I think there’s a positive here. There’s a win here to be had. But if we don’t do this properly, if we don’t do it carefully and if we do it in a way that’s simply ideological, we’re going to find at the end of the day, I think, that we have misstepped, and we’re going to be going back trying to correct errors. We all know that we’re better off to try to get this right now rather than to make errors now and go back and try to correct them, because we always know it’s harder to correct things after the fact than it is to get it right the first time out of the gate.

Again, my thanks to the member for raising the issue. But we really do need to make sure that the interests of British Columbians are protected, as well as fairness and a level playing field for all Canadians so that, among other things, all of those people in Manitoba and Ontario and Quebec can enjoy all of that fabulous wine we produce throughout British Columbia. They may have the odd product in other parts of the country that we’d be interested in here too. I’m sure of that. That would be good.

I look forward to the member’s close on this issue, and I look forward to a further discussion around this as we move forward.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I’m encouraged that he’s in support and in agreement with efforts to increase trade with our partnering provinces across Canada and to reduce impediments for the safe movement of goods and services across Canada.

Significant advancements in international trade make it even more important that Canada is effectively positioned to capitalize on opportunities domestically and internationally. I’m proud that B.C. has been taking concrete steps to enhance internal trade and support continued economic growth.

A significant step forward is being made between B.C. and New Brunswick for the free flow of apprenticeships through a memorandum of understanding between both provinces. Currently differences in provincial and territorial apprenticeship certification requirements mean that for some Canadian apprentices, gaining the skills training required to achieve their Red Seal certification may be a challenge if they’re unable to move where the jobs are.

Starting this fall, apprentices in B.C. and New Brunswick will be able to seamlessly work in either province to achieve the Red Seal certification and move freely between the two provinces to take advantage of job opportunities.

The MOU is meant to address immediate and future demands for skilled labour in both B.C. and New Brunswick. The MOU between B.C. and New Brunswick will remove these barriers and benefit both provinces by supporting B.C.’s labour needs beyond the supply of its available workforce during peak labour demands through the mobility of the N.B. apprentices and by accelerating the certification of New Brunswick apprentices in their trades through employment with B.C. employers.

We’re also working with other provinces and the federal government to make strides in ensuring labour market mobility, which will ensure that Canadians have the skills they need to compete in a global economy.

Regarding apprentices who are working towards certification, labour market ministers recognize the need to enhance and improve apprenticeship mobility in Canada. When completed, this means that workers in a regulated occupation will be certified for that occupation anywhere it is regulated in Canada.

[1050]

Progress must continue. Ministers agreed in July to a pan-Canadian initiative on the harmonization of ten Red Seal trades, with a progress report expected next month. The target is aggressive yet achievable. British Columbia’s economy stands to grow from streamlined access to provincial markets for our consumers and for our workers. British Columbians will benefit from a growing economy that embraces the opportunity to trade freely internally, just as we do strategically with foreign markets. It just makes good sense.

KEEPING PUBLIC HEALTH CARE STRONG

J. Darcy: If you ask British Columbians and Canadians what they cherish most about the society we live in, the majority inevitably say that it’s our cherished public health care system.

We are passionate about it. It’s central to who we are.
[ Page 4695 ]
We have a health care system, a medicare system, where the quality of care you get does not depend on the size of your pocketbook. If you visit a doctor’s office or an emergency room, if you’re scheduled for a diagnostic test or a surgical procedure, you’re asked to show your CareCard, not your credit card — for now, that is.

This fundamental value that we share as British Columbians is under threat. It’s being challenged in a court case launched by Dr. Brian Day and his associates at Vancouver’s for-profit Cambie surgical clinic and specialist referral clinic. These private clinics have been actively flouting the law in B.C. for many years by extra-billing patients for medically necessary procedures, and they’ve been getting away with it.

The goal of their legal case is to allow a parallel U.S.-style private insurance scheme to flourish for essential medical services, the kind of system that has driven U.S. health costs up 50 percent higher than ours, while leaving millions of Americans underinsured or uninsured.

After many delays the Brian Day court challenge to the B.C. Medicare Protection Act was scheduled to be heard last month, but now it has been postponed until March 2015 “for the purpose of seeking a resolution.” Negotiations between Brian Day and the government of B.C. have now moved behind closed doors, and British Columbians are deeply concerned about what’s happening in those secret negotiations.

I have personally heard from over 1,500 individuals about this. British Columbians are worried about whether the B.C. government will defend their interests in these secret negotiations. They want Dr. Day and his clinics to be held accountable for breaking the law. They say that patients who’ve been illegally double-billed deserve restitution. They believe, as my colleagues and I and the official opposition do, that a full and comprehensive audit of all of Dr. Day’s clinics and physicians must be conducted to get a full picture of the extent of unlawful billing.

A partial audit from 2012 showed that in just a 30-day period, the Cambie Surgery Centre billed patients half a million dollars for services that were publicly insured. The clinic was ordered to stop double-billing, yet almost three years later it continues, and no one has been held accountable for violating B.C.’s laws.

We’re talking about, potentially, tens of millions of dollars in double-billing. If the B.C. government is negotiating a settlement with Dr. Day and his clinics, it must surely include a permanent injunction prohibiting them from continuing to break the law, and the Medical Services Commission should be proactively monitoring all of B.C.’s private clinics in order to ensure compliance with the law.

Now, the Minister of Health has said that it is his government’s responsibility to uphold the integrity of the Medicare Protection Act, but to date we have seen no action. Talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than words, and what British Columbians want is action. They want an end to two-tier health care, but it’s not just legal action that they’re calling for. They also want action to improve wait-lists, and they don’t believe this government is listening.

[1055]

I hear cries for help literally every day from people across B.C. who are waiting far too long to get access to critical medical procedures. I’m talking about patients who are waiting as long as six months for colorectal screening. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Canada and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. We know that early screening and detection saves lives, and, after a public service campaign was launched by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the government finally announced the creation of a provincewide screening program last year. But now, today, as we speak, people are relegated to wait-lists of up to six months when the government’s own recommended wait time is a maximum of eight weeks. That is simply unacceptable, and we must do better.

I hear from people across B.C. who have waited over a year to see an orthopedic surgeon and then waited another 12 to 18 months for their surgery — this despite the fact that the government websites say that wait times are a few months at most.

In the meantime, some of these patients live with unbearable pain, unable to walk, sometimes unable to work and support their families. The longer they wait, the costlier it is for everyone. It means that the patient’s condition can deteriorate. Their recovery can take longer, and the loss of income affects not just the patient and their family; it also affects the B.C. economy, with a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of government revenue. Surely we can and must do better.

According to the national Wait Time Alliance, in the last year wait times in British Columbia have increased in several critical areas — for cataract surgery, for cancer care, for knee and hip replacements. We are still not measuring wait times at all in critical areas like treatment for chronic pain or disc problems or receiving psychiatric care for major depression.

The government likes to brag about balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit, but the reality is that it is doing so at the expense of people’s health, and we are accumulating a huge social deficit. Surely as a province we can do better.

The answer to wait-lists is certainly not to allow a parallel private system to flourish. Despite claims by Dr. Day, the Fraser Institute and the musings of some Liberal MLAs that a parallel private system shortens wait times, international studies show that wait times become longer because the private clinics draw doctors and nurses out of the public system. The for-profit clinics are also focused on the easier-to-treat patients, leaving the more complex and costlier cases to the public system.

Isn’t there something terribly wrong with the notion
[ Page 4696 ]
that if you can afford to pay $1,000 or several thousand dollars for an MRI, for colorectal screening or for hip surgery, you should be able to go to the front of the line? Surely we can do better than credit card medicine in the province of B.C.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, it is a pleasure to rise and to respond to the private member’s statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster entitled “Keeping Public Health Care Strong.”

As a health care provider in the province for many years myself, I can personally attest to the importance of health care to all British Columbians. It is something that we all value very deeply. That is the reason why our health care system strives to provide a high quality of service to ensure the best outcomes for our friends and family, regardless of where they live in this province.

It is a fact that B.C. has one of the best overall health care systems in Canada. Last June British Columbia was rated number one in Canada for health care, according to data released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD. B.C. was also the only province to receive an overall A grade by the Conference Board of Canada in May 2013.

Furthermore, British Columbia is recognized worldwide for being progressive and a leader in many areas, including the best care for HIV/AIDS, because of innovations that expand access to medications and treatment. We are also recognized for some of the best cancer outcomes and the highest heart attack survival rates in the country.

It is also no secret that British Columbians live longer than people in any other province — 82.65 years, to be precise.

[1100]

While this may be due to more active lifestyles, a great deal can be attributed to our government’s investment in preventative health care measures. However, when we do need care, our health care system is ready to respond.

In terms of wait times, B.C. is recognized for being one of the leaders in managing wait-lists. In a 2013 report card the Wait Time Alliance gave B.C. the grade of A in four priority areas: cardiac, radiology, hips and cataracts. Even in B.C.’s busiest emergency rooms, 90 percent of patients see a doctor within the time frame established by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.

It is a fact that jurisdictions all over the developed world are experiencing greater demand on their health care systems because of aging population. That is the reason why the government makes plans over the long term to provide high-quality health care in a timely fashion.

While critics may measure success by how much we spend on health care, it’s more important to measure success by health outcomes. That is what is important to British Columbians. A single health care dollar well spent is far more valuable than simply making bigger and bigger increases and hoping for the best.

We are fortunate in British Columbia to have a strong economy and a balanced budget. By eliminating the deficit, we’ll have more money to spend on things like capital investment for new hospitals, increased access to primary care and community care, new medical equipment and innovative approaches that will improve health care outcomes even more.

This government understands that every tax dollar counts. We’re committed to getting British Columbians the best value possible for their health care dollar. Our government has worked hard over the past decade to build one of the most efficient health care systems in Canada, and we will continue to strive to produce the best outcomes. I thank you for your time.

J. Darcy: You know, the fact is we do still have serious problems with wait-lists here in British Columbia. The member opposite referred to a 2013 report. If he looks at the 2014 report, he’ll see that in fact wait-lists have gotten longer in several critical areas, as I mentioned in my opening remarks.

The solution, however, is not more private, for-profit care, as Dr. Brian Day has proposed. But neither is it burying our heads in the sand, making self-congratulatory statements and saying that we don’t have a problem, as the B.C. Liberal government is unfortunately fond of doing, which just allows credit card health care to flourish. Frankly, it delays us finding the innovative solutions that we need in order to ensure more timely access to health care.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What are those innovative solutions? Well, many of them are right here in front of us — in other provinces and some of them right here in B.C. We need more specialized public surgical clinics, with a shift to more team-based care, making better use of nurses and other health care workers every step of the way. Evidence shows very clearly that this would mean that patients are better prepared for surgeries, that operations are less likely to be cancelled, that ORs operate more efficiently and that hospital stays are shorter.

We also need, frankly, proactive wait-list management in all health authorities, where we shift responsibility for managing wait-lists from individual surgeons to health authorities, which means that patients can access the first available surgeons, and health authorities, in turn, can make sure efficiencies and best practices from individual hospitals are applied right across the system.

We also have operating room capacity sitting idle in virtually every major hospital across B.C. because of staffing shortages and underfunding at the same time as we pay a whole lot of money to contract out surgeries to private
[ Page 4697 ]
clinics. We have MRIs that sit idle for many hours and entire days of the week. Doesn’t it make sense to use more of our existing capacity in our health care system in order to shorten wait-lists for people who are waiting too long?

One of the major reasons that our wait-lists are so long is that we have far too many patients taking up acute care hospital beds who could be cared for much better, much more humanely and far more cost-effectively elsewhere. Doesn’t it make sense to make those strategic investments in residential care beds and home support programs and in community-based preventive health care that our seniors desperately need?

[1105]

Yes, there are innovative programs that can reduce wait-lists and improve health care in place in other provinces as well as in B.C. We’ve seen a whole lot of excellent pilot projects come and go in B.C. What we need now is not more pilot projects. We need system change. Enough of saying one thing and doing another. We need bold leadership from the province to improve public health care in British Columbia.

D. Bing: The importance of keeping health care strong is without question. Quality health care is something that all British Columbians value very highly. As the member for New Westminster has stated, Canada’s medicare system is cherished and is one of the things that define us as a country. Although British Columbia is highly regarded….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have already spoken on this issue, haven’t you? Thank you. Take your seat, Member.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 3 — GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
FOR NEW MARKETS

S. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to stand up in the House today and move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House encourage the government to strengthen our economy and create jobs in British Columbia by expanding and opening new markets abroad.]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected by British Columbians on the promise of a strong economy and a secure tomorrow. That means protecting and creating jobs in B.C. That’s why strengthening relationships and opening up new markets for B.C. industries is this government’s top priority. We understand that British Columbia’s trade relationships have a direct impact on the growth of family-supporting jobs in our province.

That’s why we are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through Destination B.C., the creation of a major investment office, trade missions overseas and through new trade and investment offices.

Traditionally, B.C. has relied on trade with the United States and Europe. We still rely on these partners and do a significant amount of business with them. But as B.C.’s economy grows and these traditional markets face challenges, the onus is on us to diversify.

Part of this effort includes trade missions. These are a critical part of British Columbia’s strategy to develop and strengthen relationships with international trading partners and secure new investments propelling economic activity and job creation throughout the province.

There have been five Premier-led trade missions since September 2011: China and India in November 2011; in May 2012 Japan, Korea and the Philippines; in November-December 2013 China, Korea and Japan; in May 2014 Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong; and, most recently, India in October 2014. These trade missions have been tremendously successful in leveraging our competitive advantages and making sure that B.C. is top of mind on a worldwide scale when it comes to international investing.

Since the jobs plan was released in September 2012, British Columbia’s international trade network has grown from under 30 people to over 60 based in priority markets across Asia, Europe and the United States. These international networks connect B.C. businesses with new markets and trading opportunities that promote British Columbia as a stable and attractive destination for investment, tourists and international students.

British Columbia’s international trade and investment network has played a key role on the ground in provincial trade missions and delegations. The province has nine trade and investment representatives based in Japan, Korea, India, east China, north China, south China, Hong Kong, Europe and the United States.

Our government is using expanded international trade and investment networks to connect B.C. businesses with their opportunities to find new markets for their goods. By expanding to new markets, we can increase the demand for B.C. products around the world. Exports provide a vital source of economic growth and job creation. The more we export and expand our trade missions, the faster we can grow our economy and provide more opportunities for British Columbians.

These opportunities are not limited to large and established companies. In fact, 85 percent of B.C.’s exports are companies with fewer than 50 employees.

I mentioned earlier how our government benefited from our previous trade missions to Asia. Exports to priority markets have increased in the last year compared to 2013. But we understand that in order to solidify those relationships and truly diversify our markets, we need to continue doing what we’re doing.

[1110]

Hon. Speaker, these are just a few reasons why I’m happy to bring this motion forward in this House. It’s our responsibility to strengthen our economy and create jobs for British Columbians.
[ Page 4698 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I just want to remind all the members that we have a longstanding custom and usage practice which allows everybody to speak five minutes on this issue, so please keep that in mind. Thank you.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, there’s no doubt that a small, open economy like British Columbia relies immensely upon trade, whether it’s with our neighbours to the south or whether it’s with the expanding economies of Asia.

Certainly, the world centre of gravity is shifting to Asia. I recently, in July or June, attended a speech by Dominic Barton, who’s the global managing partner of McKinsey and who spoke about the challenges to British Columbia in the Asian century. He pointed out that 313 cities in Asia will drive one-third of global growth in GDP in the next 15 years.

He did point out…. British Columbia is well-positioned in the sense of our geographic position, and certainly some initiatives have been taken, extending back to Premier Harcourt in the 1990s. But British Columbia lags behind other comparable jurisdictions in terms of exports to GDP. British Columbia has 7 percent; Washington State, just to the south, 12 percent; New Zealand, the jurisdiction with about the same population and roughly the same size of economy although it’s a sovereign country, 13 percent.

The structure of exports from British Columbia is consistent. Almost entirely 85 percent of basic materials, such as coal, unprocessed raw logs, sulphur, pulp — which is processed to some degree — and energy accounts for 85 percent of exports. Nearly all the increase in B.C. exports in recent years has been driven by the expansion of China. In addition, most Canadians, even in British Columbia — and Mr. Barton points this out — do not place a high priority on expanding trade with Asia. So there are certainly a number of opportunities and a number of challenges.

Mr. Barton makes some suggestions, and I want to turn to the trade offices as part of what the member for Delta North in his otherwise platitudinous speech did say. Mr. Barton suggested that one strategy would be to agree which city clusters in Asia British Columbia should invest and look at the individual businesses and develop what he described as a granular strategy growing local talent. As part of that strategy…. We have heard from the member opposite about the trade offices.

Now, in any business, when you make an investment…. There are a number of trade offices, and he’s mentioned them. For example, in Tokyo they spend $1.5 million a year; Beijing, about $1.5 million a year; Mumbai, $750,000 a year; Chandigarh, $117,000 a year. You would welcome the opportunity to scrutinize those operations to decide whether they’re giving value or not and make a public evaluation. After all, it is a public strategy. It’s the government’s strategy, and it benefits all of us in theory.

I made a request for basic information from the trade offices back in December of 2013 — December 20, 2013 — and I have yet to receive the information. The government is so confident of the strength of what they’re doing in these trade offices that they won’t release any information to the public about what they’re doing with these millions of dollars that they’re spending. So it really begs the question: if the strategy is so great, if it’s so visionary, if it’s so helpful, why won’t they release basic financial information that the public is, I think, entitled to know?

In addition, the government…. It’s not often we hear such a scorching condemnation of the government, but the appointment of Mr. Stewart as a trade commissioner at $150,000 a year, $3,000 a month for car service, $6,000 a month for accommodation, $100,000 a year for a travel budget, was condemned by the Vancouver Sun in an editorial.

[1115]

This is what they said: “British Columbians have every right to be infuriated over Stewart’s Beijing assignment. It is an example of the kind of partisan patronage that disgraces the government party and erodes support from even its most ardent supporters.”

Once again: is the money for these strategies being well spent? Even the, I think, generally pro-government newspaper points out that this is an infuriating, infuriating decision.

M. Morris: I rise to speak in support of continuing to strengthen our economy and create jobs in British Columbia by expanding and opening new markets abroad. India, Asia’s third-largest economy, is projected to become one of the largest consumer markets in the world. British Columbia has expanded its trade and investment network in India to connect B.C. organizations and companies with new opportunities there.

For an example, Simon Fraser University and the Indian Oil Corp., one of the world’s largest companies, signed an agreement in January to collaborate on hydrogen and fuel cell technology research.

As well, in March Indian Oil signed an agreement with Petronas to acquire a 10 percent interest in Progress Energy’s LNG-destined natural gas reserves in northeast British Columbia and in the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG export facility in Prince Rupert. Just recently, in the last day or two, Indian Oil has announced that they are willing to invest a further $4 billion in B.C.’s LNG industry.

British Columbian has expanded its trade and investment network in India with trade and investment representatives located in Bangalore, Mumbai and Chandigarh. B.C. strongly encourages Canada and India to move forward on trade negotiations.

With a growing economy and an expanding middle class, India has significant untapped potential to be a
[ Page 4699 ]
strong trade partner for B.C. and Canada. Concluding these agreements would further strengthen this important trade relationship by lifting trade barriers to improve the movement of goods, services and investment. B.C. is steadily growing its trade relationship with India, with B.C. exports to India jumping by 46 percent between 2012 and 2013.

B.C. offers significant opportunities for India in areas like education. Building strong educational ties with a growing economy and modernizing society such as India will benefit B.C.’s students and B.C.’s education system.

In 2012-13, 4,600 international students from India were studying in British Columbia, including 2,600 in public post-secondary institutions and 2,000 in private post-secondary institutions. India is the fastest-growing student recruitment market for British Columbia, with a 188 percent increase in the number of students in the province over three years.

The number of partnership agreements between post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and India, second only to China, indicates a high level of interest in working collaboratively to support the two-way flow of students and research opportunities.

Royal Roads University is building on a previous agreement allowing Chandigarh University students to transfer into third year of Royal Roads’ bachelor of business administration programs.

Similarly, the University of the Fraser Valley and Baba Farid University of Health Sciences will develop a two-way exchange for faculty visits and collaborative activities, the exchange of students and the exploration of common research interests.

Here at home B.C. has a vast supply of natural gas and room for growth — attractive advantages for companies looking to invest in new, clean energy. India, a significant importer of LNG, creates real potential for B.C. Access to shale gas through a safe hydraulic fracturing process has revolutionized B.C.’s supply prospects. B.C.’s ultimate supply potential is over 2,900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That supply can support natural gas activities and export operations in B.C. for over 150 years.

There is opportunity for India or other markets to partner with companies investing in B.C.’s natural gas industry. Presently there are 18 LNG export facilities at various stages of development.

British Columbia’s trade relationships have a direct impact on growing family-supporting jobs in our province, and we are committed to diversifying and expanding our markets.

[1120]

Strengthening our relationship to open up new markets can be achieved through overseas trade missions, education partnerships and LNG partnerships with countries such as India. By continuing to expand and open new markets, we’ll continue to improve the quality of life and create a better future for all British Columbians.

J. Shin: As always, it is my privilege to participate in the discussion on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

As we are all aware, British Columbia is a trading province, with not just a wealth of natural resources but agricultural potential, as well as technological and professional services, from all regions for export.

Our province is inherently positioned to be Canada’s natural Pacific gateway. So yes, there is no arguing that we should be seeking strategic global opportunities, especially since the years of feet-dragging have already put us significantly behind our competitors.

The latest federal advancements with South Korea, for example, will help us get our foot in the door to propel the negotiations with other Asian countries, like Japan, and finally put our businesses on a level playing field to compete with Europe and America.

On that note, I must highlight once more that B.C. continues to export unprocessed, low-value-added and carbon-intensive products most of the time, the price of which actually decreased by 27 percent in the last few years. All the while, we still heavily import mostly manufactured electrical and technological goods at higher-value-added prices.

On top of that, we still import much more than we export in various industries. That means our existing trade deficit can end up widening more and certain sectors driven into further disadvantages if the new and coming deals were to go forward poorly consulted and drafted, as they have in the past.

Additionally, it is imperative for us to remember that opportunities abroad, and the corresponding calls for exploration and investment, shouldn’t be coming at the expense of the existing and developing opportunities locally right here in B.C.

For one, our tourism sector has not kept pace with the rest of the economy, with its growth well below the average of other industries. This is in part due to the rapidly and badly executed changes in the immigration policies on the federal level that plummeted our immigrant, international student and tourist numbers from the very Asian countries that we want to strike up trade deals with.

Certainly, the penny-smart, pound-foolish approach to B.C. Ferries, in the cuts, has put its own set of dents in the tourism sector as well.

Considering that more than a third of our GDP in accommodation, food services and transportation is generated by tourist spending and that, of course, one in 15 British Columbians depend on the jobs in this industry alone, we should be more sensitive to the businesses right here on our soil whose livelihoods depend on steady and growing international traffic, as well as the provincial infrastructure and resources to be able to cater to that.

On the agricultural side, because of the large government subsidies to the industrial system and imported foods and, of course, most recently Bill 24 breaking up the ALR, it still remains difficult for our local farmers as
[ Page 4700 ]
they struggle to compete in the B.C. market. We still have 95 percent of what B.C. eats being imported. That is $25 billion leaving the province instead of some of it, at least, going towards our local economy.

We know that the contribution of the high-tech sector to the economy of this province is paramount. While it is great that this sector has seen steady growth over the years, which is exciting, we still need to remember, to put things in perspective, that we import four times as much as we export. We still have a relatively small market share compared to all other provincial and American jurisdictions.

Our potential is far from being realized. That’s the reason why the stakeholders in the industry have long called for investment in local initiatives to grow the domestic market so we can have the kind of economic scale required to compete in the U.S. jurisdictions that have nationwide market access, as well as healthy local usage, so that they can pursue export opportunities.

Now, all this, be it abroad or locally, when and if the government sees the job creation…. It’s going to boil down to our labour readiness with a trained workforce.

With B.C. having the worst young adult employment rates, with one in five 25- to 29-year-olds not working or studying; a record high rate of people leaving the province, which doubled since the ’90s; and the number of temporary foreign workers in the last six years being double the national average, at 29 percent; when we have a motion on the floor calling for the creation of new jobs, I must ask: what will be the net creation of new jobs? We also need to ask the second question, which is: who are we creating jobs for?

[1125]

J. Yap: Good morning. It’s great to have this opportunity, as the member for Richmond-Steveston, to participate in this debate on this motion. I’m grateful to my colleague, the member for Delta North, for bringing this forward.

As we’ve heard from both sides of the House, this is an issue of critical importance for British Columbians. As has been said, B.C. is an open trading economy. For our existence, first as a colony and as a province in Canada, we have depended on trade, whether it’s internal or external trade, to sustain our economy and provide us with the quality and standard of living that British Columbians expect and deserve.

We’ve heard that we’ve made great progress in increasing our international trade opportunities, which is the focus of this motion, and I’m delighted to add my voice in support of this motion. The facts are very clear that British Columbia — and certainly, our government in the last 12 years — has invested strategically in increasing trade with those regions of the world that, as we have seen, are exhibiting tremendous economic growth.

China, of course, is the one market that the entire world is going to. British Columbia, as has been said, is well positioned to take advantage of our historical linkages with China — our familial linkages, our cultural linkages and our economic and trade linkages — and to build on that. And we are seeing great results.

Whether it’s in lumber, which has seen a 3,300 percent increase in the last 11 years of exports to China…. I mean, just in lumber alone, we have seen the exports increase from a $69 million level to $1.4 billion in 2013 — a great success.

This didn’t just happen. This happened because of strategic, focused and patient investment of time and effort in going to China on an annual basis by successive Forests ministers. In fact, the Minister of Forests was just in China last week doing what Forests ministers of this government do, which is to market our great forest products to China. He was there last week. And the Premier has led, as has been said, three trade missions in less than four years to China to promote our great export products.

Whether it’s in lumber; whether it’s in mining products; whether it’s tourism, an area of great opportunity now that Canada is a favourite destination…. We received that designation a couple of years ago, and that has opened up tremendous opportunities for tourism. There is a great interest. We all know that.

I see that in my community, in Richmond. We are the gateway, with the most important airport in British Columbia and the west coast — YVR, which most Chinese visitors to Canada come through. We see it in Richmond and throughout British Columbia — the great interest to visit our great province. That provides great opportunities in the tourism sector.

Education, as has been said — tremendous opportunity. We have one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing, middle class in China, where there are so many people that want to increase their human capital and become educated. Great opportunities. China now provides one of the largest, if not the largest, group of foreign students to Canada and, certainly, here in British Columbia.

Technology — another great area, including clean technology; bioenergy products, which China wants to invest in as they diversify their energy sources in addition to the traditional continued requirement for fossil fuels. Of course, LNG will provide that great opportunity for British Columbia to seize the opportunity to sell into the China market and create additional economic activity for our province.

[1130]

Agriculture — another important area, which I know both sides of the House support very strongly. We heard about how the focus on marketing cherries to China paid off recently, with the Minister of Agriculture making a successful visit to China to sell cherries. Great opportunities.

Our government is on the right track, and I support this motion to continue to focus our efforts in international marketing.
[ Page 4701 ]

Deputy Speaker: The member for Saanich South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Mary Kearsey and her grade 9 class from St. Andrew’s Regional High School in Saanich South.

Welcome to your Legislature.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: It is always a pleasure to stand here and participate in debates that are important to our British Columbians, especially people that are watching from Surrey-Newton.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I think everyone agrees in this House and elsewhere, outside of this House, that expanding trade with different markets is important. It is key to creating jobs in British Columbia. The fact that this motion has hit the floor so many times, in fact brought on by the members of the government so many times, I think, is an admission, a clear admission, that the government is failing and is not listening. I think that if that’s the intent behind the motion, I agree with it.

I thank the member for Delta North for pointing out that issue to this government: they’ve got to do a job. I think he’s got a point. The point is that all of the work that we’ve done as a government in here…. Our policies are totally upside down.

Right now take a look at the forest industry. More raw logs are being processed elsewhere — outside of Canada, outside of British Columbia — today than in any time in the history of this province. The jobs are created in other countries with our raw material that we are supposed to be creating jobs with here in British Columbia.

When we are successful in attracting, on the other hand, investment to B.C., what happens? The companies are allowed to bring their own workers from their countries to British Columbia. Again our workers are left behind. They are nowhere. Never mind at the front of the lineup; they’re not even in the lineup. HD Mining is a prime example. We all know about that.

No wonder we have the highest number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. on a per-capita basis than anywhere in Canada. We are No. 9 since the so-called job plan was introduced 2½ years ago — No. 9 in job creation. It’s a clear admission that the government’s policies are not working to create jobs in British Columbia for our British Columbians.

At the same time that we have 74,000 temporary foreign workers in B.C., we have between 124,000 and 150,000 people looking for jobs in British Columbia and the highest unemployment rate of any jurisdiction among the group that is between 25 and 29. One in five is looking for a job. That’s not a very good record of a government creating jobs in British Columbia.

I agree with the member for Delta North: continue to remind this government that we need to encourage them to expand trade to create jobs for British Columbians in British Columbia, and it’s not happening. I agree with the member: to continue to remind these ministers and the cabinet and the government.

Here let’s talk about the trade missions. The Premier in India is quoted here: “India needs one million skilled workers a year, every year for the next 15 years. We can help. We can help 3,000 and 300 of them help us build on LNG.” Again, we are giving opportunity. We are telling people elsewhere, outside of British Columbia: “We will train you. We will help you train. We will help you get jobs.” But what about our own people here?

No wonder they are being ridiculed in the media right here. It says: “It does make one wonder though: why would a company headquartered in India join a trade mission with the B.C. government to, of all places, India?”

[1135]

It goes on to say in HuffPost: “While importing is an integral part of any trading relationship, most British Columbians would expect the priority of a B.C. trade mission to be on exports, because exports create jobs here in B.C. And after all, British Columbians are picking up a chunk of the tab.” Yet one of the companies that was on the trade mission, which imports handwoven saris from India, is on the trip. Tough to imagine they are going to start hand weaving saris in the Lower Mainland to export back to India any time soon.

All of that is happening, and the taxpayers are coming up with the money for these trade missions. But jobs are not being created in British Columbia for British Columbians. I, again, say that this is a good thing. Different members, I might say, of the government side every year have to come up and remind the government and encourage them to create jobs for British Columbia by expanding trade with our new partner.

So, government, get the message. Your own members are calling on you.

J. Thornthwaite: We believe that British Columbia’s trade relationships have a direct impact on the growth of family-supporting jobs in our province. Traditionally, B.C. has relied on trade with the United States and Europe. We still rely on these partners to do a significant amount of business with them. But as B.C.’s economy grows and these traditional markets face challenges, the onus is on us to diversify our markets.

Part of this effort includes trade missions, which are critical parts of British Columbia’s strategy to strengthen and diversify its international trading partners and secure new investment, propelling economic activity and job creation throughout the province.

I like to focus on the trade mission that just completed last week. While there — and this is all to do with film — the Premier announced the appointment of Arjun Sablok
[ Page 4702 ]
as special envoy for film to India to help promote British Columbia to one of the largest film-producing countries in the world. He’s a Canadian who has lived in Mumbai for the last 25 years, and he takes on an unpaid role as an ambassador for the B.C. film industry in India.

B.C.’s film and entertainment companies North Shore Studios and Vancouver Film Studios signed MOUs with India-based film and entertainment giant Ramoji Film City. Both parties agree to promote each other in India and British Columbia and support each other for the purpose of shooting and productions.

At the B.C. Film and Digital Roundtable in Mumbai, the Premier congratulated international film special effects giant Double Negative for its decision to open a new state-of-the-art facility in Vancouver, gaining the city even more recognition as a digital hub and paving the way for more well-paying jobs for British Columbians.

B.C. film and television production delegates joined the Premier’s jobs and trade mission to India on a biregional tour of the world’s most prolific motion picture production market. The B.C. delegation itinerary included facility tours, business-to-business meetings and networking events in both Hyderabad and Mumbai on the five-day mission.

B.C. delegates represent a range of industry interests, including live action, animation, visual effects production as well as facilities and professional services. A few that attended: Atomic Cartoons, Creative B.C., DHX Media, Elexisoft Technologies, E.P. Canada, GFZ Studios, Nerd Corps Entertainment, North Shore Studios, Omnifilm Entertainment, Optimus Information, Raymond Massey Productions, Silo Entertainment, Tata Elxsi’s Visual Computing Labs, Vancouver Film School and Vancouver Film Studios.

I quote the Motion Picture Production Association chair, Peter Leitch: “India is a fascinating motion picture production market with enormous capacity and new potential. B.C.-India ties have always been favourable, including the province of B.C. hosting the Times of India Film Awards here last year. But to date the B.C. production sector has not fully capitalized on business developments that could be mutually beneficial. We look forward to exploring these opportunities further.”

He went on to say that he appreciated the opportunity to connect with one of the largest film industries in the world. His delegation of a dozen individuals from the Vancouver film and animation industry made strong relationships with professionals in India. They have a strong entrepreneurial approach to business, and Mr. Leitch believes that the trade mission gave him the opportunity to build upon those relationships to create job opportunities here in B.C. within the production, visual effects and service sectors of the film industry.

[1140]

The Canadian Media Production Association managing vice-president, Liz Shorten, said: “B.C.’s production industry trade missions to international markets, most recently in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, have proven very successful in terms of new business development for our members. We expect India to be equally productive, particularly in light of Canada’s new official co-production treaty with India.”

These trade missions work. B.C.’s screen entertainment production sector stands among the best in the world and generates in excess of $1 billion in revenue annually as part of the province of British Columbia’s estimated $4 billion creative economy.

N. Macdonald: The member before me described so many of the speeches as essentially platitudes, and they are. The obvious value and importance to developing trade — I think most would agree that that’s something that’s of importance. I think it’s obvious that many jobs here in B.C. depend upon trade, and I think it’s obvious as well that we have tremendous opportunity here with the natural attributes that we’re given.

But we need to be intelligent and transparent with our economic policies. I think what you see far too often is trying to create the impression of doing something rather than actually doing it effectively. With trade missions, the actual value of missions can be difficult to assess. I think most people would agree that it’s something that you really only can see over time. I think it is often clear whether the intent of the mission is actually economic.

One of the challenges, by the way, for assessing whether something is successful or not is the Premier’s decision to get rid of the Progress Board. Let’s presume that Progress Board was doing good work. Many thought that it was. The decision to eliminate anything that actually assesses how the economy in B.C. is doing, I think, is a telling one. As I say, proper economic policy, it needs to be intelligent and transparent. Really, all that the government needs to do is do the basics properly.

Now, the previous speaker talked about the Times of India Film Awards. Sure, it was presented as an economic initiative, but they were the centrepiece of the quick-win strategy. Let’s be clear. That was $12 million that was essentially spent to promote re-election for the Premier. That was the purpose of that. Here we have a trade mission that goes to an area that is not the biggest of the markets that we have, but one can see that there are politics that seem to trump proper economic development.

You need to have a strategy. Let’s just look at some of our traditional sectors. If you look at forestry, that I was the critic of for many, many years — and one of the previous speakers talked about it — we’re up to seven million cubic metres being exported at a time when there’s not enough wood for existing mills. You have — coming off the coast, coming out of Nanaimo — incredible amounts of logs that could be processed by Canadian workers, and instead we have Nanaimo mills shutting down and that same company, from public lands, sending more and
[ Page 4703 ]
more raw logs to China.

Now, a previous Liberal speaker talked about the growth in forestry products to China. It’s seven million cubic metres. If you put that on trucks and put the trucks end to end, in one year the logs that we export would stretch on trucks from here all the way to Thunder Bay and back. It is an incredible amount of opportunity that is missed, yet we do it year and year. It’s actually still supposed to be against the law. The legislated rules are supposed to prevent that from happening, but here we see, I think, 140 mills have gone down, and we export raw logs at increasing number.

If you’re going to get the basics right, you take a resource, and you get the most out of it. That’s the basics. It might not be exciting, but you do that sort of work. You replant on the forest land base. You do proper surveys.

[1145]

In tourism there’s one little piece. Let’s talk about something that was actually raised at the Liberal convention: zebra and quagga mussels. These are little things that, if you do them properly, you avoid negative outcomes. You don’t get to cut ribbons. You don’t get to travel the world or get quick-win types of stories out of them. It’s just competence. If we don’t deal with zebra and quagga mussels, if we don’t invest to prevent them coming in, there are consequences that are inevitable.

Mining. If you don’t do mining, the oversight, properly, which this government has not done, then there are economic challenges that come from that failure. That’s what we see in the mining industry now.

These are the basic things that government should do well. Instead, the government’s focus is on a combination of platitudes and quick wins. That is the jobs plan in a basket. That’s what it is.

J. Tegart: I’m honoured to speak in favour of the motion of my colleague from Delta North. I always find it interesting to hear the debate from both sides of this House on Monday mornings. It’s great to see members recognize the need for British Columbia to expand and diversify markets abroad and create more demand for our quality-made B.C. products. It is just good economic sense to diversify the market for B.C. products with emerging economies, particularly in Asia.

This motion of strengthening our trade and economic relationships with growing economies abroad is timely, as the Premier just concluded a trade mission in India, in addition to the trade mission to market B.C. forest products in Japan, Korea and China led by the Minister of Forests. These missions underline the fact that building stronger relationships with trade partners results in new investment, propelling economic activity and job creation throughout our province.

In particular, the annual forestry trade mission co-sponsored with industry is especially important to move forward with diversifying markets for our B.C. wood products. In my constituency of Fraser-Nicola forestry is a large employer, and hundreds of families depend on these jobs. They depend on a strong forestry sector. Forestry is a key component of the B.C. jobs plan. Given our expertise in forest management, a highly skilled workforce and proximity to Asia and overseas markets, there is no doubt this sector is at the core of B.C.’s economy.

We have a natural advantage with our vast forests. This sector has built our province and created so many opportunities for British Columbians. Yes, forestry has seen its fair share of challenges, but there is a bright future in forestry in B.C. if we take advantage of expanding markets for B.C. forest products.

So far, incredible progress has been made. Since 2001 B.C. lumber exports to China increased more than 3,300 percent. As of 2013, 26 percent of B.C.’s softwood lumber exports went to China, totalling $1.4 billion. This is the result of the B.C. government’s decision to work with the forestry industry and federal government to establish an office in China.

Today China, Japan and Korea are among B.C.’s top five markets for B.C. softwood products. In 2013 together they received over 40 percent of B.C.’s softwood lumber exports. In Japan our province supplies most of the softwood lumber products they need to build their economy, totalling 37 percent of total imports. That’s 2.6 million cubic metres totalling $825 million worth of product shipped in 2013 alone.

Korea is B.C.’s fifth-largest market for softwood lumber. In 2013 B.C. shipped 237,801 cubic metres of product totalling $59.4 million and representing 11 percent of Korea’s softwood lumber imports.

[1150]

As of August this year, softwood lumber exports have increased by 6.6 percent from the year before, totalling $49.8 million, an increase of 10 percent since August 2013.

This market, in particular, is rapidly expanding. With the signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, this market will only expand further, with tariffs on B.C. lumber being eliminated by 2017. Our goal is to increase the volume of wood used in Korean wood-frame construction by 10 percent each year.

There are new opportunities and market demands for wood biomass as more emphasis is placed on bioenergy development for green solutions to electricity and heating needs. The Merritt green energy project is a good example of new technologies and processes available today to create greener energy from renewable resources.

In China the thirst for energy to keep their economy growing provides an incredible opportunity for B.C. to supply bioenergy solutions to this market.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak on the motion: “Be it resolved that this House encourage the
[ Page 4704 ]
government to strengthen our economy and create jobs in British Columbia by expanding and opening new markets abroad.” Certainly, that is recognized as an important endeavour and challenge, to continue to diversify our markets and expand our markets and export into the many growing, diverse economies throughout Asia — Southeast Asia, South Asia — as well as expanding beyond our strong trading relationship with the United States.

I wanted to highlight a couple of points and important considerations in the context of looking at implementing an effective strategy and ensuring that British Columbians do benefit from the expansion of markets. One of them is…. We know that there’s a trade mission in India now. The concern that is raised with respect to being able to really secure expanding markets in Asia is the claim that the trade offices and the B.C. trade and investment representatives are securing that. With respect to the details of how that’s being implemented, that is one of the concerns.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I know there was a previous freedom-of-information request in terms of looking at the rollout of the offices. We have Ben Stewart, who has been appointed into the position to look at securing our trade efforts in the area. We’re seeing a shortage and a real lack of information coming forward with respect to the implementation and the work and also the results of the effectiveness of our representatives in the area.

We have a number of offices that have been opened, from Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai and various countries. Certainly, the effectiveness of those representatives and offices still remains to be seen.

As well, we recognize the importance and the growing profile of India, the importance of India as a trading partner with British Columbia. India is currently Asia’s third-largest economy, and it’s projected to become one of the largest consumer markets in the world. It’s got a rapidly growing middle class, a newly elected democratic government, and it’s certainly important to build relationships.

My concern is that the government focus not only on benefiting British Columbians, in terms of export of our materials and export of our resources and services, but that we also see a benefit in terms of jobs created in British Columbia. It’s concerning that it seems that we see a continuing growth of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia. There doesn’t seem to be a…. That direction is still wide open.

[1155]

The question is with respect to: are we going to see a commitment from the government to commit to creating jobs for British Columbians? Also, we want jobs for permanent workers — not temporary workers, who are often exposed and very vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination.

We see a real lack of any type of monitoring or protection of the rights for these workers, even an accounting in terms of the expanding numbers of temporary foreign workers coming into British Columbia. That remains, certainly, a concern, and it doesn’t appear to be addressed or taken seriously by the government. And with respect to the current trade mission in India, that remains a concern.

As well, when we look at the importance of diversifying our markets and expanding markets in Asia, it should be anchored with connections here in British Columbia. When we look at the….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Elmore: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin to speak to speak to the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House encourage the government to strengthen our economy and create jobs in British Columbia by expanding and opening new markets abroad.”

The history of this province is defined by the strength of job creation and strong economy. One of our fundamental beliefs is that British Columbians should come first when it comes to jobs in our province.

Communities in the province, such as the Cariboo-Chilcotin, need to be safe and secure in order to succeed. Safety and security come through developing a strong economy. Strengthening our economy comes through investing in not only our communities but expanding and opening new markets such as forestry and agriculture.

In the last two years we have signed a five-year Growing Forward 2 agreement with Ottawa, helping industry grow profits, expand markets and manage risk. We’ve used that agreement to support B.C. food producers to become more competitive and efficient and have the support they need to reach and expand in new markets.

British Columbia faces the same choice that the rest of the world faces: grow the economy or manage decline. British Columbians choose economic growth. That is our focus. That’s why strengthening relationships and opening up new markets for B.C. industries is our top priority, and we are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets that will propel economic activity and job creation throughout the province.

In 2013 B.C. exported $2.7 billion worth of agrifood products to more than 140 markets. Currently we are successfully attracting international investment that supports job creation, economic expansion and increased competitiveness. B.C. is blessed geographically and in our proximity to Asia ports. Because of this blessing, B.C. has become the leader in Canada and North America in shipping and exports with Asia.
[ Page 4705 ]

In June the Agriculture Minister and the B.C. delegation completed a successful trade mission to China with government leaders from across Canada and met with senior Chinese officials in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai. The trade mission featured representatives from the province’s blueberry, cherry and specialty meat industries, which are of significant importance to the agriculture industry in B.C. The tour included several deals that could increase B.C.’s agrifood exports by about $100 million within a few years.

Both international markets and promoting B.C. beef and ranching at home are important for the industry.

D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ 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