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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 8

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

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It’s with great pleasure that I’d like to introduce Sean LaGuardia, who is a policy analyst and management fellow from the county of Los Angeles. He’s visiting us here today from the United States. May the House please make him welcome.

S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to introduce, visiting the precinct today, 30 students from Seaquam Secondary School in North Delta, along with their teacher Erika Hardmen. I’d ask that the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

BEATRICE LEINBACH

D. Eby: I rise to advise this House of the passing of a real entertainment legend in British Columbia, who passed away at the age of 93.

[1335]

You may remember her as Captain Bea. Bea Leinbach was the creative force behind the Kitsilano Showboat, which for 80 years was the stage where young kids from across B.C. would perform. The positive influence of the institution was obvious to all. Captain Bea used to say: “No kid who performed at Showboat ever became a bad kid.”

Beyond her work at the Showboat, she was the founder of Meals on Wheels in Vancouver and a key organizer for the children’s hospital society and the B.C. Special Olympics. She was, of course, awarded the Order of Canada, but she was also, perhaps if I can say even more importantly, given her own star on the B.C. Entertainment Walk of Fame.

Thank you very much to Captain Bea, and my regards and all of our regards to her family at this time.

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: I’m pleased to welcome today a delegation from Parksville and Qualicum. This group has been raising awareness for end-of-life care in our community by fostering discussion about end-of-life resources. More people are now aware of what is available in our communities currently as well as the plans to extend palliative resources. Obviously, with the population of our province in general being more elderly and aging exponentially, really, the understanding of end of life needs to be extremely well versed.

I’d like to thank Carol Dowe and her volunteers for championing this cause. Please welcome Fred and Carol Dowe; John Demetriose; Betty Fitsimmons; Carole and Michael Jemjimberry; and of course, the Qualicum mayor, Mayor Teunis Westbroek.

J. Shin: I have the honour of welcoming four inspiring British Columbians today. Nicolas Stefan, just 22, is a co-founder of Sprouthire, an exciting Burnaby-based start-up that pairs young job seekers with entry-level positions in the Lower Mainland. I think it’s only a matter of time that he’s going to take his business nationwide.

We also have Kyle Empringham. He’s a public engagement specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation by day, but he’s an environmental superhero by night at the Starfish Canada project, informing and empowering youth to engage in science and policy as they pertain to the planet that we live on. After watching Kyle’s SFU public square and TEDx talks, I’m hoping, certainly, that he’s going to take a seat in this House one day.

We also have Vivienne Megas, who also joins us in the gallery, who is the recipient of the Mosaic Seniors Champion Award this year. Vivienne came from Hong Kong 35 years ago and decided to give back to our community by volunteering her time to assist seniors, settling immigrants and new citizens.

Lastly but not least, I have my very good friend Duc Tran in the precinct. Duc is a hard-working public servant with the Ministry of Justice and also a committed community activist. Burnaby-Lougheed is very lucky to have him as our fundraising chair. Together we survived six fundraisers this year, with the seventh one coming next week at SFU.

I ask all the members to please thank Nicolas, Kyle, Vivienne and Duc for their contributions to our community and help make them feel very welcome in the Legislature today.

J. Martin: Those of us that have the great privilege to serve in this House — every day we carry on a number of wonderful traditions. But being the member for Chilliwack, there’s one tradition that falls solely on my shoulders, and that is to continue the legacy of introducing John Les’s grandchildren to this House. So bear with me.

Born October 10 to Chris and Carina Les is Blythe Isabella Les. Born a little while ago, June 24, to Allan and Elena Les was Lindsay Madeleine Les. For those of you keeping score at home, that brings us up to 19.

N. Simons: Many of you might think I’m about to introduce my grandchildren, but I’m not.

I’d like to welcome to the House one of Canada’s pre-
[ Page 4708 ]
eminent composers, Tobin Stokes — we’d like to claim him as a Powell Riverite — the composer of choral music, instrumental music and, more recently, Pauline along with Margaret Atwood. I’d like to ask the House to welcome him here.

G. Kyllo: I have two constituents from my riding of Shuswap visiting the House today — Terry and Vivian Martin. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1340]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. This act will enable a performance standard for industrial facilities under the scope of the act while streamlining other aspects of greenhouse gas management currently under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the Greenhouse Gas Targets Act and the Environmental Management Act under a single act. This will help to achieve the province’s commitment to cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

We will have to do more to continue reducing emissions. We remain committed to achieving, first, a 33 percent reduction and, ultimately, an 80 percent reduction from 2007 GHG levels. The benchmark approach in the bill sets a performance standard for liquefied natural gas and coal-fired electricity generation facilities. If the facility cannot meet the benchmark through emissions reductions on site, they may offset their emissions or purchase funded units whose proceeds would be invested in clean technology research and development for long-term emission reductions.

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

Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SMALL BUSINESS

L. Larson: I rise today to recognize October as Small Business Month in B.C.

Small businesses and the entrepreneurs that run them are the heart and soul of our province. They make up 98 percent of all B.C.-based businesses and account for 31 percent of our provincial GDP and 55 percent of all private sector employment. That’s one million British Columbians in communities large and small.

The sector is an incredibly important economic driver of our province, and I am proud to support small businesses at every opportunity, whether I’m in my constituency or travelling throughout the province, as do many of us in this chamber. However, small businesses cannot grow on their own. They need economic incentives such as low taxes and less red tape from government so they can concentrate on operating their businesses.

I am proud to recognize Grand Forks, the hub of Boundary country, for receiving an Open for Business Award, recognizing their efforts to promote and foster small businesses with a true open-for-business culture. They were awarded $10,000 by the B.C. Small Business Roundtable at UBCM in Whistler, with part of it being used to help create a long-term economic development action plan to attract, retain and grow businesses right in their community.

The Small Business Roundtable, which I was a proud member of for six years, was instrumental in developing programs and initiatives like this one to encourage small business growth from the ground up, starting at the community level.

Small business owners and operators deserve our undoubted support and recognition, driving our economy forward, so join me in celebrating B.C.’s Small Business Month this October.

LYME DISEASE

J. Darcy: A few weeks ago I met with Karen Marchand and Sharon Britz, brave women who both suffer from the debilitating and painful effects of Lyme disease, the result of being bitten by an infected tick.

I have met with Gwen Barlee and Jim Wilson from the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, and I have heard from countless people living with Lyme disease across B.C., all of them sharing personal stories of the suffering they experience: arthritis-like pain, extreme fatigue, severe weight loss, cognitive decline, loss of short-term memory and more.

Some are unable to care for themselves, others have lost their jobs, and many have reached their personal breaking point. Most have been bounced around from
[ Page 4709 ]
one health professional to another without getting the diagnosis or treatment they need to heal. Why? Because medical opinion is divided on how to diagnose, how to treat and on the prevalence of Lyme disease in B.C. Doctors who treat Lyme disease aggressively with antibiotics do so at serious professional risk.

[1345]

This is happening despite the fact that a confidential report by Brian Schmidt, commissioned by this government in 2010, said that the incidence of Lyme disease in B.C. is rising and likely to increase and also exposed the woeful inadequacy of testing and treatment for Lyme disease in B.C. This report stated clearly: “Doctors should be able to prescribe therapy unless that therapy poses a greater risk to the patient.” Yet patients with Lyme disease are still being forced to leave B.C. or pay very high costs, if they can get treatment at all.

People with Lyme disease have the right to be treated by a physician here in B.C. Physicians should not suffer the consequences for providing that care. I hope that all members of this House can come together to make it so.

CALVIN KRUK CENTRE FOR THE ARTS

M. Bernier: How do you make a family-friendly community? How do you try to have the best quality of life possible for citizens, and what kinds of services do communities ask for? Well, in Dawson Creek they recognize the need to have services to attract families, businesses and professionals to the area.

In 2007 one idea started with a council that heard, loud and clear, from the community members that they needed to have a better facility to house the performing arts. Shortly after the visioning process started, though, Calvin Kruk — the mayor of the community and a man who started the process — sadly, passed away from cancer at the young age of 43.

That didn’t stop the community though. They wanted the dream to become a reality, and it only fuelled the desire for them to move forward and create the space that was so badly needed. After intense fundraising and many community planning sessions the project began. Taking an almost 50,000-square-foot, closed-down federal post office in the heart of downtown Dawson Creek, transformation began to create a state-of-the-art, multifunctional centre that would house dance studios, community archives, music studios, pottery, quilting and much more.

I was very lucky a few weeks ago to be at the ribbon cutting for this facility named after the man who started the process. With thanks to the provincial and federal governments and the many individuals and businesses that contributed, the Calvin Kruk Centre for the Arts is now a busy, active place, providing much-needed opportunities for people in the region and another positive addition to downtown Dawson Creek.

Please help me in congratulating the city of Dawson Creek in opening this amazing new facility.

SYNTAL PRODUCTS AND
PLASTIC RECYCLING

L. Popham: I rise today to thank Brian Burchill and his fellow co-workers and staff of Syntal Products, recently located on the Saanich Peninsula. Syntal Products was a remarkable business and a Canadian pioneer in the recycling industry. For 16 years it accepted plastic waste from consumers and regional districts at no charge. Syntal took in thousands of tonnes of the stuff, diverting it from the Hartland Landfill, reducing the costs of the regional recycling programs.

It was a win-win situation. The regional district did not have to pay to recycle or dispose of the materials, and a local business was able to convert a waste stream into a sellable product. Syntal was a successful and profitable business, turning waste into wealth.

I recently toured this business and was struck by its combination of simplicity and sophistication. The clean hard plastics it accepted were first shredded and then granulated into tiny beads. These beads were then fed into a large hopper above a long chamber fitted with an enormous steel screw.

As the screw turned into the chamber, the beads were fed in. The heat created by the pressure softened the beads and turned the material into a soft liquid the consistency of toothpaste. This material was then injected into 2-by-4-lumber-sized moulds and cooled in water. The result was plastic lumber: such a simple technology, such excellent recycling, and no harsh chemicals were used.

This August the business was shuttered, then sold lock, stock and barrel to a company operating in another province. More than half of the supply of plastic had dried up overnight, breaking the business model, the result of a regulation change in B.C.

Despite this regrettable last chapter, I want to congratulate the staff and owners of Syntal Products for 16 years of hard work. Their green, local business turned a waste stream into a valuable product and demonstrated the ingenuity and environmental-oriented mindset that we need to embrace in this province if we are to build a green economy and address the challenges of climate change.

[1350]

WASTE REDUCTION

M. Hunt: I want to draw to your attention today that all across Canada, October 20-26 is Waste Reduction Week. This important week has been recognized by all provinces and territories in our nation since 2001, and many communities throughout British Columbia officially recognize this week, including my city of Surrey.

Waste Reduction Week is organized by a coalition of non-governmental environmental groups and is put together to get people to change their ecological foot-
[ Page 4710 ]
prints by reducing their waste. For example, the Carton Council of Canada is a major contributor to the Waste Reduction Week. They are dedicated to environmental practices, that they be taken care of throughout the entire life cycle of that carton.

B.C. is a leader in sustainable environmental management. In 2011, B.C.’s recycling regulations were updated to shift responsibility for managing the residential recycling of paper, packaging and printed materials from local governments and their taxpayers to businesses and to those who produce the materials. Since that time, with the number of new materials collected curbside, recycling has grown with the help of our consumers.

Today I challenge everyone to reduce their ecological footprint, and I hope we can inspire each other to come up with unique and creative ways to reduce our waste. I encourage everyone this Waste Reduction Week to think about ways to recycle and reduce waste because, after all, one person’s waste is another person’s treasure.

HMCS Regina

M. Karagianis: It was quite the day on Wednesday, September 17, when citizens from my community turned out to line the shorelines for a long-anticipated homecoming. That day, HMCS Regina sailed back into her home port, ending a deployment that began in January.

First, the Regina and her crew were deployed in support of Operation Artemis. That was a counterterrorist and marine security operation in the Arabian Sea. Then it was to Operation Reassurance to reinforce NATO’s collective defence in response to Russian aggression and provocation along Ukraine. The Regina headed for home by way of the Suez Canal and Asia, stopping en route to strengthen diplomatic ties in the region.

In all, the deployment lasted more than eight months, and, as you can imagine, it was quite a homecoming scene when she pulled into home port in Esquimalt. The smiles of the families, the children, the crew and their families said it all. Dozens of citizens lined the shore, waving Canadian flags, with their pride overflowing.

I hope that all members will join me in saying congratulations to all those who served on HMCS Regina in this deployment and thank-you to their families and their loved ones who gave them up for a while so that they could serve our country.

You’ve made us all very proud, and we’re so very grateful to have you back safe and sound.

Oral Questions

MINE INSPECTION LEVELS AND
MOUNT POLLEY MINE INSPECTIONS

N. Macdonald: My question, of course, is for the Minister of Mines. On September 26 the Premier told CKNW…. I’ll read the exact quote: “The number of inspections on major mines is exactly the same as it was under the NDP in the 1990s. It has not gone down at all for major mines.” That’s the quote. That’s not true. That’s not close to being true. We know that as a result of reckless cuts by her Liberal government, Mount Polley did not have a single geotechnical inspection in 2009, in 2010, in 2011.

How does the Premier get her facts so absolutely wrong? Did the Minister of Mines give the Premier inaccurate and misleading information to use in her speeches and interviews?

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s the first time that I’ve had an opportunity in the House to speak about the disaster at Mount Polley mine, so if I can just take 30 seconds and say here in the House that certainly, I think everyone in the province, actually, was traumatized, shocked by what happened. I know that the mining industry was.

[1355]

I know all the professional people who work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment were terribly shocked by what happened and have put hundreds and hundreds of hours into trying to find the cause and make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

I think the people — certainly in the whole Cariboo region, but in particular the First Nations in that region and the people of Likely — have obviously had a very difficult time dealing with something that was a disaster, that threatened their way of life and everything that’s important to them.

That’s the context for all of what will follow, I’m sure, over the next couple of months here in question period.

To the member’s question: in fact, as I’ve been saying for the past few months, the number of inspections overall on major mines in B.C. has actually gone up as of today. They started to….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t want to confuse the opposition with the facts but, in fact, in the year 2000 there were 99 inspections of metal mines here in B.C. In 2012 there were 156; in 2013, 145; and in 2014, to date, 186.

Let me just finish by acknowledging that in 2010 and ’11 the number of geotechnical inspections was way down. That wasn’t appropriate — not acceptable. But today, since 2012, those numbers of inspections are again where they’re supposed to be.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The minister is quite willing to make assertions without backing this up with any facts at all,
[ Page 4711 ]
and, when we get facts, we find often that the exact opposite is true.

What have we heard from this minister? On August 7 the Mines Minister said: “The inspections that are done on mine sites are no different today than they were five years ago.” Recall, Madame Speaker, that Mount Polley had no geotechnical inspections over the course of three years in that period — zero. We also have August 8, “We’ve had no cuts to inspections; we have not cut inspections to major mines” — as the minister asserts again today. The contradictions in what the minister says and reality are glaring.

The minister has all this information. It’s there on his desk. There’s one way to get to the bottom of this, and that’s for the minister to release all of the information, as we requested in late August. Will the minister release all of the information related to the Mount Polley disaster, including the number of inspections done at the tailing pond dam?

Hon. B. Bennett: In fact, the document that I’m holding and reading from is a document I’m quite prepared and happy to share with the member. In fact, I’ll table it after question period. The media already has it. It lists out the number of all types of inspections of major mines, also geotechnical inspections and inspections that relate specifically to Mount Polley.

The member made an assertion that there have been fewer inspections at Mount Polley. He is correct. I want to be accurate. I want to be fair. He is correct about the geotechnical, one type of inspection, in 2009, ’10 and ’11. However, when you compare to 2000 — and we all know who was in government in 2000 — there were four inspections at Mount Polley. In 2012 there were six, in 2013 there were 15, and in 2014 there have been eight so far.

In terms of the member’s suggestion that somehow or other inspections, number of inspectors, caused this terrible accident at the Mount Polley mine, if the member actually knows what caused this accident, the member has an obligation, a moral and a legal obligation, to step forward and tell the appropriate authorities how this happened. For the rest of us who don’t know, we’re going to allow the independent panel to make that determination.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a final supplemental.

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND
INVESTIGATION INTO TAILINGS POND
BREACH AT MOUNT POLLEY MINE

N. Macdonald: What a ridiculous answer. I mean, the facts are that we have been asking for information since August 18, and the minister puts out piece after piece when it’s to his convenience.

[1400]

The Liberal government…. I mean, let’s be clear here. You have a history of investigating yourself…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: …and coming up with a whitewash. The B.C. Liberal government has that history — whitewash after whitewash. Here we have another example. When we asked on Thursday…. The minister missed this, but we asked questions, and the Minister of Environment stood up and quoted from the chief inspector.

The chief inspector is under investigation with the Mount Polley disaster, and yet the government relied on his advice to suppress public documents that could reflect badly on his office. Why has the government taken advice on suppressing documents from one of the subjects of the investigation?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think my colleague the Minister of Environment tabled the document last week from the chief mines inspector. That is one of the pieces of advice that we have received with respect to the release of information that is relevant to this accident and relevant to the independent investigation of it.

I’m not going to quote very much from the letter. The chief mines inspector did say that government must “protect the integrity and independence of these investigations” to ensure we determine how the breach occurred.

There’s another element that relates to the capacity of the Crown to lay charges, should that eventuality be something that they look at. We definitely don’t, on this side of the House, want to do anything that’s going to either undermine the integrity of the independent investigation or get in the way of eventually laying charges against the people and the companies who are responsible. I’m surprised, frankly, that the NDP would want us to do that.

S. Chandra Herbert: So let me get this straight. The minister says releasing any piece of information could damage the investigation, could make it so you couldn’t lay charges, could mean we don’t know what actually happened at the Mount Polley disaster. That’s what the minister says. He says he’s been told this by the chief inspector of mines. There’s no way he can release one piece of data. Yet with his other hand, he’s handing media data about what’s going on in mines, inspection reports, where he feels it would help the government. So he says one thing and does the other.

Can the minister explain how he can release data when it’s his choice, but when we ask for it or the public demands it — even decades-old reports — he says no, because it would damage the investigation. Explain yourself, Minister.
[ Page 4712 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is wrong about one very important thing, and that is the fact that everyone — the public, the opposition, everyone — will have access to all of the information once the independent panel completes their investigation. They’re submitting a report on January 31, 2015.

In the meantime, we have been advised by the conservation officer service. I’ve heard the Leader of the Opposition and others on the other side denigrate the conservation officer service. They actually poke fun at this great group of people.

The chief mines inspector is the statutory officer that has the statutory authority to do this investigation without interference from elected people or anybody else. His advice has been: do not disclose these documents. And we have three highly respected individuals from around North America who have a lifetime of experience at investigating accidents like this, and they also would prefer that we don’t release this information.

Yet the opposition continues to demand it. Why? For pure political reasons.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

[1405]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, when the minister stands and talks about pure political reasons, doesn’t answer questions, you’ve got your answer right there. There is a hollowness to his argument, because there is no justification — when one day he can hand media news releases, investigation reports, inspection numbers, and then the next day say with that same mouth: “No, it’s impossible. There’s no way you can because it would damage the investigation.”

Can the minister explain himself? Or is he just going to give us more pure politics?

Hon. B. Bennett: The irony of the line of questioning from the opposition, for me at least, is that if I had the capacity or the legal right or different advice, I guess, from those who know better about these things than I do, such as the lawyers in the Ministry of Justice…. I haven’t practised law in 13 years, and I freely admit that I take the advice of the lawyers in the Ministry of Justice and the chief mines inspector.

I would love to allow everyone on the other side to come into the Ministry of Mines and look at all the documents that are filed away in the filing cabinets. After January 31 when we have that report and we know what happened…. I think the other side is going to be disappointed, but when we know what happened, then they will be able to come in and look at all that paper, and I will take them personally into the offices — anyone who wants to come and look at all that documentation. The only thing…. I kind of think that at that point in time they won’t be interested because the theatre will be over.

HAIDA NATION CONCERNS REGARDING
RUSSIAN SHIP AND COMMENTS BY
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY

S. Fraser: On this side of the House we believe that First Nations are essential partners in the sustainable development of our economy. Prosperity and justice for all communities relies on recognition, reconciliation and respect for First Nations.

Last week the Haida were the first to raise the alarm of the Russian container ship Simushir adrift off the coast of Haida Gwaii. They should be lauded for drawing attention to what could have been a disaster for their community and for all of British Columbia. Instead, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Justice Minister, the member for Richmond-Steveston, said: “The eco-fearmongers can stand down.”

Question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: is it also the government’s position that the Haida Nation were fearmongers?

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, of course, we are all relieved to know that the vessel now is tied up in Prince Rupert and poses no other risk.

I’m also pleased to report to the House that I was able to speak with Peter Lantin from the Haida Nation Council as this was unfolding. We also were able to coordinate with the Haida Nation Council through the joint efforts of the Canadian Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard, Emergency Management B.C. and the Department of National Defence along with the local regional district.

It’s always our intention to involve at the highest levels those local First Nations who are impacted by significant events like this. We will continue to do that. I commend the Haida for the great cooperation that they gave us as this event unfolded.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Surely the minister would agree that it’s callous and disrespectful to belittle legitimate concerns raised by the Haida leadership. The potential for disaster was real — both ecological and human. It was more than 48 hours from the time the ship lost power until it was securely under tow. The seas were rough, and the coastline is rugged.

The Haida were right in raising these concerns, yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Justice Minister called them fearmongers. Will the minister today write to the Haida with his and his government’s apology for the slurs cast by his caucus colleague?

[1410]

Hon. M. Polak: I have to give my huge congratulations and thanks to the Haida for the way in which they col-
[ Page 4713 ]
laborated with us as we attempted to deal with a highly volatile situation. Throughout the integrated incident command they were involved, they were informed, but more importantly, they offered us their collaboration in terms of their knowledge of the area and participated together with our team as we planned how to address a very, very serious incident.

REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

J. Darcy: Two weeks ago this government lauded the independence of its latest review of the firing of health researchers. But only after pressure from the opposition has the government now been forced to backtrack and admit that these terms were not good enough.

While the revisions the government has since made seek to clarify the independence of Ms. McNeil, they do not address the fundamental question of having Ms. McNeil submit the final review to the head of the Public Service Agency. The departing head of the Public Service Agency was party to the investigation and firings, as was the incoming head, Elaine McKnight, who was chief administrative officer within Health at the time of the firings.

Why is the minister directing Ms. McNeil to submit her report to two individuals who both oversaw the original investigation?

Hon. T. Lake: I have stood in this House and acknowledged that some mistakes were made in the HR practices relating to the investigation in the Ministry of Health at that time. That is why a review is being done of those HR practices.

But the member is incorrect. I have not directed anyone to change the terms of reference. No elected official has done that.

This is an independent review directed by the public service, which is responsible for human resources management in the province of British Columbia. I am very confident that Ms. McNeil will do an independent, objective report. That report will be made public and enable us to ensure that all of the great people who work for the province of British Columbia are treated fairly in terms of human resource management practices in British Columbia.

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

J. Darcy: In the government release containing the revised terms it says that Ms. McNeil will interview any people she deems necessary, review documentation and make independent findings of fact and that she will report to the Public Service Agency. But it still remains unclear whether or not Ms. McNeil will be able to compel evidence from current or former government employees, from the deputy to the Premier or from the Premier herself.

Can the minister confirm that Ms. McNeil will be able to retrieve the necessary information from whoever she sees fit by compelling testimony under oath?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ve already said in this House that this is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial process. This is an independent review of the HR practices that were used at the time. We recognize that some of those practices, we feel, were heavy-handed, that they overreached. We have apologized to some people in cases in which we felt that was the case. Ms. McNeil will now do a review to help ensure that that does not happen in the future.

[1415]

A. Dix: The minister speaks about treating people fairly. These were wrongful dismissals that the government paraded as correct dismissals for two years in a very public way. The terms of reference designed by Ms. Tarras, according to the minister — approved by the government, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health — intentionally exclude two years of human resources mismanagement during which the government sought information to justify what they now acknowledge are wrongful dismissals.

Will the minister now agree to allow Ms. McNeil to expand the timeline of her review to include the two years after the firings when the government’s misconduct continued?

Hon. T. Lake: I might remind the members opposite that a breach of confidential medical information — to allow that information out into the public or to be accessed inappropriately — is a very serious concern. In fact, the now Leader of the Opposition said so at the time.

It was appropriate for the government to take action. What we have said is that in some cases, some of that action was an overreach, was heavy-handed. That is why this review is taking place — to make sure that it doesn’t happen in the future.

This review will be done very quickly, and then the members opposite will be able to assess that review and judge at that time whether or not the recommendations that come from that review are appropriate. We have all learned lessons about rushing to judgment. I would ask the members opposite to wait for this review, and we will have a very good, full public discussion of the review and the recommendations that come from it.

A. Dix: The minister just said that sensitive health information was allowed out to the public. I’m sure everyone will be very interested in his testimony to the review. Will the minister commit today to releasing Ms. McNeil’s
[ Page 4714 ]
report to the public when he and the government receive it? In other words, the day they receive it, the public sees it too. Will he commit to that? Or if that standard is too high a standard of independence for him in this case, will he commit to releasing it before the end of this legislative session?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you for the question. We have said in this House that that report will be released upon its reception from Ms. McNeil. But it’s important to note, because the member opposite said that the terms of reference were approved by the minister…. That is incorrect.

The terms of reference were not approved by any elected official. This is an independent review that is done through the auspices of the Public Service Agency with an independent reviewer. Those findings — we have already committed — will be made public for all British Columbians.

ACCESS TO
ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION SERVICES

B. Routley: My constituent, Tamara Walker, needs a double-lung transplant in order to survive her life-threatening health condition. Before this can happen, she needs to be put on the transplant waiting list. The problem is that, like so many struggling with affordability in this province, her family can’t afford the costs associated with moving to Vancouver for treatment and recovery.

Why is this government adding undue stress to B.C. families by allowing financial means to dictate who can and who can’t receive life-saving surgery?

Hon. T. Lake: This government will not allow someone’s financial situation to be an impediment to life-saving treatment. We commit to British Columbians that when they need life-saving treatment, it will be there for them.

[1420]

In this particular case, Vancouver Coastal, which is responsible for lung transplant procedures in the province of British Columbia, has reached out to this family.

The member’s constituent is only in the assessment phase to see if in fact she would be an ideal recipient for a lung transplant. As they move through that process, Vancouver Coastal will work very closely with them, making sure they are connected to the services and supports they need to ensure that she receives that life-changing and life-saving surgery.

Madame Speaker: Member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: This minister has repeatedly insisted that Tamara won’t be denied access to treatment based on cost. Yet Vancouver Coastal Health itself stated back on August 19, 2014, that finances are “a major barrier to proceeding with activating her on the list.”

It’s going to cost Tamara’s family $25,000 at least to stay in Vancouver. Her community has been rallying around her, helping and fundraising. But it shouldn’t fall to goodwill to determine whether or not Tamara’s life can be saved. She’s in Vancouver hospital today, by the way.

Will the minister turn his words into action and commit today that Tamara and so many other families will get the funding for treatment she so desperately needs? Is he going to commit to pay?

Hon. T. Lake: I have said that we will not leave British Columbians behind. We will ensure that their financial situation is not an impairment to them receiving life-changing surgery.

The member opposite can stand up in the House and talk about this particular case. It would have been nice if the member opposite had come and sought a meeting with me before standing up and grandstanding on this particular issue. We look after British Columbians in the province of British Columbia from every corner of this province. We will continue to do that and ensure that this constituent has the care that they require.

IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN
INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

M. Karagianis: A report that was released last week on women’s rights gives the B.C. Liberal government a near-failing grade on its commitment to missing and murdered aboriginal women. The West Coast LEAF report states that over a year and a half after the Missing Women Inquiry report was released, there has been “little concrete progress on some of the most critical recommendations.” The report goes on to call the government’s progress “disappointing” and “painfully slow.”

Why has the Justice Minister repeatedly refused to take concrete action on one of the most crucial recommendations coming out of the inquiry and implement a shuttle bus along Highway 16?

Hon. S. Anton: The Missing Women Inquiry dealt with the tragedy of the missing and murdered women on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. We received the report. The government has been working continuously and tirelessly and with great focus on the recommendations from the report — so much so that we have now offered, through three levels of government, compensation for all the children of the missing women.

We have improved policing practices throughout British Columbia, which was one of the main focuses of the report. We spend $70 million annually on safety and help for vulnerable women, and we have implemented legislation and done other measures so that we have a
[ Page 4715 ]
coordinated and proper approach on missing persons.

The question was asked about the transportation, which was one recommendation in the report — safer transportation, as the report says, on northern highways, all of our British Columbia highways. Indeed, Madame Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we do have cellphone coverage on the highways. We have police with better communications than they have ever had before. Our highways are safer, our women are safer, and our government is committed to helping vulnerable women throughout British Columbia.

[1425]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports: Elections B.C., Annual Report 2013-2014 and Service Plan 2014-2015.

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Investigation Report 14-07, lobbyist: Brad Zubyk; Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Reconsideration 14-07 (Investigation Report 14-07), lobbyist: Brad Zubyk.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report 2013-2014.

Hon. B. Bennett: Madame Speaker, I’d like to table a document.

Petitions

Michelle Stilwell: I table a petition of over 4,000 people regarding the need for funded palliative care beds and night nurses in Parksville-Qualicum.

E. Foster: I rise to present a petition of 133 residents of Lumby, electoral areas D and E, requesting that government investigate whether safety measures such as a safety barrier could be installed on the Shuswap River Drive in area D to prevent further accidents and tragedies.

Orders of the Day

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Routley: About a week ago I ended the sitting of this House in the middle of my speech, and I’ll pick up where I left off. But I’d like to summarize that it has become a bigger and bigger task to list the number of broken promises that this government has made in throne speeches. This recent throne speech — you can at least say one thing for it, and that is that it doesn’t offer great opportunity for too many broken promises since there really wasn’t much to the throne speech. At least in the past, the government of Gordon Campbell, although ideological and sloganistic in its approach to throne speeches, addressed some of the issues that were on the table with British Columbians.

This government has essentially reduced the government from being one of governance by slogan to one of governance by simple acronym. That might begin with “YES LNG” — end, full stop. That could have been the throne speech.

Even their commitments, the LNG promises that they made during the election, have been drastically reduced or fled from. That is because it’s obvious that what they promised us couldn’t be materialized and won’t be.

[1430]

We essentially have a government that is like an Internet scam. You’ve received them, I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, in your inbox — the relative in eastern Europe that needs your credit card number to help release a huge bank account in which you can share, if only you’ll share your credit card number. You’ve heard of people travelling in Africa, in your in-box, asking you for your credit card number to free up massive sums of money. That’s a little bit what it’s like being a British Columbian under this government.

This government says: “You know what? If you’ll only write us a $20.17 cheque, we’ll give you a debt-free B.C.” This, while they increase the debt at a greater rate than any government in history. “If you’ll only write us a $20.17 cheque, we will give you a massive prosperity fund of $100 million.”

It’s a little bit like that Internet scam, and I think it’s not surprising that the pronouncements of the government are now just being ignored. There weren’t people in the House. The media didn’t pay attention. They didn’t pay attention because there’s essentially nothing to what the government has offered to British Columbians, and whatever they have offered has failed to materialize.

The list is too long. It takes the entire speech of an opposition member to list off the number of broken promises over the years that I’ve been in this House, from the 2009 budget deficit of $495 million — not a penny more — which wound up being $1.8 billion, to now the latest hubris and arrogance offered to us by the B.C. Liberals.

After the longest strike in the history of public education in this province, they tell us in the House that they’re really good at negotiating. That’s what they’re really good at, even though their negotiations kept kids out of classes longer than has ever occurred in this province.

That’s what they deliver. They say one thing; they deliver another. They say one thing and then do as they please.
[ Page 4716 ]
They say one thing and completely break that word. That’s the pattern. That’s the habit.

Let’s examine this claim of a debt-free B.C. When the B.C. Liberals came to power, the debt-to-GDP percentage was 20 percent. It’s over 19 percent now and climbing, and that’s if you leave off the off-balance-sheet debt that this government has accumulated in contractual obligations.

This government has taken the public debt, recognized and reported, from $35 billion when they took power to $69 billion today — doubled. Add to that, $96 billion in off-balance-sheet obligations, largely in the form of ridiculously loss-ridden B.C. Hydro power-buying contracts, long-term contracts, and you’ve got $170 billion in obligations since this government came to power.

They’ve taken the per-capita obligation of British Columbians from $8,400 when they took power to $40,000 per person — woman, man and child — in this province today. That’s what they’ve delivered. And they have the gall, the hubris, the arrogance to campaign with a slogan on their bus that says “Debt-free B.C.” I mean, it’s too astonishing to imagine.

If it weren’t such a tragedy for people like the woman waiting for the double lung transplant, who was mentioned in question period, if it weren’t so tragic for those people who are waiting for services, it would simply be comical. I mean, it’s only worthy of satire. That’s why I started out saying that this is a government essentially like an infomercial. This is Vince selling you a ShamWow. “If you only do it now, we’ll deliver twice.”

That’s what British Columbians have come to see their government as. That, I think, is why we see such cynicism from British Columbians — because this government has essentially delivered to them a lack of faith. A lack of faith.

As we see the outcomes of B.C. Liberal policy affect our communities, we are challenged by the stark contrast between words offered and delivery from the government.

[1435]

When they took power, there were one million cubic metres of raw logs exported per year. Last year there were 6.7 million. This one million exported when they took power was 1/10 of the annual allowable cut. Now on Vancouver Island in most areas — in my constituency, in particular — at least 50 percent of the logs taken from our forests are exported as raw logs.

Not only are they exporting massive amounts of logs; massive amounts of waste are being left in the forest to rot and contribute to our carbon footprint. At the same time those logs — pulp logs and sawlogs — rot in the bush or are burned every year, our mills are being closed because of a lack of fibre access. This is the outcome of B.C. Liberal policy. This is what our communities are facing.

As we see this government spend on its pet projects — $149 million for the B.C. Place roof, which still leaks…. That’s the overrun. The $149 million is the overrun for the B.C. Place roof. So $514 million, in total, spent on a roof that still leaks. And $2.3 billion on the Port Mann Bridge — massive overruns.

Our communities, at the same time, are faced with a lack of resources. In my constituency there are people who are struggling to deliver services to families in need who cannot keep their doors open. This government is abandoning them and the people they serve in the interest of pet projects and an absolutely failed management.

Even though they have directed the entire focus — the obsession of government — towards one industry, which we have not even materialized, at the expense of those which we already have, such as the forest industry…. Even while they do that, they fail to deliver.

Over two years late — their regulatory and tax regime for the liquefied natural gas industry. Now we may be finally on the eve of seeing what that looks like. What it will tell us — we know, and they’ve already intimated and hinted — is that it will never equal the promises they made in order to be elected.

The real tragedy is that that comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone. It has become absolutely accepted and expected by our media — and it has come to be accepted by ministers of that government and their members — that their government will simply mislead the people of B.C. time and time again: deliver low and promise high, and everything will be okay.

I hope that as early as tomorrow, when we see the reality of that tax regime and we see that there’s no possible chance for that industry to deliver what these ministers promised for election….

Hon. S. Bond: We’re going to quote you on that.

D. Routley: Yeah, please.

The minister says she’ll quote me on it. I absolutely can’t wait, because this government will fail again. We have come to have this tragic expectation of failure from this government.

Meanwhile, mental health spaces are not available, particularly for youth, and the Nanaimo emergency room staffing levels are at critically low levels. School districts — our schools are closing. Class size and composition are not being addressed by this government.

Forest workers at the Nanaimo sawmill saw their mill close. Forest workers at Harmac see the threat of closure at their facility because of a lack of fibre. Forest workers at the successful Coastland mill are fighting every day to have enough fibre to be able to keep their doors open. These are highly competitive and successful businesses paying the price for failed B.C. Liberal forest policy.

The Morden mine, in my constituency, is a historical park. It is a prime example, one of the few examples, of the early technologies used in our early industries on Vancouver Island.

[1440]

It sits deteriorating, threatening to fall down any day,
[ Page 4717 ]
and this government answers their plea by saying: “We’re divesting ourselves of parks like that.” They don’t have their needs met, we see our province diminished, and this government continues to offer promise after promise after unmaterialized promise.

Our ferries. My colleague from North Island has done an excellent job in shining a light and focusing on the absolute failure of the government to make our marine highways work for our coastal communities and economies.

The UBCM released a report which conservatively estimated that $2.3 billion of economic activity has been lost because of the mismanagement of B.C. Ferries and the massively increased fares. It points out that $2.3 billion more activity would have occurred even if fares had increased only at the rate of inflation, general inflation. There would have been 1.7 million more passengers if only fares had been kept to the rate of inflation — not even frozen, not reduced, but just kept at increases that matched the general rate of inflation.

All of these problems are problems that vex our communities and our economy today. They’re not pie-in-the-sky promises ten years or 15 years out. They’re problems that face people today, and they all went unaddressed in the address from the throne. They all were ignored by a government that is solely focused on an obsession around a promise it made, and it has staked its political future and the economic well-being of our province in one basket.

I’ll finish up by simply asking the members on the other side to reflect on what brought them to politics and to live up to the words and promises they offer the people of B.C.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m very pleased to take my place today in support of the Speech from the Throne and the direction set out by this government for British Columbia.

Before I get started, of course, I’d like to thank all of my constituents in Surrey-Cloverdale, the folks that chose me as their representative. I appreciate that honour very, very much and will continue to work hard to ensure that they are represented here. Of course, as well, I’d like to thank my husband and family and my constituency assistants, who spend much more time than I, unfortunately, in my constituency office, but do a wonderful job representing me. Sharon and Scantone are wonderful representatives and give much of their own time and energy to our community in Cloverdale.

This Speech from the Throne outlines a very clear and decisive direction, and one that will drive British Columbia’s economy into the future. I find it I wouldn’t say disappointing, perhaps, and certainly not uncharacteristic of members opposite to be negative. But I do find that, in one’s own life and through my own life experience, a life experience that included a great deal of upheaval at an early age and what many would describe as tragedy, a positive outlook on life brings much greater reward.

A secure tomorrow for the province of British Columbia requires us to look forward with a positive lens, look forward with that sense that so much can be accomplished in this province, that there is so much opportunity that lies ahead of us. Part of that great opportunity can be achieved by harnessing the liquefied natural gas opportunity. We have made great strides towards developing this very new industry in British Columbia.

[1445]

Major industry players continue to show commitment to advancing LNG facilities, pipelines and marine infrastructure. They are not just talking with words. They are not just positing a positive future here. They are investing in British Columbia, and in doing that, they and we are working closely with communities and First Nations who will all benefit from the opportunity that lies ahead.

Right now there are 18 export proposals in British Columbia, all of which are working towards final investment decisions. Some may go ahead. Some may not. That is the process that befalls us when we embark on a new industry. Several domestic facilities are also being planned.

This throne speech was very clear about the work that we’re going to do here in this legislative session. We’re finalizing the fiscal policy framework to ensure that LNG proponents have the confidence and certainty that they need and require to work towards their final investment decisions. British Columbia’s LNG industry will be globally competitive.

I see this path forward as vital to the work that my ministry does for British Columbians, because it is only — and I’ll underscore that — with a strong economy that we can ensure that children, families, the vulnerable, the elderly can receive efficient and effective social services.

Now, our record as a government clearly shows that growing the economy is our number one priority, and there’s a reason for that. Thanks to the focus that we’ve set on the B.C. jobs plan, we’ve seen $3.9 billion in economic growth last year. We’ve experienced $7.2 billion in economic expansion since 2011. We have a record 2.3 million people working in British Columbia, and more than 66,000 new jobs have been created over the past years.

These results are all within and all happening when the worldwide economic climate is still very uncertain. It makes the point that it’s all the more crucial to seize this growth potential and prepare young people to take on the full advantage of the many opportunities that will come their way in the future. By 2022 there will be about a million job openings across the sectors in our province, and more than three-quarters of those will require some post-secondary education and training.

The landscape for jobs in the province of British Columbia has changed greatly in the last 25 years, and it’s going to change into the future. To respond to that, we’ve created the skills-for-jobs blueprint. While the B.C.
[ Page 4718 ]
jobs plan is about ensuring that we have a competitive, diversified, export-oriented economy that is growing and adding jobs, the blueprint is about ensuring that we have the skilled workforce in place to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that are on the horizon, particularly those in the new LNG industry.

At the heart of that blueprint is a major shift towards a data-driven model, where training dollars and programs are targeted to jobs in demand. That is efficient and effective. This year alone we’re targeting more than $160 million to do just that, and we are doing that while managing to keep our budget balanced.

British Columbians, my constituents, have told us that balancing the budget has to be a top priority. They understand that you can’t spend more than you have. Our government’s commitment to fiscal responsibility has not faltered. In my mandate letter from the Premier it clearly indicates that I have to manage my budget. But I must note that we were one of the few ministries to receive a budget lift, and I’m thankful for that. It requires a strong commitment to live within our means to balance a budget. That means we have to make tough decisions. That’s what we were elected to do.

What’s the outcome? The latest economic update confirms that we are moving in the right direction, so I am continuing to be optimistic. Revenues to government are up. Employment is up. Retail sales are up. Housing starts are up. All of these things are the signs of a strong economy. The list goes on.

Growth in the economy is vividly on display in my riding and across Surrey, as other members of the Legislature from our neck of the woods are sure to understand greatly. In fact, Surrey accounts for approximately one-third of the region’s population growth, and its overall size is expected to match Vancouver by 2041.

[1450]

While Surrey is growing, it’s also young and vibrant, with one-third of our residents under the age of 19. That’s a strong emerging workforce to take advantage of. That’s a strong emerging workforce that can take advantage of the tremendous opportunities afforded to them by that growing economy.

There were more than $6 billion worth of building permits issued in the past five years in the city of Surrey. That’s thanks in part to the lowest residential taxes and second-lowest tax burdens in the region. The city of Surrey understands that growth is important and that being positive is important. Surrey welcomed more than 2,100 new businesses last year, including 25 aerospace industry manufacturers, and Surrey has a strong focus on developing a high-tech industry.

I invite people to check out, the next time they’re in Surrey, innovation boulevard. It’s a central corridor of health and science clusters that includes 180 health-related companies that have set up in the downtown in Surrey. They are anchored by the Jimmy Pattison centre, B.C. Cancer Agency and a $500 million expansion to Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Surrey is ready to take on the advantages of our growing economy. It has taken notice of the positive indicators that say B.C. is on the right track. It remains positive; our people remain positive.

In September the Conference Board of Canada released a report predicting British Columbia’s economic growth will outperform the Canadian average both this year and next. In fact, B.C.’s growth will be one of the highest amongst all of the provinces for 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that British Columbia is getting the fundamentals right and that we’re successful in creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish.

The business community also knows we’re working with their best interests at heart. For the third year in a row, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business awarded British Columbia an A rating for our ongoing efforts to slash red tape for small businesses. We are, in fact, the only province in Canada to receive that designation this year.

British Columbia continues to maintain the highest credit rating possible with Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s. Moody’s confirmed B.C.’s triple-A credit rating in September, and Standard and Poor’s most recently affirmed its triple-A rating in April, following Budget 2013. These results illustrate that there’s confidence in our economy and in the direction government is taking, but it takes work.

We need to stay committed; we need to stay the course. Nothing happens overnight. We know that a strong economy is the only protector of the exceptional public services that we enjoy here in British Columbia, and in my ministry those public services benefit some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is where strong economy and strong services intersect to make the biggest difference in people’s lives. Most British Columbians do not, and may never, come into contact with my ministry, and I would wish that for them. Their only context for the ministry is through the news headlines when something tragic has happened. That’s unfortunate, because those are certainly not the whole story — not even close.

Whether it’s finding permanent homes for children and youth in care, helping former foster kids pursue post-secondary education or providing access to high-quality child care, I can assure British Columbians that through the science of social work, our front-line staff work tirelessly to protect children and to build capacity for loving families throughout the province.

The ministry and I are committed to ensuring that kids in British Columbia get the best possible start in life. Although the Ministry of Children and Family Development has managed some funding increases,
[ Page 4719 ]
there are still continued pressures on our budget. There always will be, and therefore we do need to prioritize.

One of our key priorities is the B.C. early-years strategy, which is about investing in children’s futures and supporting families. The earlier we can help young children build the capacity in their own lives and for themselves, the better off we’ll be. That’s why we’ve placed a strong focus on early intervention.

The early-years strategy is an eight-year commitment to improve the accessibility, affordability and quality of early-years programs and services for families with young children. The strategy builds on the $1 billion a year government spends on early learning and childhood development initiatives, services and supports. Those are things like Success By 6, Children First and aboriginal early childhood development programs. It includes full-day kindergarten; programs that support healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; early childhood development care and learning program investments, including public health nursing; Ready, Set, Learn programs; StrongStart B.C.; and a variety of programs and services and supports to address the specific needs of children and youth with special needs.

[1455]

A big part of the early-years strategy was the creation of the provincial office of the early years, which helps ensure that services across government and across B.C. are coordinated and effective. The office focuses on the needs of families with children up to age 6, and the government will spend $292 million on child care this fiscal year — a 38 percent increase since 2001.

More child care spaces are on their way. They will add to the over 104,000 licensed child care spaces currently funded in communities around the province. Since 2001, government has invested more than $35 million in major capital funding to help community partners create more than 6,500 licensed child care spaces. In Surrey we fund more than 9,200 child care spaces — more than double the number funded ten years ago.

Over the next two years — so this year and next — we will invest $32 million to create up to 13,000 new spaces over the next eight years. That starts with 1,000 this year and 1,000 next year. Government is getting close to announcing where those first major capital projects will be. In May we invited child care providers to apply for a total of $14.8 million this year.

Non-profit child care providers were able to apply for up to $500,000 and private child care organizations for up to $250,000 to build a new facility, which might include the cost of buying land or a building, to assemble a modular building or develop a site, to renovate an existing building or to buy eligible equipment, including playground equipment and furnishings, that would support an existing facility. Preference, of course, is being given to applications that will create child care spaces on school grounds, where children can smoothly transition from early-years programs to classroom and after-school care, because that’s what we have heard from families. That’s what is needed.

There will always be a need for more. Examples of underserved areas right now include Surrey — as I mentioned, with such a large young population — and also communities like Abbotsford, Richmond, Vancouver and Burnaby. Construction of these new spaces is expected to begin this fiscal year. While we know that they will be welcomed, there’s also a demand, therefore, for qualified early childhood educators to care for those youngest learners.

Whether those childhood educators are working at child care centres or delivering government programs like StrongStart B.C., they play a critical role in the delivery of high-quality programs to children at their earliest learning opportunities. That’s why government is investing $513,000 this year to increase the number of early childhood educators across B.C. The funding has gone to one of our valued partner organizations, the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., to establish a bursary program for students in early childhood education programs. The bursary will allow ECE students to apply for up to $300 per course or $1,500 per semester.

We’re committed to helping to increase the number of early childhood educators throughout the province. We’ve provided over $1.5 million in bursaries to almost 1,300 students since 2007. Just as we want young British Columbians to have the support they need to learn, grow and do their best, we also want to support individuals who want to become ECEs to pursue this career path, a path that makes a profound difference in the lives of young children.

Because we recognize the special need for early childhood educators that specialize in aboriginal programming, priority will be given to aboriginal students, students attending early childhood educational programs with an aboriginal focus and students working to achieve an infant or toddler designation. The new bursary program is part of our commitment to that early-years strategy that we launched in February 2013.

When I was at an opening of one of our first early-years pilot centres this last week in North Delta, the energy and excitement around the opportunity to bring those services together were palpable. There are a lot of programs in the province funded by this government that are also supplemented by other agencies, municipalities, community groups.

[1500]

Often those programs are disparate and hard for families to navigate. What we know is that we need to do a better job of coordinating those services and ensuring that parents have ease of access to all of those services that can benefit them and their child.

Programs might include drop-in programs, such as Parent-Child Mother Goose. It might, as I’ve mentioned,
[ Page 4720 ]
be a StrongStart program. What we know is that parents and caregivers need the access to practical advice, support and links to child care and early childhood development services, and that’s what we’re looking to provide in these early childhood centres.

The first number of those centres has now been announced: 12 throughout the province that focus on a variety of areas — rural, urban, aboriginal settings. We’ll look to learn from those first pilots to see how best to roll out to the other communities of British Columbia. While we are doing this work with providers and while we’re doing this work to expand child care and to improve the quality through early childhood educators, we also know that child care is really expensive. It is a real challenge for families.

In order to make child care more affordable for B.C. families, we are introducing the B.C. early childhood tax benefit next April. The benefit will provide $146 million a year, annually, to 180,000 families with children under age six. Families will be eligible to receive up to $55 per month, or $660 per year, per child, and we’ll provide child care subsidies, as we already do, to help low-income families afford child care — subsidies that currently help approximately 50,000 children each year.

Full-day kindergarten is creating additional early learning opportunities for children and, at the same time, freeing up some child care spaces for families. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the early-years strategy is backed by a strong commitment, a commitment that will improve the support for families and ensure that young British Columbians are indeed receiving the best possible start in life that they can.

We all know that there is a population that is often overrepresented in the Ministry of Children and Families. To that end, we also want to ensure that aboriginal children are getting the best possible start in life. The number of aboriginal children in the care of the ministry has remained relatively stable over the past few years, but they do represent a large percentage of children in care. It’s why we’ve taken additional measures to make sure that aboriginal children, youth and families have direct access to services that speak to their cultural needs and experiences.

We have shifted the focus of contracts for our aboriginal service providers to where it needs to be: on direct service delivery. This will allow us to work with our partners to ensure that aboriginal children are living in strong, healthy families, in sustainable communities where they’re connected to their culture and traditions.

While we are keenly aware that aboriginal children and youth represent the largest number of children in care, we also need to ensure that these kids are placed in permanent home environments that are sensitive to their cultural, traditional and language needs.

We know that young people who have the foundation of a permanent home as they become adults have better outcomes than their peers who age out of care without the support of a family. They are more likely to graduate, to go to post-secondary and to find successful careers. They’re less likely to become involved with the social welfare and criminal justice systems as adults.

Transitioning to adulthood, though, as we also all know from our own personal experience, doesn’t mean that you stop needing a support network or people to ask questions of or shoulders to cry on. You don’t stop needing a family. You don’t stop needing a core group of people to rely on or a place to call home. It’s important for young adults to have someone there for their graduation or their wedding, to celebrate a family milestone and milestones with them throughout their life — and a place to go home to for the holidays.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is committed to ensuring that children and youth in our care have the support they need to be healthy, contributing adults. In the past five years nearly 1,300 children have been adopted in British Columbia. That’s good news for 1,300 children. But the need for adoptive families continues, as more than 1,000 children in British Columbia are still waiting for a permanent home to call their own.

[1505]

That’s why we’re strengthening the focus on adoption and permanency in British Columbia. In April we invested $2 million to increase the number of home studies that are carried out so that waiting kids could find forever families faster. We have a chance to set these kids up with stable, long-lasting supports and the best prospects for success in life.

With this $2 million, the goal is to place 300 children and youth in adoptive homes by March 31, 2015, and to place approximately 150 children and youth in permanent guardianship environments. This funding includes an even stronger focus on increasing culturally appropriate permanency plans and placements for aboriginal children. It’s an exciting thought to know that we can make such a radical difference in the lives of children and youth.

Most recently the Representative for Children and Youth and I joined forces to encourage British Columbians to consider adopting a child in care. We’ll be following that up with a sustained effort through a public campaign to ensure that every child has the opportunity to be in a forever home — one that is secure, one that is safe and one that is supportive.

Our children’s future is connected to our economy. It is our economy that is our true strength and potential as the province moves forward. We will continue to control spending. We will continue to open new markets and attract new investment. That is what we’re here to do this term in the Legislature. It’s to build that path forward. LNG will be a legacy that will outlast us, but it’s a foundation upon which our children and their children will be able to firmly stand.
[ Page 4721 ]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston. [Applause.]

M. Mungall: Thank you very much. It’s so great that the person sitting next to me gives me some applause.

It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to give my response to the throne speech. Before I get into the meat of my thoughts, as well as the thoughts of the people I represent in Nelson-Creston, I do want to pay a bit of a tribute myself, as we did in the throne speech. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who have served the communities in Nelson-Creston as local government representatives. They are retiring — they are not running for re-election right now this fall — and they have served our communities incredibly well.

In Creston we have Scott Veitch, Judy Gadicke and Jerry Schmalz, who are all stepping down this year. Scott served one term, and Judy and Jerry I believe have served a total of three terms. Their commitment to the community of Creston and, indeed, to the entire Creston Valley and to the entire Kootenay region cannot be questioned whatsoever.

Also, in Kaslo we have Maureen Leathwood. Molly Leathwood is retiring. She has been on council for, I believe, three terms as well. She’s also a teacher in the region. I’ve been able to speak to her class and see her dedication to children, not only in the classroom but also in her work as a member of the village council in Kaslo.

In Salmo Ann Henderson is retiring after four terms as mayor. She was first elected the same year I was, in 2002. When I was elected to Nelson city council, she was elected to Salmo village council. I got to know her then, and I’ve known her ever since and been able to watch the work that she’s done in Salmo and the dedication that she has to that small community and the vibrancy of that community. Ann has done a tremendous amount of work. One of the things I will highlight is the new health centre in Salmo. That was Ann’s passion for quite some time, and I know when that health centre was constructed and we cut the ribbon, a lot of the work there was owed to Ann.

Jennifer Peel is also stepping down after her first term on council. I do hope that she comes back. She has a tremendous love for the village of Salmo, and that passion and that love was displayed every day that she was on council.

[1510]

Then we have some regional district directors who are retiring — Ron Mickel and Andy Shadrack, both serving their areas exceptionally well. In Nelson both Paula Kiss and Candace Batycki are stepping down after serving a term. Both came into council with an incredible passion for the environment and over the last three years have shown the importance of speaking out for sustainable economic development and have brought that perspective and established it very well on council.

Now, there are two people that I want to specifically acknowledge and that are good friends of mine. I’ve known them for a very long time. They are at complete opposite ends of the political spectrum but are very good friends — and very good friends of mine as well. First I want to pay a special tribute to John Kettle, who’s been the area director. [Applause.] I figured he would get some applause from members of all sides of the House.

John Kettle has been a member of the RDCK. He’s been chair of the RDCK and the representative for area B since, I believe, 2002. We were both elected at the same time. That’s when I first got to know John. I was much younger than him. I’m happy to point that out. John and I hit it off famously right from the beginning, despite him being very conservative and me being quite on the left side of the political spectrum. But we both had this deep passion for our region. We shared that.

We always would say: “If you’re going to pick a fight with the Kootenays, don’t pick it with John or me, because we’re definitely ready for a good scrap to defend our territories and our region any day of the week.” Despite any of our disagreements, we’ve always remained good friends and have even put wagers on various elections — and John has always paid up.

Donna Macdonald is someone who has been a rock in my life, both personally and politically. When I was first elected in 2002, Donna was a veteran city councillor in Nelson and was wonderful and patient with mentoring me. I learned so much from her. Over the years — particularly in my personal life, when I had left Nelson and wanted to go back and I needed somebody to provide a landing pad for me to come back to Nelson — Donna and her husband, Greg, were there.

Donna has just been an incredible person for me personally, but most notably, in the community of Nelson. Her tireless, hard-working, driven nature in the role as a city councillor for Nelson is unmatched. She has earned this retirement. She’s earned this rest.

I’m sure it won’t be long. I think, Donna, you’re going to get about three months before everybody starts asking you to sit on community boards.

I want to again just thank everybody who is retiring this year and also thank everybody who has put their names forward in the upcoming municipal elections and local government elections. Just standing for office and being willing to put your name forward is a tremendous service to all of us and to our democratic structure. We are all the better for them doing that.

I’ll also just take a moment to recognize some other people. I want to recognize my constituency assistants, Curtis Bendig and Laurie Langille. And for the past year a young woman named Jen Comer had worked in my office as well, out of Creston. These are three of the finest people that I have ever worked with in my life. They are just, day in and day out, serving the community and enjoying it as they go along. It’s truly inspirational. I am
[ Page 4722 ]
motivated every day to know that I get to work with them.

I want to pay a special thank-you to them and, as well, to my husband, Zak, who whenever we go out grocery shopping or go see the theatre or to the movies will stand there patiently while I chat up with constituents. He understands that my job doesn’t end at five o’clock in the afternoon; nor does it start at nine in the morning. It certainly means that evenings and weekends are work times as well.

I just want to also say thank you so much to all the volunteers in Nelson-Creston who put their time and energy forward for the variety of projects and non-profit services. It’s because of them that our communities keep thriving.

[1515]

Coming back to what we’re speaking to here today, though, which is the Speech from the Throne. The speaker before me, the Minister of Children and Family Development, called it decisive. There’s no doubt that decisions were made in putting this Speech from the Throne together, so in that sense, yes, it is decisive.

That being said, I don’t know if we can say that five pages is a fulsome direction for the province. Yes, a decision was made, and that decision was to limit everything that this province needs into five pages with essentially one topic. We all know the letters of that topic: LNG.

What’s interesting about what’s in those five pages is also what’s not in the five pages. What were the decisions made to be left out? Well, when it comes down to LNG, the conversation is short. The discussion is short and peripheral, lacking substance.

Here is the big-banner item of this government with big promises before the election. We heard mention of 100,000 jobs, $100 million into a prosperity fund. “Everything is going to be paid for. We’re going to eliminate the PST” — big promises. “We’re going to have debt-free B.C.” That was on the side of the bus that went from community to community, making that promise in every place it stopped: “Debt-free B.C.” But none of that was in this throne speech.

We don’t hear about the prosperity fund. We don’t hear about eliminating debt. We don’t hear about eliminating the PST. We don’t hear about hundreds of thousands of jobs. What we hear about is that LNG is going to allow us to merely hold the line. What happened between 2013 — before the election — and today? What happened that the government has to pull back on all of its promises?

Another member of this House was talking about…. You know, they were promising everything. Why didn’t they just promise unicorns for everybody? They were so grand. Now maybe it’s because we’re back in the land of reality and the government just simply isn’t able to deliver.

They say one thing and do another. They say something that sounds really great and really nice. It gives everybody hope. But they’re not able to deliver, and that’s exactly where we’re at.

That’s why this throne speech can only be five pages — because it was supposed to be all about their big promise, and they can’t even deliver. All they can offer now is to hold the line. That’s not what people wanted. That’s not what people said in the election. They wanted to see a better way forward for British Columbia. Instead, we get a government pulling back on everything it said it was going to do.

I also think it’s important to mention about the economic sectors that are not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. We’re focusing on one sector and saying that it’s going to do everything that we need it to do. “All these other opportunities are irrelevant” is what I’m hearing from this government. But let me tell you, hon. Speaker, in my area agriculture is not irrelevant. It is a core industry in the Creston Valley. It is an important industry all throughout the Kootenays.

[1520]

It’s why we’re able to eat a 100-mile diet. In Cranbrook it’s only 50 miles — Creston Valley from Cranbrook — where you can eat everything, almost anything. You have your grains. You have dairy. You have meat, poultry. You have vegetables. I was just in one of the nurseries and greenhouses in the Creston Valley last spring. And what were they growing there? Oranges. So we’re even growing citrus fruit in the Creston Valley.

This is an important economic sector for our region, and all it gets in this throne speech is one word. One word — that’s all it got. So for the Harrises, who have a dairy farm and who are expanding the value-added portion of that farm, not just by producing cheese and bottling milk but also by doing agritourism, one word doesn’t help what they’re trying to achieve and what they’re trying to contribute to our local economy and to B.C.’s economy. After Bill 24 with last session, they needed some reassurance from this government that they were going to have stability in their economic sector, and they didn’t get that. They got one word.

Well, at least they got an honourable mention. Because tourism and the arts, two other very important economic sectors for Nelson-Creston, didn’t even get one word. It’s like they don’t even exist, according to this throne speech. What happened to one of the most important sectors in our province — tourism? What makes tourism so successful in many places like Nelson is the arts. We know that for every tax dollar that goes into the arts, $1.36 comes back to B.C. coffers. We’re making money when we invest in the arts. We know that in the city of Nelson. We see that regularly.

We see that regularly in the village of Kaslo. Just about a week ago I was at the 40th anniversary for the Langham Cultural Centre, where we saw the story of people coming together 40 years ago to renovate a building that had literally fallen apart and was mostly inhabited by pack-rats. Now it is this beautiful cultural centre, a beautiful theatre that is used regularly. It houses the museum of Japanese Canadians who survived the internment in that
[ Page 4723 ]
area. In fact, that very building is where many Japanese Canadians were interned during World War II. Their story is told at this cultural centre.

If we had taken the time to talk about how important that was in the throne speech — maybe, I don’t know, a sixth page to the throne speech…. If we had taken the time to talk about how important the arts and tourism are to the B.C. economy, we would have been able to acknowledge and set an appropriate agenda to build that sector.

It’s also one of the highest job creating sectors in the province. So if this government is going to promise jobs, why not talk about and support and work with the sector that houses most of the jobs and the highest job creation? Again, a decision to ignore. That’s the decisiveness that was earlier described as this throne speech.

Improving health services for seniors. That wasn’t in this throne speech. The only mention of education was around the labour dispute. The necessary resources in the classroom, long-term vision — that wasn’t there. These are the basic things that people come to expect from government. Yet in these five pages very little mention and nothing mentioned on health care. Perhaps if we had expanded it to maybe seven pages….

[1525]

I mean, we used to make note that something of ten pages was a small, thin Speech from the Throne — a thin agenda for government. And here we are at five pages — half that. Talk about a thin agenda now.

One whole page is devoted to just ramblings about leadership, right? They could have taken that part out and started talking about the real services that British Columbians need in their communities: the health care services, the social services, the long-term-care facilities, housing. The list goes on.

One of the things I would have really liked to have heard about from this throne speech is what’s going on with the Ministry of Social Development and what’s happening for people living in poverty. I would have been the first person to praise this government if in this throne speech there was a conversation, if there was a commitment, about a poverty reduction plan.

I’ve put forward legislation in this House — poverty reduction and economic inclusion — so that our economy benefits everyone. But why wasn’t that in this throne speech? Why was there no mention of that?

Well, maybe it’s because every time we hear about poverty from the Liberals, it is always in the frame of: “We have to be able to afford these things. It means we have to have a strong economy. When we have a strong economy, we’ll be able to do poverty reduction. When we have a strong economy, we’ll be able to raise income assistance rates. When we have a strong economy, we’ll be able to give kids their money back. When we have a strong economy, we’ll be able to do X, Y and Z to address poverty.”

Here’s the fact of the matter. It doesn’t matter what the status of the economy is. This government does nothing when it comes to reducing poverty. Poverty reduction is not a partisan issue. The first province to have a poverty reduction plan was one with a Liberal government. The second province was Newfoundland, with a Conservative government.

Governments, regardless of political stripes, have started doing poverty reduction plans — meaningful poverty reduction plans, not just connecting people with the existing community services in their regions. I mean, goodness, most constituency offices of MLAs already do that, right?

These poverty reduction plans look at the policies that government has and identify the ones that exacerbate poverty rather than alleviate poverty. If we had a poverty reduction plan in this province that required government to do just that, I have no doubt one of the first policies that they would identify is the clawing back of child support payments from children simply because their parents receive income supports like disability.

We have the highest child poverty in the country, not just last year but for 11 years. We have the highest overall poverty in the country for 13 years, and 50 percent of single mothers and their children are living in poverty. You would think that that would spur any government to action, regardless of their political stripe. But that has not happened here in British Columbia.

What we see is more rhetoric, more talk. “We’ll get to that when the economy is strong. We’ll get to that when we have all this money from LNG. Oh, by the way, let me backtrack on that one,” says the government, because: “LNG is now only going to let us hold the line, so forget all those promises.”

Therefore, will government ever address poverty? It’s high time they did. It’s long past due. But that was missing from this Speech from the Throne.

[1530]

What is a shame is when the Minister of Children and Families says that you can’t spend more than you have, that that is the philosophy she lives by, that that’s the philosophy government lives by and that that’s what British Columbians want government to live by. That’s a fair comment, but the reality is that families who are living on income assistance, living in poverty, regularly have to go into debt — credit card debt or worse — just so they can put food on the table.

Every time this government claws back $300 from a family…. They take away that child support payment. Every month that they take that away, that family has to struggle. That family has to look at using MasterCard or Visa — if they can get a credit card — to pay for groceries and not be able to pay it off at the end of month — not because they’re lazy and don’t want to but because the government is taking away their child support payments.

While this government preaches that you can’t spend more than you have, it certainly sets up British
[ Page 4724 ]
Columbians to not be able to practise that. It sets British Columbians up to have to go into personal debt. I’m talking here about families who are living so below the poverty line, who are struggling every month just to put food on the table. That number is growing.

The middle class is starting to feel the pinch, as well, every time MSP goes up. ICBC rates, B.C. Hydro going up…. Affordability is starting to become a number one issue.

Dr. Paul Kershaw has pointed out that my generation is Generation Squeeze. We have less disposable income than our parents did — because of the rate of inflation, wages not keeping pace, housing costs going up. With all of these things that my generation contends with — child care costs, elder care costs — we have less disposable income than past generations.

It shows. When I talk to my peers, the number one issue: affordability. Struggling to pay the bills. Working often two or three part-time jobs because it’s really difficult to get a full-time job. Not having any time to volunteer in the community. These are the things that my generation struggles with.

That wasn’t really in the throne speech. What was in the throne speech were broken promises.

I also would have liked to have heard why, in the Ministry of Social Development, we see changes, reduced hours, at ten offices and an 11-minute cutoff to phone calls. More and more the ministry is moving towards…. “Self-serve” is what they call it.

If people want to make an application, they have to do it on line. Their computer literacy is irrelevant. They have to do it on line. If they need any assistance, there is a 1-800 number for them to call. But don’t talk for more than 11 minutes, because you’ll be cut off.

In Nelson if you need to go to the income assistance office at 9 a.m. on a Monday, forget about it. It’s closed. It’s also closed at 100 Mile House, and in Oliver, Prince Rupert, Smithers, Trail, Grand Forks, Merritt, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and in the Premier’s own backyard of West Kelowna. They’ve all reduced their hours: one to four in the afternoons. On cheque-issuing day, they’ll be open in the morning — once a month.

[1535]

While the ministry is trying to, I presume, save a buck, it’s also denying human face-to-face service for some of the most marginalized people in our communities: people who struggle with literacy, people who don’t know how to use a computer, people who don’t have a phone and then are told to go and make a phone call. These are the issues that are impacting British Columbians every single day, and in five pages of a throne speech there just wasn’t room, it seems.

I call on this government to make room. Make room for British Columbians. Put them on the agenda. That’s why we’re here. We’re here to serve them. They need to be first and foremost in our mind. Not just three letters, LNG, but rather, all British Columbians deserve the attention of this House.

Hon. S. Bond: Having had many years and many opportunities to stand in the Legislature, to provide remarks and responses to the throne and budget and to introduce legislation, today at lunch we actually celebrated a milestone for women who are legislators in this province.

Today the Speaker hosted an event that talked about reaching the milestone of 100 women who have served as legislators in this place. I think it reminds us that we should never take for granted the opportunities that we have to stand in this place and express different views, different approaches.

Today we were reminded of Mary Ellen Smith, the first woman to stand in this place, surrounded, as the only woman in this place, by men who had been elected. She spoke to us today — she made a special appearance — in terms of the welcome she received here.

As the current Minister for Labour, I was very impressed, as I looked back, at the things that Mary Ellen had done in this House. She introduced legislation that brought minimum wage for women. She introduced the right for women to serve as judges in our province and brought many important bills to the floor of this place.

I, too, want to recognize that it is a significant accomplishment. We can only hope that as we look ahead, it takes a much shorter period of time for the next 100 women to be counted among legislators in this province. I never take it lightly when I have the opportunity to stand in this House to talk of matters that are critical and important to British Columbians and, hopefully, to members on both sides of this House.

I, like others, am very proud to have represented for…. This is my fourth term, in terms of representing people who live in some rural parts of British Columbia, communities like Dome Creek, Dunster, Crescent Spur; bigger communities like McBride and Valemount; and, of course, my home city of Prince George.

I am always humbled by the confidence that people place in the representatives that they choose. It doesn’t matter who stands in this House. They all understand that, I think, and want to be grateful for that support.

We can’t do this job without families who care and are tolerant and patient. Certainly, that describes my husband of over three decades, who has for 20-plus years supported me in political office of some sort. I appreciate that. You also hear about the children — and grandchildren lately. I certainly can’t compete with the former member of the House, John Les, who I think is at 19 and counting, in terms of his grandchildren. But we have two incredible grandsons.

When I think about why we do this job and why the throne speech talks about the things that it does, it’s all about the future of British Columbia for our grandsons
[ Page 4725 ]
and our granddaughters and for our children.

I also am grateful for a constituency staff that is remarkable. Every day on the front lines they reach out and support people who have practical needs or policy needs or just help navigating the systems of government. I want to recognize them today. A big shout-out and thank you to Dorothy, Pamela and Tegan, who work in my office every day.

[1540]

A special shout-out today to Katrina Krenzler and her husband, Russell. My constituency assistant and her husband have just gone through a very, very significant medical emergency. I am so grateful that things have turned out as well as they have, and I was very thrilled to see them return to Prince George after incredible care at Vancouver General Hospital. We’re very glad that Katrina is back in Prince George with Russell.

Here in Victoria, again, in the role of minister, we don’t get to do the jobs we do without fantastic staff. I want to recognize today Katy Merrifield, Mark Knudsen, Cole Cyr, Jordan Mason, Monika Weatherly, Nikki Walker and Nicki Tuttle. We fondly call them Nicki T. and Nikki W. because we actually have two of them in our office. I’m so grateful for the work that they do every day.

I can tell you that amazing things are happening in the north, particularly in my community and region. Over the next year there are just so many things that we have to be excited about. We are the host in Prince George and the north of the 2015 Canada Winter Games. I can’t begin to tell you how exciting it was on Friday to be here in Victoria when the games’ torch arrived here, beginning its journey in our province, arriving in Prince George on November 4 and sharing the spirit of the games across the Lower Mainland and throughout the province of British Columbia.

Prince George is also going to be celebrating. It celebrates its hundredth birthday next year. The University of Northern British Columbia actually will celebrate 25 years. Hard to imagine that we began advocating for that university 25 years ago, and it’s become an exceptional small university in the north but recognized across the country. There is so much to be grateful for.

I also represent a part of the province that is beautiful. The Robson Valley is made up of amazing communities, as I said earlier: McBride, Valemount, Dunster, Dome Creek, Crescent Spur. All of those places have amazing geography, a beautiful place for people to come and visit. Continuous celebrations throughout the summer we enjoyed. We’re looking at resorts and how we develop those in that part of the province. Amazing things are happening where I live, and I’m very, very grateful to the people of Prince George–Valemount for allowing me to serve for a fourth term.

It’s been an interesting process listening to the response to the throne speech. We’ve spent a lot of time listening to members of the opposition criticize the length of the throne speech. We’ve had it referenced by pages, by content. I’ve come to the conclusion after many, many years in this House that you can’t win with the throne speech, because I think I recall over the past number of years that the response we would have received was that the throne speech was too long, filled with too much stuff. We didn’t get down to business, and we didn’t concentrate.

I think we need to think about: what is the purpose of the throne speech? The purpose of the throne speech is to lay out the government’s agenda for the coming session — not the coming generations, not the coming everything we’ve ever done or want to do in government. It’s not the place or the time, necessarily, to outline every single initiative that’s underway. It’s a mistake to assume that because something isn’t actually noted in the throne speech we’re not paying attention to it or, in fact, we’re not working very hard on it. The throne speech response gives us a chance in this House to stand up and talk about what it takes to provide leadership in the province of British Columbia.

I’ve heard it referenced that there was a page that rambled about leadership. Well, British Columbians are looking for leaders. They’re looking for vision. This is an opportunity — a once-in-a-lifetime, generational opportunity — to bring to British Columbia an industry that has the potential, despite all of the negative comments you’ve heard on the other side of the House, to add 100,000 new jobs — well-paying, family-supporting jobs — in this province. It has the potential to bring new revenue, to bring new opportunities to this province.

[1545]

Just once, wouldn’t it be amazing if both sides of the House could stand up and grasp the opportunity and seize that opportunity to deliver on the potential of liquefied natural gas? Just once.

If the members of the opposition want to talk about bringing faith and trust and all of those issues back to British Columbians, what about standing up and saying that together, despite our ideological differences, we want to work to deliver an industry that has the possibility of making a difference in this province — just once?

There is a challenge on the other side, because we’ve yet to actually hear a definitive position from the members opposite about their views of liquefied natural gas. We’ve heard: “Well, we might support it.” “Maybe we support it.” “We don’t support it.” “What we certainly don’t support is how we get it out of the ground.” Well, the last time I checked, you can’t export it if you can’t extract it.

At some point we have to grapple with those issues in this place. Instead of debating the length of the throne speech, that it’s five pages instead of 50 pages — last time it was: “It’s 50 pages; why isn’t it shorter?” — why can’t we actually look at the possibilities, seize the opportunity, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that we have to actually deliver a new industry to British Columbia?

Will it be complicated? You bet. It is about complex,
[ Page 4726 ]
sophisticated negotiations which balance the rights of British Columbians to benefit and yet the ability to attract that investment to this province. That is complicated; it is not simplistic. To sit and listen day after day to: “It’s going to fail. We can’t make it work. What are we going to do…?” Perhaps British Columbians would be refreshed by the idea that every member in this House could seize that opportunity and work to actually deliver it for the citizens of British Columbia.

The other element of the response that we’ve received and listened to for hours now in the Legislature is the whole issue of promises made. What I’d like to talk about for just a moment are outcomes. While we continue to hear that nothing has been done — you know: “There’s no leadership” — let’s talk about British Columbia.

What we promised British Columbians was to deliver a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you and British Columbians that we are one of only two jurisdictions in our country to be able to table a balanced budget. That is about leadership. It is not about simply saying: “Let’s spend here, spend there. Let’s just add another program.” No, it takes tough decisions to balance a budget.

Let’s look at what else we’ve delivered. This government has maintained a triple-A credit rating. While that may mean little to the members on the other side of the House, what it means is that the government can spend less money financing debt and more on providing valuable and critical services to British Columbians, which is much of what we’ve heard about day after day. Well, we care about those services too.

It was interesting — and I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues on the other side of the House — to hear the speaker just previous to me talking about: how do you link a strong economy to paying for services? Well, British Columbians expect us to make tough decisions like the ones they have to make every day, and liquefied natural gas is one of the opportunities that provides us with the chance to do just that.

It is an unprecedented opportunity, and it is complex, as I said earlier. I can tell you that I have been called — and I must say, I now ask for it to be reflected in a different way — one of the seniors on our side of the House, the senior ministers. Sometimes I think that talks about age.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m very glad that my colleague just said that I’m actually just a young pup.

[1550]

The fact of the matter is I’ve been in this place for some time, and I know this. I have not seen the kind of drive and focus and determination, led by ministers like the Minister of Natural Gas, the supporting roles of the Ministers of Education, Advanced Education, Aboriginal Relations, and led by the Premier, knowing that we have a chance to do something very significant in this province.

It takes more than skepticism. It takes more than cynicism. It takes hard work and a willingness to say: “You know what? It isn’t easy, but we’re going to make a difference.”

As I look at the other things…. We’ve heard about the need to care for British Columbians. That’s exactly why we work as hard as we do every single day.

Today in British Columbia families generally have one of the lowest tax burdens in Canada. In fact, British Columbia has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $121,000 a year. In addition to that, 400,000 people in our province pay no income tax.

In fact, without bringing new investment to British Columbia, I am very interested in hearing how the members opposite would like to continue to pay for and enhance programs to support families in this province. One of the most unfortunate things, I think, that happens in this place is that there is an assumption that only one side of the House cares about people who are in need or who are vulnerable or who require assistance.

The member opposite nods. Well, I’d like to remind her that members on this side of the House live in communities, care for people and work hard every single day to ensure that we have the kind of economy that allows us to protect, and to continue to protect and enhance, the most vulnerable British Columbians.

Every member of the House cares about that. That’s why we work as hard as we do every single day to ensure we’re bringing new investors and increasing the strength of our economy every day in British Columbia.

We also know that as we move forward, we have the opportunity to continue to see investment across sectors. I’m always surprised by the reflection made by members opposite that it’s all about LNG. Well, perhaps they should take the time to actually look at where else we have made progress in British Columbia.

The throne speech, as I would remind the members opposite, is not about listing every single item that the government intends to pursue or is pursuing or is engaged in.

Let’s look at economic growth in the province, particularly since the release of the jobs plan: $7.2 billion in economic expansion, including $3.9 billion last year alone. We are consistently in the top three provinces for business confidence. There are $236 billion in proposed projects in our province, and there are currently $82 billion in major projects under construction. I would suggest that those are promises made and promises kept.

When we look at international trade, we’ve recently seen, again, extremely successful trade missions conducted by our Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Minister of Advanced Education, the Premier — all of them reaching out to encourage investment.

When we look at three of the Premier’s major missions
[ Page 4727 ]
to Asian markets, they’ve resulted in business deals and partnerships valued at over $1.8 billion. We’ve attracted 37 foreign head offices to B.C., including, I am very proud to say, Sony Imageworks, which will create up to 700 jobs in the province.

In January of 2014 the province received an A for cutting red tape, from the CFIB, for the third year in a row. We have increased supports for small businesses, and once again, we consistently rank with the highest confidence in Canada — amongst the highest in small business confidence — in our province. We have the most small businesses per capita, at 83.4 per 1,000 people, compared to the national average of 70.1.

[1555]

There was a reference previously to agrifoods. I can tell you that agrifood sector revenues have increased by 8 percent.

In forestry, softwood lumber exports to China reached $1.4 billion in 2013. Forest product exports in 2013 totalled $11.6 billion, up 53 percent from 2009, and 33.5 percent of B.C.’s total exports. Since 2001? An unbelievable record in terms of lumber exports to China, which in fact has kept British Columbians working — a 3,300 percent increase in B.C. lumber exports to China. I know that the work that the Minister of FLNRO has just recently done on his Asian trip will help those numbers to move even further ahead.

So it isn’t about one sector. We are working aggressively across all of the sectors included in the jobs plan.

One of the things that is most encouraging in the province is the issue of technology. When we look at the technology sector in British Columbia, it is home to some sector clusters in areas such as digital media and biotechnology. They are among the best in the world, and we rank consistently among top provincial performers for growth and technology revenue. B.C.’s technology revenues grew 78 percent, compared to 60 percent for Canada as a whole, from 2002 to 2012.

Now, these are just a few of the facts and a few of the promises made, promises kept, promises delivered that we could have listed in the throne speech. But the throne speech talks about what is imminent, what is going to happen in this session for the government.

As we talk about job creation and why we are working so hard to attract investment to build a stronger economy, it is about jobs. We know this. Every month we get the job statistics, and we grapple with the fact that one month they’re up a little, and the next month they’re down a little. The most important thing is to look at the trend line. Today there are over 2.3 million people working in the province of British Columbia. We have also seen significant increases in the inclusion of those who’ve been under-represented in the job force.

We have more work to do. The economy is still fragile, and as we look at expectations for growth, we’ve even seen recently that there have been some downgrades in terms of how the economy is expected to perform over the next year or two. But we have to look at that in the context of the rest of the country, the rest of the world. In fact, we have to ensure that we remain focused on some very, very specific goals.

We can tell you that our unemployment rate is currently 6.1 percent. Now, you would never know that or imagine it by the comments we hear from the members on the opposite side of the House. That is significantly below the national average of 6.8 percent, and we are the fourth-lowest in terms of unemployment in the country. I can assure you that we want to improve that status from fourth in the country — to continue to see that move up.

If economic experts and economists across the country are correct, British Columbia stands to do very well in 2015 — somewhat moderated growth, compared to what the initial perspective was — and certainly, in 2016. But it takes discipline, and it takes focus, and it takes a government that recognizes you simply can’t say yes to everything.

You need discipline. You need to make sure that you’re prepared to make the tough decisions that allow us to maintain a triple-A credit rating, a balanced budget, low personal income taxes, making sure we maintain confidence in our small businesses.

We’ve come a long way in the last decade. I can remember — and I know I’ve shared this before in the House — one of the things that motivated me to run for provincial office.

[1600]

I had run as a school board trustee and served as a school board chair in my community and region, and I loved that job. I know how difficult it is, and so often there isn’t a sense of the hard work that school trustees do. I served for a number of terms.

One of the things that drove me to accept the challenge to run for provincial office was the fact that my province — this province so rich in resources and opportunities — was actually given have-not status in this country. That is unacceptable.

One of the things that made me want to go and make sure that we had a government that believed in free enterprise, that believed in investment, that believed in job creation, that thought it just wasn’t good enough that British Columbia, under the previous government, had the highest income tax rates in our country…. We became a have-not province. In fact, other provinces had to send assistance to British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, the member opposite should stand up when he has his opportunity to explain to British Columbians how their philosophy today is any different than when it saw the highest income taxes in the country. A have-not province. Last in job creation
[ Page 4728 ]
for five years in a row — last. Last in Canada for public sector, private sector investment.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Six consecutive credit downgrades and eight deficit budgets in a row. If that’s what we’re talking about in terms of ensuring we have a stronger economy, then perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board on the other side of the House.

Maybe it is time for us to look at this province and recognize that we have been blessed abundantly. British Columbians expect us to be great stewards of those resources. But they expect us to look at how to develop, sustainable resource development, to make sure we do it not at the expense of the environment. In our view, it’s not a matter of either-or. It is absolutely possible to do both. But I’m waiting.

I know every member on this side of the House is waiting, and I think British Columbians probably want to know: what is the official opposition’s position on the development of a sustainable, appropriate liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia?

It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and we want to do it in the appropriate way, making sure that British Columbians benefit, that it is done safely and appropriately.

We just want one definitive position. Instead, we’ve heard for the last days about the length of the throne speech, that it’s five pages long. Why don’t we actually take the opportunity…?

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: The members opposite say it’s true that it’s five pages long. It doesn’t matter how many pages long it is. What matters is what government’s agenda is for the session.

We’ve been clear about our agenda, and we’re not going to make apologies. We’re not going to make apologies for taking the opportunity to bring to British Columbia a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — done appropriately, done safely, making sure that we can actually pay to support those families that are most vulnerable in this province.

We’re on the verge of an amazing opportunity in this province. It is not simple. It is complex, hard work. But I know this. As a person who is honoured to stand in this Legislature every day and represent my constituents, when this discussion comes to conclusion, I want to be able to look in the mirror and say that we have done everything we possibly can to take advantage of a generational opportunity.

[1605]

My challenge today is to ask the members opposite to do exactly the same thing, instead of standing in this Legislature and talking about failure, about negativity, about looking past an opportunity that is right in front of us. It’s time for them to stand up, take a position, roll up their sleeves, and let’s deliver an opportunity that will change the future of British Columbia today and for the future.

Hon. C. Oakes: If I may ask leave, I have some introductions that I’m incredibly proud of. We don’t often get guests from the Cariboo.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m truly proud and privileged today to recognize Chief Ann Louie, Willie Sellars — who’s a fabulous children’s author; please make sure you check out his book — and resource manager Aaron Higginbottom. Please would the House make them welcome.

Debate Continued

G. Holman: Before I present my comments on the throne speech, I want to take this opportunity, as other members have, to thank the constituents of Saanich North and the Islands for electing me as their representative in this place almost a year and a half ago. I’ve been working as hard as I can to represent the interests of this very special constituency inside and outside the House.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my family, my friends and my colleagues — some of whom are with me here today — for their support, without which I couldn’t do this job. I also want to state here how proud I am of my dedicated and very capable constituency office staff, Ryan, Debra and Chris, who day in and day out do their utmost to ensure that the citizens, businesses and community organizations of Saanich North and the Islands are being well served by provincial agencies and programs.

I come from local government, serving as CRD director for Salt Spring for six years. I will comment on the absence of local government from the throne speech later. Before this, I want to state for the record once again in this House that Saanich North and the Islands, extending from the southern Gulf Islands at the edge of the Salish Sea to the rural landscapes and towns of the peninsula, is truly one of the most beautiful and diverse constituencies in the province.

Six southern Gulf Islands, with a unique system of rural governance by the Islands Trust and the capital regional district, three very distinct municipalities, four First Nations and two school districts make for one of the most complex cultural and political mixes in the province. Each of these jurisdictions is represented by dedicated citizens, all doing their best to further the goals of their communities.
[ Page 4729 ]

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the elected representatives serving this past term for their public service. Many of these officials are running for election again; some are not. There are a number of new candidates who’ve put forward their names to represent their communities, and I want to thank them for doing that.

I want to extend a special thanks to several long-serving mayors and councillors who’ve decided not to run for office this year — Mayor Alastair Bryson of Central Saanich, Mayor Larry Cross of Sidney and Coun. and former Mayor Ted Daly of North Saanich. It’s been my privilege to work with each of these outstanding local representatives as an MLA and, in Mr. Daly’s case, as a fellow CRD director.

Also, I want to mention several long-serving councillors who are not running again in the Saanich Peninsula — Kenny Podmore and Marilyn Loveless from the Sidney council and John Garrison and Cathie Ounstead from Central Saanich.

Finally, my congratulations to Sheila Malcolmson, chair of the Islands Trust, who, after a successful nomination bid, is stepping down as chair of the trust to run in the upcoming federal election in the riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

Now to the throne speech. I would agree with members opposite that speeches from the throne are generally not expected to be comprehensive policy statements, but the rhetoric in this year’s speech strikes a particularly dissonant chord when compared to reality or — never mind reality — when compared to even last year’s throne speech.

[1610]

I’d like to talk a bit about the statements in the throne speech that seem a bit divorced from reality. For me it isn’t about the length; it is about the substance. For example, statements in the throne speech about cherishing the land that sustains us in the wake of the Mount Polley disaster — the largest environmental disaster of its kind in Canada and a predictable legacy of a decade in which the capacity and political resolve for regulatory oversight and enforcement has been stripped away — sound very hollow. Promises to stand with the people of Likely from a Premier who visited the community once for a photo-op and has not been seen there again also ring hollow.

There’s rhetoric in the throne speech about not saying what is politically convenient, but again, this rings false after promises during the election not to weaken the ALR and doing exactly that, or promises about an LNG bonanza and a debt-free B.C. while at the same time overseeing the most rapid increase in debt in the province’s history.

There are fine words about developing a real partnership with First Nations in the wake of the Tsilhqot’in court decision, but this rhetoric also flies in the face of reality. This is the government that spent years fighting that very decision and has yet to implement the recommendations of the Oppal Inquiry on missing aboriginal women.

Right now, as we speak, this government is permitting and facilitating the construction of a luxury home on top of a First Nations burial site on Grace Islet in Ganges Harbour on Saltspring Island. This house being built, as we speak, continues even though the director of the provincial archaeology branch admits that the so-called site alteration permit issued by the province has been violated. I’ve repeatedly urged this government and the minister to halt the desecration of this site, negotiate a fair purchase price with the owner and protect Grace Islet in perpetuity. It’s still not too late to live up to the fine rhetoric of the Premier’s recent summit with First Nations.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the support of my opposition colleagues at the opening-day demonstration held by First Nations and Grace Islet supporters on the lawn of the Legislature and also to thank my colleagues for their throne speech responses in which they also call for the protection of Grace Islet.

The throne speech addresses teachers directly and talks of moving on together after a decade of cuts to education and hundreds of school closures and after the courts found that government actually tried to provoke a strike. Despite the fact that the courts have twice rejected this government’s attempt to illegally strip class size and composition from teachers’ contracts, the Premier continues to appeal these decisions.

There are references in the throne speech to this government’s jobs plan — and the minister was just speaking of this a few moments ago — which over three years has generated a grand total of 3,000 private sector jobs, a rounding error compared to total employment in British Columbia of about 2.3 million, and has resulted in the second-worst private sector employment creation record in Canada, since the jobs plan was announced. This so-called jobs plan also allows the construction of B.C. ferries offshore.

How do increases in a whole range of regressive taxes, amounting to billions of dollars over the past decade…? They hit small businesses and lower-income citizens particularly hard — including MSP premiums, hydro and ICBC rates and ferry fares, all of which represent higher fixed costs that must be paid regardless of profitability or income level. How does that encourage job creation?

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has released information data recently indicating that the highest-income earners in British Columbia pay a lower proportion of their income in overall taxes than middle- and low-income earners. That’s one of the reasons why we have such increases in inequality in British Columbia and why we’ve had, for the past decade, the highest poverty rate in Canada.

[1615]

The most striking difference between this throne speech and previous government statements, particularly
[ Page 4730 ]
by the Premier, are the claims made about the economic implications of LNG. A number of my colleagues have said it before, and it’s not being negative. We’re just simply noting the absence of statements about the prosperity fund or debt-free B.C. or trillions of dollars of economic activity or eliminating the sales tax. Actually, the minister did just mention that we’re going to have hundreds of thousands of jobs, but it doesn’t appear anywhere in the throne speech. Instead, the Premier now claims that LNG development is needed simply to maintain government services at their current level.

The government has gone from promising the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or as my colleague from Cowichan has put it, sugar plums and fairies, to what amounts to an economic threat: we can’t even provide our current level of services, much less address issues like poverty or services to protect abused women — which we heard on the Finance Committee — or underfunded education or any number of problems that have worsened under this government, unless we do a deal with Petronas.

To put this post-election threat about LNG in some perspective, it should be noted that current natural gas revenues comprise less than 1 percent of total provincial revenues. While LNG does represent an opportunity…. And we on this side of the House agree with that. The message doesn’t seem to be getting through, but we do agree that it represents an opportunity. It’s just not on the grand scale that has been promised, pre-election, by this government. It’s disingenuous to suggest that if government LNG projections fall short, British Columbia doesn’t have the capacity to even maintain the current level of services in this province.

What about the Premier’s promise that B.C.’s LNG will be the cleanest in the world? It is estimated that if the LNG pipedream comes true, our GHG emissions will double. But there’s no mention in the throne speech about how government will achieve even its current climate action targets, never mind address a doubling of emissions. Instead, we get an academic, hypothetical argument about displacing coal-fired power in China. But this has nothing to do with B.C.’s emissions or legislated targets.

Back in the real world, government ignores concerns about fracking emissions of methane — methane, of course, as we all know, is a much more potent GHG gas than CO₂ — and decrees by legislation that burning natural gas in LNG plants will be clean, instead of requiring use of renewables. Government has also cancelled programs like LiveSmart that actually help address climate change.

We now know from the bill just presented this morning that the main strategy for ensuring clean LNG will be the purchase of offsets by the LNG industry — this from a government that gave us the Pacific Carbon Trust, which has now been disbanded and was found by the Auditor General to be offering offset credits for projects that would have happened anyway. The problem with offsets is that the devil is in the details, and I don’t think this is really going to achieve the cleanest LNG in the world.

Government also appears to be ignoring the direct biophysical and economic impacts of LNG projects. For example, the substantial dredging at Lelu Island required by the Petronas project will destroy extensive eelgrass beds that support all species of salmon running up the Skeena River, one of the most important salmon rivers in B.C. and in the world. Northern communities are pleading for funds to deal with the infrastructure costs they’re already incurring as a result of LNG-related activity waiting until after the fact.

If these environmental and economic impacts are not addressed, the net economic benefits of LNG are questionable, particularly if they come at the expense of existing resources and jobs. This side of the House does not oppose the opportunity. We do think LNG represents an opportunity in this province. You’ve heard it before, Mr. Speaker. This is not news just from just me.

[1620]

The concern is that the net benefits of this development — given that government has painted itself into a corner and is so desperate to get a deal, and considering all of the impacts on the environment and the social impacts — won’t be sufficient. That’s the concern here, that we get the best deal from the resource, not that we don’t develop it.

Interjection.

G. Holman: I am honoured that I do appear to be heckled by the minister for LNG. I mean, I take this as a great compliment.

B.C. Hydro’s $8 billion Site C project is not mentioned in the throne speech, probably for good reason. The joint review environmental assessment panel concluded that the need for Site C hasn’t been established and that there appear to be lower-cost alternatives with much lower environmental impacts than flooding thousands of acres of precious farmland.

Just at the point in time when California is experiencing record droughts, we are contemplating the submerging of 30,000 acres of farmland in northeast British Columbia. The joint review panel estimates that the power from Site C would not be needed until 2024 at the earliest, which is supported by B.C. Hydro’s own estimate that the project will lose $800 million in the first four years of operation. Those are B.C. Hydro’s numbers, not ours.

The throne speech makes much of the need for leadership and not ceding decision-making authority to third parties. I found this a very curious kind of statement in a throne speech — not ceding decision-making authority to third parties — as if this is part of some grand vision for British Columbia. The leadership we’re now experiencing has resulted in huge cost overruns on projects like
[ Page 4731 ]
the northwest transmission line, annual losses of hundreds of millions and a huge surplus of power purchased at long-term prices that are double the selling prices in export markets.

Buy high and sell low. I suppose you could characterize this as a kind of leadership, but leadership should not trump thorough and fact-based analysis without political interference. Other than losing face politically, what is the downside of referring Site C…? I think it’s the largest public investment that British Columbia has ever undertaken. What is the downside to referring this project to an independent authority that was created precisely to evaluate the need and viability of such projects?

I’m critic for democratic reform. In my view, and in the view of this side of the House, independent third parties — like the Agricultural Land Commission, like the Workers Compensation Board, like the Auditor General, like the environmental assessment office, like the children’s representative — are essential parts of a government to ensure that partisan politics don’t override the public interest. Third parties are a very important part of government. They do challenge government, but they’re a very important element of government in the public interest.

The throne speech identifies forestry as one of the eight key economic sectors, and the minister was speaking of forestry just a few moments ago, which is all good. But again, look at the record. Look at the reality on the ground. The forest industry in British Columbia has lost over 30,000 jobs in the past decade, and 150 mills have closed down. I can’t quite believe that number, but check the facts: 150 mills over the past decade. Half the production capacity of value-added wood manufacturing has been lost in this province. Virtually at the same time the Lieutenant-Governor was presenting the throne speech in this place, two more mills in British Columbia announced permanent closure.

The diversification of markets that government talks about — also a good thing, a very good thing. But the growth in exports is primarily raw logs and other raw materials, raw resources — essentially exporting, as with the construction of new B.C. ferries, good-paying, skilled manufacturing jobs. The diversification in the economy, which my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head spoke about earlier, is very important. We shouldn’t be putting all of our eggs in one basket. It’s not that we’re saying LNG isn’t a good egg to have in the basket, but it shouldn’t be the only one. Eggs have a tendency to break. But I digress.

[1625]

Mount Polley is mentioned in the throne speech, which is certainly justified. Is this another example of political leadership or the innovation and entrepreneurship lauded in the throne speech — or again, a predictable outcome of a decade of deregulation and self-regulation of resource sectors? It’s just been recently revealed — and we had a question earlier in the House today — that there were no inspections at all, no geotechnical inspections at all, at Mount Polley in 2010 or 2011.

Here are my questions about Mount Polley. Who’s going to bear the responsibilities, the liabilities, of cleanup for this disaster, given that the company’s insurance doesn’t appear to be sufficient? Who’s going to pay that cost? I suspect it’s going to be the taxpayers of British Columbia. Is that leadership? Is that entrepreneurship and innovation?

Isn’t it the same company, using what appears to be a very similar design in the construction of a tailings pond, for its Red Chris mine? We’re going down exactly the same path here.

B.C. Ferries, probably the single most important economic driver in the southern Gulf Islands in my constituency, was not mentioned at all in the throne speech, despite a recent UBCM report estimating huge economic losses resulting from fare increases that greatly exceed the rate of inflation. These losses included over $600 million in foregone government revenues over the decade’s study.

The study estimated that the operation of B.C. Ferries generates as much revenue for the provincial government as it pays in service fees. So for all of the talk about subsidizing B.C. Ferries, in the face of actual data — which this side of the House pleaded with the minister to analyze before making further fare increases and service cuts, analysis that the minister refused to do — this analysis indicates that actually B.C. Ferries is self-financing. I’m talking about not the incremental effects of fare increases but the ongoing operations of B.C. Ferries. Government gets as much revenue — the provincial government — as it provides to B.C. Ferries in a service fee.

The Minister of Transportation disputes these figures and yet produces none of his own, despite pleas from chambers of commerce, local governments, ferry advisory committees, ferry users and, of course, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

I serve on the Finance Committee — and this has been referenced before in the comments of a colleague — and in a meeting in Williams Lake, locally elected officials, tourism officials and the chamber of commerce all expressed outrage at the last-minute and draconian cuts to the Bella Coola ferry. Their requests to the minister to consider the economics of these cuts to their local economy were also dismissed, and they’ve been forced to pay for their own analysis.

Speaking of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the throne speech says nothing about the fiscal fairness report local governments submitted a year ago, requesting that the province discuss alternative revenue sources that would help them address the infrastructure deficit they face and the fact that their existing revenue sources, primarily the property tax, don’t reflect the responsibilities they have.
[ Page 4732 ]

Many of my colleagues have made the point that the Premier and this government seem to have a knack for saying what people want to hear but question the sincerity or the credibility of these promises. I haven’t been a member of this Legislature very long, but I have a more fundamental concern.

The throne speech seems so disconnected from reality and so narrowly focused on LNG that one really wonders whether government really cares about — and yes, I do question whether government cares about certain issues, I really do — or is capable of dealing with a number of serious issues our province faces and which appear to have been ignored for the past decade — the highest poverty rate in Canada being just one of them.

If nothing else, the throne speech seems to indicate that the Premier no longer feels the need to repeat outrageous promises, or perhaps she’s just coming to a better understanding about the difference between election sloganeering and reality. We on this side of the House will continue to do our best to help in this difficult adjustment process.

[1630]

Hon. T. Wat: As the No. 100 woman MLA in this House, it’s an honour for me to speak to the Lieutenant-Governor’s Speech from the Throne, to talk about my portfolio and the work we are doing to grow our economy and to create jobs for British Columbians.

Eighteen months ago the people of British Columbia elected a government that promised to focus on three areas: job creation, economic growth and prudent fiscal management. During those 18 months, the Ministry of International Trade has worked very hard to deliver on its mandate to open and expand international markets for B.C. goods and services; to attract investment for our province’s businesses, entrepreneurs and communities; and to leverage our many family, cultural and business links to countries across the Pacific and around the world.

A key way we are expanding international markets is by making important connections with governments and organizations around the world. One of the most effective ways to nurture current relationships and build new ones is through trade missions. Our government believes that British Columbia’s trade relationships have a direct impact on the growth of family-supporting jobs in our province. That is why we are expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, expanding our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and MOUs.

We are working very hard to attract investment that creates jobs and grows the economy. We are also supporting trade agreements that benefit our province. That is why we have doubled our international presence to 11 trade offices and 64 staff all over the world. B.C. now has more people to support B.C. companies and communities, to attract investments and to grow exports. I am very happy to report that we supported 460 inbound and outbound trade missions since April 2011, including three major Premier’s missions to Asian markets that resulted in business deals and partnership agreements valued at over $1.8 billion.

We also established a major investment office to support international projects that deliver significant economic benefit to B.C. We attracted 37 foreign offices to B.C., including Sony Imageworks, which will create up to 700 jobs.

As you may have heard, our Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education just completed a very successful trade mission to India. This trade mission focused on a number of key sectors, including LNG, education, clean technology, and film and digital animation. India is an important powerhouse. Its young demographic and growing middle class make it one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. This trade mission is an important part of building connections to take advantage of their growth.

Our forestry minister also just came back from another very successful mission to China, Japan and Korea to promote our lumber industry. Opening and expanding markets for B.C. goods and services and attracting investment to grow B.C.’s priority sectors such as LNG are pillars of the B.C. jobs plan. In that plan we have made a commitment to double British Columbia’s international presence. Since the jobs plan was launched in 2011, a total of 400 international business agreements have been facilitated by ministry programs, almost triple the target of 120.

While that work is underway overseas, our government has been working hard to attract new investment and economic opportunities here at home in B.C. For example, in 2013-14 we attracted 14 Asian offices to locate in our province. Our exports continue to grow, with $23.8 billion worth of goods being exported so far this year, an increase of 8.3 percent compared to the same period last year. This has been a milestone year for investments and also for venture capital attraction, with programs raising over $96 million in venture capital for 244 small businesses.

[1635]

Our government has also been involved in negotiations on federal trade agreements such as the Canada-Europe comprehensive economic and trade agreement — CETA — and the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. Once ratified, CETA will open one of the world’s largest markets to British Columbia. It will lift 98 percent of trade tariffs and trade barriers between Canada and the EU. The key outcome of CETA is very clear: more jobs and economic opportunities for British Columbians.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is Canada’s free trade agreement with any Asian country. A government of Canada study indicates that this agreement could increase B.C. exports to the Korean market by 56 percent
[ Page 4733 ]
in some sectors. Korea is already B.C.’s fourth-largest export destination with $1.8 billion in export in 2013. As the world’s second-largest importer of LNG, Korea is positioning itself for significant investment in B.C.’s natural gas reserves, and we expect this agreement to strengthen B.C.’s opportunity to attract LNG investment from Korea.

I’d like to conclude by saying that one of B.C.’s most competitive advantages is its people. We have a rich, multicultural society that nurtures acceptance, understanding and mutual respect. Our government recognizes that cultural diversity and increased participation and engagement by all cultures is vitally important to creating a strong and vibrant social and economic future for British Columbia.

In the spring session of 2014 this Legislature passed a unanimous motion to issue a meaningful apology to B.C.’s Chinese Canadians for historical wrongs committed by past provincial governments. That was a very significant day for British Columbians, and I was proud to be part of it.

A number of legacy-initiated projects were identified in the final consultation report. This included working with the Royal B.C. Museum to produce proper education components for an exhibit that will feature Chinese-Canadian pioneers in British Columbia, creation of a book celebrating Chinese-Canadian achievements in B.C. and an inventory of historical sites and artifacts.

The purpose of this project is to give British Columbians a better understanding of the contributions the Chinese-Canadian community has made in the development of the province. The project plans for this legacy initiative are posted on the EmbraceBC website. This apology and legacy effort encourages reconciliation and are a key part of the effort to create a more just and inclusive British Columbia.

It is these values that define us as British Columbians, and it is these values that will carry us forward as we continue to make our province a more prosperous and inclusive place to live for all.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne.

L. Popham: When I was first elected 5½ years ago, I remember how nerve-racking it was preparing a response to the throne speech. As I contemplated my response it seemed such an important opportunity, an opportunity and an important moment in time to critique or support the direction of government and to reflect how the direction would affect the constituency I represent.

I am grateful to be elected provincially in B.C., and I am fiercely proud of my constituency, the constituency of Saanich South. I was reminded of how much I love the richness this past weekend as I spent hours door-knocking. It’s the people in Saanich South that inspire me most of all.

There are residents who feel strongly about protecting the environment, like Sharon McPherson, Frances Pugh and Carmel Thomson. Their efforts to protect Maltby Lake are inspiring. Of course, there are farmers like Bob Maxwell and Rob Galey who contribute so much to our local food security. There are teachers like Mark Neufeld and Colin Plant, who give of themselves in tremendous ways, both inside and outside their school.

[1640]

There are community volunteers like Ted Lay, Elaine Moser and Mark Thukabratt, who put themselves out there to protect the quality of life in their own neighbourhood. We have wonderful business people like Brad Potentier from Bernard Callebaut chocolates in Broadmead Village, and Kate and Lisa at Cordova Bay’s Beach House Restaurant.

There are residents who dedicate their time to our community associations, like Franca LaBella, president of Falaise Community Association; Haji Charania from North Quadra; Barry Loucks from the Blenkinsop Valley Community Association; and Jim Griffith, from the Broadmead community association. There are so many others. Our musicians, our artists, our seniors — each one of the 50,000 people I represent makes up the wonderful place I call home in the constituency of Saanich South.

After five and a half years gone by, many throne speeches later, my anticipation and excitement regarding a throne speech response have mostly turned to dread. The dread I feel is due to the content of the throne speech itself. Each time I hear the direction of the government, the direction they are heading, I really start to worry.

They often say it’s designed with their grandchildren in mind. I say it’s designed with such shortsightedness that our grandchildren will be facing incredible challenges when it’s time for them to take the reins, unless we head in a new direction.

These challenges are ones that we as humans living on this planet have not had to face before. Perhaps we can’t stop all of the challenges coming our way, but it is our responsibility in this chamber to face them truthfully. Now is our chance to prepare an emergency plan for things we can predict. If we don’t do that, we’ve failed the people who elected us.

I took time over the weekend and looked back at my first response. I realized that it’s not only still relevant in addressing serious problems, but the problems have gotten much worse. I chose an excerpt from 2009 to help make my point:

“As a newly elected MLA, I am wondering…. Do we have the capacity as leaders to make the choices that will enable our fight against climate change? Are we willing to consider the bigger picture and guide our province into a place where we will be able to contend with the changes to come? Are we committed to finding solutions and supporting legislation that focuses on sustainability every single time?

“I have been given the role of Agriculture and Lands critic. This appointment was one that I had been hoping for from the first time I entertained the idea of becoming an MLA. Once the appointment
[ Page 4734 ]
had been made, I felt my sense of determination galvanize. I realized quickly that my passion for cooking, local food, local food production and sustainability had a new home.

“It’s a critical time for food production in British Columbia. Never has there been a time when food and politics have so dangerously crossed paths. This is a time when we should be embracing local food production, should be encouraging local growers, building up our productive land stock.

“The possibilities with this portfolio seemed very hopeful to me, because for the first time in a long time, we have public awareness and public support for local food production. But then came the throne speech.

“It was a grand day. I took my seat in the Legislature for the first time…. I waited in anticipation and watched with great interest as the proceedings began. And then, there it was. It was right in the throne speech. The cupboard is bare. It was in reference to our provincial coffers, but to think that the government would use a food reference is interesting, as this is the government who has beaten the budget for agriculture into the ground and continues with this current budget.

“Using an analogy to food is quite appropriate, because when there’s no food, nothing else…matters. The difference between an empty coffer and an empty cupboard is this: if our food supply is threatened, we don’t have the option to run a deficit for four years.”

That was from five and a half years ago. Sadly, my reflections from my first throne speech are accurate, but little did I know how much worse things would get. The Ministry of Agriculture is still missing food in its title. After over five years of calling for one, we still haven’t reinstated the standing committee for agriculture.

We failed to have an agriculture and food sustainability plan in this province. If that’s not bad enough, this past spring we saw changes made to our agricultural land reserve that will threaten our food-growing lands more than we have seen in over 40 years.

Agriculture and politics have crossed paths in a way I didn’t imagine was possible in this province. This story is not over with the agricultural land reserve. The implications have only just started to rear their ugly heads. We have already seen political appointments made to the Agricultural Land Commission, a commission that’s supposed to be independent.

[1645]

Politics and agriculture have crossed paths in B.C., and the B.C. Liberals are doing all they can to make sure that politics wins.

I congratulate the B.C. Liberals. They have exceeded all my expectations. I expected to be disappointed, but in this throne speech I think the B.C. Liberals outdid themselves. I’m afraid that after the 2013 election this shortsighted government has acquired a new set of nails and a brand-new coffin. One by one, they’re each taking turns with the hammer — every member, nail by nail, vote by vote.

It’s no secret that there is a single focus on the government side of the House. It’s LNG 24-7. Not only is it unfathomable to have such a one-track mind as a government; it’s quite odd that none of their members have stood up to say so. You don’t have to spend much time chatting with the people of B.C. to know that most are questioning such a focus.

One of the concerns raised by many British Columbians is that if this government fulfilled its promises for LNG exports, there would be devastating impacts on the natural environment. It’s worth repeating those extravagant promises because they were repeated ad nauseam during the last election and often not as aspirations, much less promises, but as simple statements of fact.

Let’s not forget that the Premier toured the province in a bus covered in huge letters that read: “Debt-free B.C.” Debt-free B.C. — this from a Premier who has presided over the largest increase in B.C.’s debt in the province’s history. Our debt is now over $60 billion — $13,000 for every person in British Columbia. How is that debt-free?

But that wasn’t the only misleading statement. It wasn’t the only false promise. We were told that if the B.C. Liberals were returned to power, they could bring about an LNG industry that would add up to $1 trillion to the provincial GDP in just three decades — $1 trillion.

We were told LNG would create 100,000 jobs for the people of B.C. — 100,000 jobs for B.C. families, our Premier said one year ago. We were told LNG would fill a treasure chest big enough to hold $100 billion for British Columbians, a prosperity fund that would pay off our debt and allow us to give everyone a huge tax break: no more provincial sales tax.

With promises like that, it’s no wonder they won the last election. Those promises are almost impossible to believe today. Those promises are impossible to believe today. But for a moment, let’s take this government at its word and give them the benefit of the doubt. According to a 2013 report by Grant Thornton and another report the same year by Ernst and Young, to meet the government’s labour and revenue projections I just referenced would require five to seven LNG facilities.

According to the Pembina Institute, this number of plants would mean that B.C. would annually release more than 70 million tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere — 70 million new tonnes of pollution every year. To quote the Pembina Institute: “The potential carbon pollution from LNG facilities and associated shale gas extraction and processing would make B.C.’s climate targets unachievable.”

This pollution would come from all points in the supply chain. If the LNG terminals are powered with natural gas, the combustion used to liquefy would create a major new source of greenhouse gases. In addition, the large amounts of carbon dioxide are vented into the atmosphere when gas is processed.

We also know there would be significant pollution resulting from the flaring of the thousands of fracking wells that would be required for this LNG plan. Experts also warn of major pollution from fugitive emissions and accidents and pipeline failure.

There is no greater threat to our collective well-being than climate change. I can’t make that point more strong-
[ Page 4735 ]
ly. Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. Nothing else compares to it. Yet this government is pursuing a plan that violates their own law, which they said was necessary as a moral obligation, to address climate change.

[1650]

In a previous term, under a different Premier, the governing party was willing to face the challenge of climate change. In 2007 the B.C. Liberals passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. News flash — this one’s still on the books. It requires B.C. to reduce GHG emissions by 33 percent by 2020. The climate change crisis has only become greater and more obvious since that time and, therefore, one would expect the members opposite to exploit our natural gas reserves in an environmentally responsible way.

The opposition has been very clear that protecting the environment should be a precondition for LNG development. According to one of Canada’s top energy experts, David Hughes, fuelling five large LNG plants in B.C. would require over 50,000 fracking wells in the next three decades. Where are the studies by the government showing us that this is a safe direction to take?

The leader of the opposition has laid out four conditions for the LNG industry to exist in B.C.

One, the project expressly guarantees jobs and training opportunities for B.C. The promise-happy government has not even said it will achieve express commitments from proponents that British Columbians would have the first and significant share of the jobs and skills-training opportunities. Instead, the Premier and her B.C. Liberals are capping two decades of undermining skills training in B.C. by taking a defeatist attitude that says we will all have to rely heavily on foreign workers to build LNG.

Two, that British Columbians receive a fair return for the resource that belongs to them. Right out of the gate, the Premier made unrealistic and unachievable promises about LNG. Now having ditched the fiscal framework in its 2014 budget, she is headed to be a year and a half behind schedule on defining B.C.’s share. It’s no wonder proponents say they are still far away from being able to make final investment decisions.

Three, the government respects and makes partners of First Nations and recognizes the right to share any benefits that flow from this resource. If the Premier was serious about respecting and including First Nations and keeping B.C.’s focus on projects that could benefit all British Columbians, she would have given Stephen Harper an unconditional no on the Enbridge bitumen pipeline. Instead, she’s giving her conditional support to a project that puts First Nations and other B.C. communities at great risk with little benefit.

As we saw in her government’s recent reversal on gas plant environmental assessment, she still does not know how to take care enough to work with First Nations to share the benefits of the LNG opportunity. If her government had spent the last three years negotiating on aboriginal title with First Nations, rather than spending millions of taxpayer dollars fighting a losing battle against the Tsilhqot’in, there would today be more opportunity and benefits for First Nations and greater certainty for investors and workers on where and how LNG-related pipelines and plants will proceed.

Four, that our air, land and water be protected and that our resource development can be as clean as possible. It is this fourth condition that I’m unpacking today for this House. The Premier said she would deliver the world’s cleanest LNG industry, but instead, she is trying to sweep environmental issues under the table. A government that knows how to gain social licence to move LNG forward would today be leading an evidence-based discussion with communities on hydraulic fracturing as it is conducted here in British Columbia to identify and mitigate any impacts.

The Premier’s failure to deal with this issue and the implications for greenhouse gases has worsened, not improved. Public confidence in this aspect of the LNG opportunity is doubtful.

According to John Cherry, a well-respected hydrologist, B.C. has no idea what the implications would be on our fresh water supplies. I don’t believe we even have a groundwater monitoring program set up in northern B.C. According to journalist Andrew Nikiforuk, we have just six monitoring wells for more than 27,000 oil and gas wells in northern B.C.

On this side of the House we believe that our air, water and land must be protected, and to this government’s great and historic shame, this is not being done. Do the members opposite not believe in climate change? I know there are a few that doubt it.

While the B.C. government chases an LNG plan that betrays our moral obligation to address climate change, the acceleration of planetary warming is increasing. Do you realize that the very room we sit in now in the B.C. Legislature will be submerged if we do not change our ways?

[1655]

A recent report by the authoritative National Academy of Sciences concluded that there is a dramatic increase in the rate of melting ice in the Arctic, the Arctic Ocean and in Antarctica, an increase that suggests ocean levels may rise around the world by four metres. Can you picture that? This very building we are in today could be under water in the not too distant future.

The possible negative consequences of climate change for the people of B.C. are very terrible to comprehend. You know, there are some that say that if it plays out the way some predictions are saying, we are facing risks of mass extinction and possibly another ice age. This isn’t alarmism. This is a warning from the cautious and authoritative U.S. National Research Council. The authors of this report are clear that the only way to head off dan-
[ Page 4736 ]
gerous warming is by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane, and this is the very gas that the B.C. government wants to extract and sell as quickly as possible.

There is a role for LNG in B.C. if it meets the conditions brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Our abundant natural gas is of great value to British Columbians, but the B.C. Liberals have lost perspective in their rush to try and cash in on the high prices for LNG in Asia — prices which, of course, are plummeting rapidly.

All over B.C. and, indeed, around the world more and more people are coming to terms with the threat that we’ll be facing together — but sadly, not those who hold the balance of power in this province. That needs to change.

Hydroelectricity is extremely important for our province. It’s an economic engine and a source of clean and renewable energy. The Site C project is potentially the next big public hydro project, and it’s been up for discussion for years. Unfortunately, this government can’t even get that process right.

Last week the B.C. Liberals granted this project environmental approval. They claim that the benefits outweigh the social and the environmental costs of building it. The federal government has said the same thing. The next step that a responsible government would take in a project this size — $8 billion to $10 billion or more taxpayer dollars — would be to send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission. This commission would review the project’s costs and impacts on ratepayers. In fact, sending it to the BCUC is the law, unless the government exempts itself from what’s required by the law. And this, my friends, is the case with the B.C. Liberals.

If they don’t like the way the law affects the way they do business, they exempt themselves. So currently Site C is exempted from a review at the BCUC, and that is fundamentally wrong. With this amount of taxpayer dollars potentially being spent, we should expect, and we deserve, accountability.

What will the cost of the project actually be, and how will this impact our future hydro rates? Do we even need the power right now? That’s a great question. Those are just the beginning of the questions that need to be answered, but they won’t be because the BCUC will not have a say.

If this project were to go ahead, it would come with huge sacrifices. There would be profound impacts on First Nations, massive loss of agricultural land and natural habitat that would be changed forever. Without actually knowing if we need Site C or if it’s a sound investment, how can we accept the changes that would affect our province forever?

Not sending this project on to the BCUC for a proper cost-benefit analysis before spending at least $8 billion to $10 billion is irresponsible, and it’s unacceptable.

As a spokesperson for agriculture, I fear that by sidestepping the BCUC we will not have a chance to make the argument for our food-growing lands. Five thousand hectares of prime agricultural land in the Peace River Valley would be flooded. That’s hugely significant. Climate change means that we must update B.C.’s agricultural plan. We would be fools not to, given the state of the regions we source from.

Look at California. It’s in the third year of an extreme drought. This is a drought that is devastating food production in that state and having continental impacts. For example, food prices in B.C. are estimated to rise by 34 percent this year because we source a large percentage of our fruits and vegetables from California. I believe that protecting and increasing B.C.’s food self-sufficiency should be top priority for this government, but the Liberals will now skip past the BCUC and consider the economic case for Site C behind closed doors at a cabinet table.

[1700]

What’s the cost to our province of losing the food-growing potential offered by the Peace River Valley? How can you explore the economics of Site C without first getting the facts from the BCUC? It’s generally accepted that one would get the facts first. Can British Columbians have confidence in the B.C. Liberals to get this one right? They change the law when it hampers them, and their recent work on agriculture and the weakening of the agricultural land reserve are just two examples of why they can’t be trusted.

The bottom line is this: without the BCUC being the next step, the B.C. Liberals do not deserve to have their hands on a project with this many implications.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s a pleasure to be able to rise and respond to the Speech from the Throne. Just before I do, I want, as many other members have done, to provide some thanks. Thanks to my constituency assistants in the office in Kelowna, Nan and Jennifer, who do a great job in dealing with constituency issues and looking after everything in the local constituency on our behalf.

I also want to thank my family for their continued support, particularly my wife, Brenda. She puts up with a lot, with the amount of time that we’re away, and I really appreciated that — even with her patience in allowing me to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary with 50 or 60 of my friends from the industry and key customers in Japan. Sorry for being away for the anniversary. We’ll make it up at some point, but I really do appreciate her continued support.

As the Lieutenant-Governor pointed out, we’re at a very important turning point in the province. We’ve weathered an economic storm in the past few years, and now we have a great opportunity to grow our economy and secure our future for B.C. families. We’ve made some tough choices in balancing the budget — as has been pointed out, we’re one of only two jurisdictions to do so,
[ Page 4737 ]
and we’ve done it twice — and controlling public spending. These choices laid the groundwork.

Now thanks to this solid foundation, we are growing, thanks to new trade and investment ties with the emerging economies of Asia. The Premier has laid out a clear vision on the government’s plans based on LNG opportunities. It’s a turning point for the province, particularly for a world looking for clean energy solutions.

I want to provide some comments around our local economy and how Kelowna and the riding have benefited from some of the achievements and the work we’re doing. But first I wanted to provide some comments on the forest industry, given my critical responsibilities for the forest industry in the role as Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Forestry, as was pointed out, is a critical part of the B.C. economy, a key economic driver in the history of the province. It continues to be vital to this present day. More than 58,000 B.C. families rely directly on the forest industry. Revenue from the harvest of trees and the production of other forest products funds infrastructure and government services that we all depend on. The jobs created in the forest and in the processing of forest products are vital, particularly in communities where forestry is a primary employer.

This industry is at a turning point as well. The world economic turmoil created much uncertainty in the forest industry, as it did in other sectors, but we are coming around. Global gross domestic product is expected to double in the next 20 years, while worldwide demand for wood, pulp and paper products is projected to grow significantly.

With the prospects of growing markets for forest products and higher commodity prices, there’s room for optimism. Towards this end, in 2012 we released our forest sector strategy for British Columbia. It’s a comprehensive plan designed to ensure that British Columbia fully leverages the natural advantages provided by the forest resources. It identified a number of priorities, including expanding our markets; becoming globally competitive, especially in emerging Asian markets; embracing innovation and diversification; and ensuring the sustainability of our forests and fibre supply.

[1705]

As mentioned in the throne speech, for most of our history our softwood lumber exports depended on the United States. As the market slowed, we needed to look elsewhere, across the Pacific to the growing economies of Asia. We can see this strategy to expand our markets has paid dividends, with increasing exports to China, Japan and South Korea.

Ten years ago 85 percent of everything we exported from the forest sector went to the United States. Today, while the U.S. remains our number one market, China has grown from an insignificant market to our second largest, accounting for almost 30 percent of lumber exports.

Japan remains a highly valued and important third market for British Columbia. There are new and emerging opportunities that we’re working on with industry to pursue in tomorrow’s major markets, such as Korea and India. We’re continuing to grow these markets. I’ve just returned from leading a delegation of over 25 senior executives from B.C. forest companies and associations to China, Japan and Korea. This is my third mission to China and Japan and my first to Korea as a Forests Minister.

Trade missions are a critical part of our strategy to ensure new investment, propelling economic activity and job production throughout the province. I’ve learned that for Asian markets it’s important to establish the government-to-government relationships that allow for the business-to-business relationships to grow.

As I mentioned earlier, China is B.C.’s second-largest market for softwood lumber products. In 2013 alone China received 26 percent of B.C.’s softwood lumber exports, totalling $1.4 billion. I was very pleased on the recent trade mission that Jiangsu province became the latest Chinese province to sign a memorandum of understanding with British Columbia, making a commitment to increase the use of wood-frame construction across that province. This is one of the very, very growing parts of China, in the Yangtze delta, one that has a significant opportunity for our industry to grow and expand markets in that province.

MOUs, as we’ve signed with a number of other provinces in China, are the step to achieving that objective. I was also very pleased to participate in a meeting with the new vice-minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development for China at the national level.

As you recall, the former Minister of Forests signed an MOU with the national MOHURD in 2010. That MOU is set to expire in March. What we received and got the commitment from the new vice-minister is to renew that commitment going forward beyond the expiry date of that existing MOU. That’s going to provide ongoing opportunities and growth for us in that market.

Also at that meeting, which was very important, were officials from the province of Yunnan, which is prone to earthquakes. The most recent one was just last week, on October 7 — two weeks ago. Experts are saying that the wood post-and-beam construction is responsible during those earthquakes for minimizing casualties.

We had officials from Yunnan province, from their Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, at the meeting. They were brought to that meeting by the vice-minister for the national MOHURD to look at the opportunities and explore using more wood-frame construction because of the seismic benefits. Again, another significant opportunity to continue to build markets in that very important region.

I also had the opportunity to visit Japan again — a very, very important market for B.C. for over 40 years.
[ Page 4738 ]
We were able to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Council of Forest Industries’ work in the Japan market. In 2013 alone, softwood lumber exports to Japan rose from $674 million to $827 million — an increase of 23 percent. It continues to be a very, very important high-value market for British Columbia.

With the signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Korea’s tariffs on B.C. lumber will be limited in 2017. This provides significant opportunities for growth in that market. Our goal is to increase the volume of wood used in Korean wood-frame construction by 10 percent per year over the next number of years.

[1710]

While I was there, I had the opportunity to open a new 141-unit wood-frame housing construction project in a community centre in the province of Gapyeong, to be able to showcase wood-frame construction in that market. It will provide significant benefits for British Columbia.

I also had the real honour — and this is just a little bit of a side note — while I was in Korea to be able to lay a wreath at the Canada monument in Gapyeong which commemorates the Canadian sacrifices and bravery from Canadian soldiers during the Korean War. In advance of Remembrance Day it was a great honour, with our industry delegation, to be able to lay a wreath at that monument, which was something very rewarding and also very emotional to be able to do. All the members of our delegation really appreciated that opportunity and recognized the important contribution that Canadian soldiers made in that conflict.

We’re also working to develop a market for wood products in India. We’ve opened an office in Mumbai to provide on-the-ground assistance for B.C. companies. The focus on India is on interior, architectural and decorative uses and millwork and remanufactured applications. The market in India right now is quite small — only $11 million in 2013 — but in one of the world’s largest emerging economies, the potential for growth is huge.

One of the other key factors, moving forward for the industry, is looking at ways to expand traditional export markets. We’re also exploring new technologies and innovative products. In 2009 we introduced five- and six-storey residential wood construction. This has resulted in more than 200 mid-rise projects in the province and opens up a market segment not previously open to the industry.

We’re also leading the way in British Columbia for the use of wood in taller and more complex structures. The Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George, at almost 30 metres, is the tallest contemporary wood building here in North America, a building designed here in British Columbia, engineering done in British Columbia and most of the products of the building manufactured here in British Columbia.

We’re looking to go even further. We have scientists and design professionals here in British Columbia looking at how to use wood in buildings of 12, 15, 20 and even 30 storeys in the future. We’re producing new and exciting engineered wood products, as well, the kind of products that we’ll require to build these new and bigger 21st-century buildings. For example, Structurlam in Okanagan Falls is producing cross-laminated timber panels — one of only two manufacturers in Canada. They’re employing 140 people and are producing the next generation of wood products that are changing what we can build with wood today.

We’re also taking steps to support and develop new applications for B.C. wood fibre. A great example of this is in the area of cellulose filament technology. In April I had the pleasure of announcing that the province was joining forces with FPInnovations to help research and develop cellulose filament technology. Specifically, B.C. is providing $2.25 million to support Vancouver-based research on cellulose filament and its applications to the wood pulp sector.

Cellulose filament is a flexible, wood-based fibre additive that can be readily mixed with other materials to improve quality of a range of products. It has immediate implications for the province’s pulp and paper industry, where it could be used to produce stronger and less expensive products, like newsprint, packaging, tissues and paper towels. Eventually it could be used in a range of other products, from flexible plastic packaging to photographic film to structural and non-structural panels in building construction.

Clearly, our focus on innovation and diversification is paying off. At the same time, we’ve been addressing the biggest issues facing the industry today: the impact of mountain pine beetle infestation and our mid-term timber supply.

The province’s current annual allowable cut is just under 77 million cubic metres, yet the longer-term projected annual harvest is forecast to be about 65 million cubic metres. I mention this because there has been concern expressed in light of the mountain pine beetle infestation that harvest levels are no longer sustainable. That is not the case.

We recognize that security of timber supply, for both environmental and economic reasons, is very important to the customers of B.C.’s world-class forest products. In light of the mountain pine beetle infestation, forest analysts predict that harvest levels in the Interior could decline from 50 million cubic metres to 40 million cubic metres. Yet that is still more than the harvest in 2009.

[1715]

As you know, in the fall of 2011 we released Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan in response to the Special Committee on Timber Supply recommendations. The implementation of these actions is ongoing.

We’ve invested over $322 million in forest activities,
[ Page 4739 ]
surveyed over 1.5 million hectares in the mountain pine beetle–affected areas and planted more than 130 million seedlings over 95,000 hectares in those areas. We’re dedicating $8 million each year to forest inventory, and over the past year we’ve completed three million hectares of new inventory and 4.8 million hectares of new aerial photography, covering the entire Morice and Quesnel timber supply areas — in those areas.

At the same time, we recognize that the face of the forest industry is changing. We have had a focus on the solid-wood part of the sector along with the pulp and paper component. Global demand for forest products and a decrease in the fibre supply in B.C., subsequent to the mountain pine beetle epidemic…. New forest components are growing, making the industry more diverse and robust.

B.C. now has 13 wood pellet plants, with three more recently announced. The pulp and paper sector has been on the forefront of innovation, with new cellulose products as well as cogeneration plants that use residual biomass to power the plants and provide power.

The policy focus now includes an emphasis on utilizing more of the fibre generated from our forests, which we call the bioeconomy, under the bioeconomy transformation council and forest fibre working group, focussing on examining new ways to increase fibre security for users of low-quality and residual fibre, as well as increasing overall fibre utilization. This work includes ways to facilitate business-to-business relationships between those companies with licences to harvest and reforest areas and producers of biomass products, such as wood pellets and pulp, who have no direct access to harvest opportunities.

Areas being examined include everything from improved fibre inventories, using remote sensing laser technology, to expanding the bounds for economic transportive quality fibre from harvest areas. We recognize that that’s an important area to continue to focus forest policy development on.

In conclusion, we’ve expanded markets and diversified the industry, which has been critical to ensuring the economic health of the industry, embracing innovation and ensuring sustainability of our forests. These three pillars are helping us move forward in the forest industry. Through hard work, commitment and the strength of leadership and planning, we’ve reached the turning point, and we’re moving on.

To paraphrase the throne speech, forestry sustains us. If we continue to cherish it, if we continue to invest wisely, it will continue to sustain us, our children and future British Columbians for generations to come.

I want to talk a little bit about Kelowna, the riding of Kelowna-Mission and the area that I’m proud to represent, an area that just recently was rewarded by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as one of the top five places in the country to start and grow a small business. That’s for communities over 150,000 people.

Clearly, in the Okanagan we’re benefiting from the investments that the province has been making in our communities. We’re making significant investments in our future leaders — namely, the young people who will comprise the next generation of workers.

We know that a strong economy is built around good, family-supporting jobs, and we want British Columbians to be the first in line for those positions. The B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint is our comprehensive strategy to re-engineer our education apprentice systems and give young people a seamless path from school through to our workplace.

We’ve invested $28 million in the trades-training complex at Okanagan College. Combined with extensive renovations of existing shop and classroom space, this project updated facilities for other trades shops, including auto body, RV service technician, carpentry and welding.

What’s more, students in the Okanagan who want to learn a trade are getting a helping hand in other ways. We provided Okanagan College with $928,000 to support 203 new LNG trades-training seats. This increases access and reduces wait-lists for trades critical to the LNG and other industries, supporting trades like welding, pipefitting, heavy-equipment operation, electrical and mechanical foundation.

The support doesn’t stop there. Last year we supplied Okanagan College with $367,000 in one-time funding for 88 foundation seats with targeted trades-training courses during the 2013-14 year.

[1720]

That investment supported student spaces in plumbing, piping, electrical and metal fabrication programs — all investments that are key to ensuring that our students have the opportunities to work and to learn the trades for the job opportunities that will be coming and are there currently.

Another key to the economy and the jobs of tomorrow is our transportation system — not only our ability to get goods to market, but to get residents and visitors from A to B quickly and efficiently. We’ve invested significantly in the Okanagan in transportation initiatives. Highway 97 is the Okanagan’s main trade and tourism corridor, with 20,000 vehicles a day travelling it, and we’re investing $3.2 million in expansion and upgrade of more than 4½ kilometres of Highway 97 through Kelowna, between Highway 33 and Edwards Road, from four to six lanes, and upgrading intersections along the same stretch. This work will increase capacity, make travel safer and better connect the downtown core with UBC Okanagan and the airport.

Our government has also put financial support into transit exchanges, part of the city of Kelowna’s revitalization program in the area, and I was pleased to join my colleague the member for Kelowna–Lake Country in opening this new service of transit, particularly in our
[ Page 4740 ]
community of Rutland, which is a growing area of the community and one where these transit and transportation services are going to be a key piece to ensuring the continued growth of that community.

We’ve also provided investments in the RapidBus system, which connects West Kelowna, Westbank First Nation and Kelowna and UBC Okanagan. We’ve invested $23.9 million in this $46 million project, which saw new transit stations and new exchanges come into fruition. The success is made possible in these investments by the important partnerships that we enjoy in the Okanagan with the federal government and the city of Kelowna.

In addition to moving people and goods quickly, it’s also important for information to travel this way, and in Kelowna the technology sector is a bright spot. Our government saw the importance of investing in Kelowna’s tech future, contributing $6 million to the new Okanagan centre for innovation. Once completed, this facility will provide workspace for local technology entrepreneurs, students and companies at minimal cost. It will be a space ideally suited for them to network and collaborate with one another.

It’s important to support a sector that is already booming in Kelowna, with recent success stories like Club Penguin and Vineyard Networks, who are made-in-B.C. success stories. That’s why we’re joining with other partners to make the Okanagan innovation centre a reality. Partners in this project include the Kelowna Sustainable Innovation Group, private industry, Okanagan College, University of B.C., Accelerate Okanagan and the Central Okanagan Development Commission.

I want to give a nod to Accelerate Okanagan in particular for its efforts to increase the number of tech companies that start and grow in the Okanagan. They offer programs and other supports that help the community continue to develop a vibrant, entrepreneurial, creative and innovative technology community, from students and aspiring entrepreneurs to start-ups and early-stage companies to those that are more established. Accelerate Okanagan is helping put our local technology sector on the map.

It’s not just in the tech sector where we’re seeing technology thrive. The province as a whole is becoming a destination of choice for technology companies and investment. It’s also vital to our health sector in terms of the latest state of our equipment and treatments that meets the needs of patients, and in Kelowna there’s much to be proud of in this regard.

We’ve invested $254 million in the Kelowna General Hospital for new outpatient hospital acute care bed capacity and a new emergency room at the medical training school. In addition, Kelowna’s Interior heart and surgical centre will be open for patients by mid-2015. Our government has invested $360 million in this facility.

These projects are significant for our community, helping our health care professionals care for people closer to home, taking an enormous burden off patients and their families, knowing that they don’t have to manage the stress of travel on top of diagnosis and treatment.

[1725]

I say all of this and point out all of these achievements and support in the community because this is all possible because of a government that is committed to balancing our budgets, a government that supports responsible resource development that will ensure that we continue to have the revenues required to fund these critical services and investments. There are many positive things happening in my riding of Kelowna-Mission and the city and the region as a whole.

I do want to point out, just in closing, one other very significant investment or process in Kelowna: the establishment of a number of new regional parks which have been protecting critical ecosystems and areas in our community.

These are really a legacy to one of our local government representatives, Robert Hobson, who is retiring from both city council and as chair of the regional district. He had a goal, while he was serving as a local representative, to be able to leave a legacy of a number of regional parks, and over the last few months we’ve had a number of announcements where he has been able to recognize that legacy and leave these important regional park systems for our community.

I had the honour recently of participating in one of those announcements because our ministry, through a licence of occupation cooperatively between the regional district and the Westbank First Nation, was able to provide some additional critical Crown land in addition to a regional park acquisition that was made by the regional district parks fund to protect a critical area on Black Mountain that will provide ongoing recreational opportunities for the community and for the citizens of Rutland.

To be able to do it in a unique way that provided a cooperative management agreement, a co-management agreement, between the Westbank First Nation and the regional district shows that good cooperation between the regional district, local governments, the province and the First Nation can provide significant benefits for the community in a very significant area of our community.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support the throne speech. The government works hard and shows the leadership necessary to achieve the benefits for the province. I look forward to continuing to represent the interests of Kelowna-Mission and continuing to represent the interests of government, ensuring that we do have responsible resource development and that we achieve objectives related to utilizing the great resources that the province has to provide those critical revenues that are needed to support the services, the infrastructure, the investments, the critical programs in social services and education that we all are working forward to achieve.
[ Page 4741 ]

Thank you for the opportunity to support the throne speech. Again, we look forward to working hard, continuing to show the leadership and moving forward with critical areas of economic development, creating jobs in the province of British Columbia.

S. Hammell: It’s a pleasure to rise and respond to the throne speech, as always. This is the second throne speech in this calendar year, one that is considerably shorter than most and more subdued in tone than the last throne speech.

The best part of responding to the throne speech is a moment taken to speak about one’s own constituency and the people who live there. First, I’d like to lament the loss of a terrific CA, Brett Barden, who has been with me for five years. He’s gone on to other challenges, and he is dreadfully missed, but I have two amazing constituency assistants, Yamilka Arteaga and Raj Shergill, who are amazing. They look after the constituents who come in and need help extremely well.

My constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers, as I have mentioned before in this House, takes its name from the urban forest that was protected in perpetuity by Surrey city council in the late ’80s and led by the then mayor, Bob Bose.

[1730]

It was also the location of Surrey–Green Timbers forest nursery, growing seedlings. In fact, it was the first forest nursery in the province, and it grew seedlings that were used to replace forests that were cut down all over this province. The nursery is now gone, following the decline of our forest sector and the relinquishing of forest management by this government.

Green Timbers Urban Forest is a large timbered area. I think it is about a section of land in the heart of the city. It also has a man-made lake, originally envisioned by Dale Denny, a pioneer from the area. He secured the funding from various sources because he saw, in his mind’s eye, families and grandparents with grandchildren and friends fishing on the shores of this lake, sharing an activity that has been passed on from generation to generation — all this done in an urban setting.

His vision is realized every single day. Families, friends and neighbours fish from this lake and take their children with them. This amazing urban forest and its lake serve the urban community of north Surrey by providing a natural environment, absent of the normal noisy trappings of an urban milieu — quiet and natural. That truly is a treasure.

My constituents of Surrey–Green Timbers…. My constituency is comprised of hard-working people who are raising their families as best they can despite many of the actions of this government. When I think of my constituents, I think of the park next to our townhouse. It has been redesigned by the city — the playing area brought into the light, away from the tall trees, and a modern active playground created for the children, complete with an activity area, swings, picnic tables and benches.

There’s a walk that circumvents the whole park. There is always someone — or couples or friends — walking on that path from the immediate neighbourhood, and they typify the people who live in Surrey–Green Timbers. They are people from all nationalities and religions, old and young, using the common space as a place for them and their families to enjoy.

This is not a community of great wealth, but it’s a community of people who have made Surrey their home and want to raise their children in a safe environment and provide an opportunity for them to secure a good future. They need a government that supports them.

I would like to take this moment now, because of that setting, to turn and look at the latest throne speech. Quite a different tone to this throne speech than the one tabled in February. A dose of reality, I presume, has set in — less over-the-top rhetoric.

A current theme in both of these throne speeches, though, is controlling spending. But at what cost to the hard-working men and women of my constituency? A review of the moves to balance the budget on the backs of my constituents with regressive taxes — ones that hit hardest ordinary folk, as they demand the same pound of flesh from the working men and women as they do from the rich — is quite shocking.

MSP premiums will go up by $66 in 2014-15, by $132 in ’15-16 and by $202 in ’16-17. Families will pay this regressive tax of more than $400 on average, and that increase in taxes will give this government $721 million more over the next three years. That’s how the budget is being balanced.

We are the only province in this country with this tax. Other provinces have looked at payroll taxes, and they’ve looked at other ways of funding the health care system. They have not resorted to the kind of taxation that is done and continually piled on by this government.

[1735]

Another place that this government has gone to balance their budget is by raising taxes at B.C. Hydro. It is a scandal: $96 in ’14 and ’15, on average; $166 in ’15 and ’16; and $215 in years 2016 and ’17. The total, just from hydro — on average, to the average working person in this province — is $477. When you hike up taxes, hydro fees, and then insist that Hydro pays a dividend for you to balance your budget, you’re actually balancing your budget on the backs of working people.

The average family is paying $877 just in hydro and MSP premiums, and these two factors in someone’s life and in a family’s life are absolute necessities. They can’t choose not to get MSP premiums, and they cannot choose not to heat their homes.

Not only do you have the raising of taxes on the average person, you have a litany of overruns in infrastructure programs, projects that require money in the budget
[ Page 4742 ]
to service the debt. This government overran the convention centre by $341 million. To put that in context, the federal government is spending $65 million to join a war, and we have spent $341 million in the convention centre overrun and $414 million on an overrun on a roof for B.C. Place.

It never stops. You have a $1.8 billion overrun on the Port Mann Bridge — $1.8 billion overrun on the Port Mann Bridge.

Interjections.

S. Hammell: Your overrun went to $1.8 billion. There was a $469 million overrun on the South Perimeter Road. These overruns cost each and every one of my constituents, as we all pay the cost of the government servicing this debt.

This government also in its throne speech talked about growth. We should choose growth or decline. “If we choose to do nothing, to maintain the status quo, we will have chosen decline.” Amazing concept. Nothing stays the same. Nothing stays the same. To follow up with, “We have to choose growth,” makes one want to ask: “So how’s it working for you? How’s it going? How is it doing, managing to grow?”

If we look at the jobs record: stagnant growth, absolutely stagnant growth. B.C. is second to last in private sector growth since the Premier launched her jobs plan in September 2011 — last. In 35 months we’ve gained just 2,800 private sector jobs, 0.2 percent, where the population has increased 123,500, or 3.3 percent. Now, I’m quoting StatsCan for August 2014. Maybe in September we have managed to come out of stagnant growth into some other kind.

Not only do we have stagnant growth in jobs; we have stagnant wages. B.C. wage growth since the Premier launched her jobs plan has been eighth in the country. Our average weekly wage is $890, behind the Canadian average.

People are leaving the province. Since the Premier launched her jobs plan, 10,000 more Canadians have left for other provinces than have come to B.C.

Temporary foreign workers. There are almost 80,000 temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — larger than the population of Prince George.

[1740]

Zero job growth in 2013. B.C. lost 4,400 jobs in all of 2013, and in that same year 48,000 foreign workers were given temporary work permits in B.C.

Temporary foreign workers will build our LNG industry. The Liberal government signed a memorandum of understanding with China to facilitate the entry of foreign workers in B.C.

Ferries built in Portland. Workers in Portland, not in B.C., benefiting from the B.C. ferry contracts. The Liberals should have had a plan in place to ensure that that kind of contract, that kind of job creation, remained here in B.C. and benefited the future by building a B.C. shipbuilding industry.

Hydro rates are hammering B.C. industry. B.C.’s pulp and paper mills, chemical plants, cement plants and metal mines are saying that B.C.’s historical competitive advantage of low energy prices has evaporated over the past five years and is only going to get worse.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I have to ask again: how’s it working? How’s it working for you? I mean, we’re hard on growth. If we don’t grow, we’re going to decline, and I just have to ask: how’s it working?

On Monday, October 6 — if we even turn and look at forestry — Western Forest Products announced the consolidation of its Vancouver Island mills, which will include the permanent closure of one of its two Nanaimo sawmills, the downtown Nanaimo sawmill division.

In 2011 Premier Clark showed up for a photo op at Western Forest Products’ Nanaimo operations and proclaimed that it’s companies like Western Forest Products that have shown that B.C. has what it takes. Then one of the mills was promptly closed — the closure of another mill that will kill B.C. jobs, lead to more raw log exports and also hurt the pulp industry, which relies on the fibre from sawmilling.

If you take a look at raw log exports in 2013, a record year, B.C. exported 6.7 million cubic metres, or 17 percent more than in 2012. In 2014 we’re on track to do better. We will send more raw logs out and break that record again. Up to July 14, 2014, B.C. has already exported 3.8 million cubic metres, 1 percent ahead of the time last year.

There was a policy change, but it obviously has had no effect to limit raw log exports. These changes increased the export fee by a token amount but allowed logs from western and northern Vancouver Island and the coast to be automatically exported. David Gray, a longtime member of timber export advisory committee, resigned in protest, saying that changes to export rules will only make the problem worse.

I mean, how’s it going? I have to ask. How’s it going? How’s it working for you?

We can also take a look at the mines. The mining comments have to be the best there are, because the B.C. jobs plan — and in fact I think, if I recall correctly, it was embedded in the throne speech previous to this one — commits, and we all have to hear this, to enabling the opening of eight new mines and expanding nine mines more by 2015.

The jobs plan commits to opening eight new mines and expanding nine by 2015. So far, two mines have opened, but now three have closed, and one more is delayed indefinitely. So I have to ask: how’s it working? How’s it working for you?

[1745]

In Tumbler Ridge four major coal mines have closed or plan to close, putting over 1,000 people out of work. Once Anglo American’s Trend mine is put into care-and-maintenance mode, the only mine in Tumbler Ridge that is actively mining coal will be HD Mining’s underground Murray River coal mine, which is doing test drilling using temporary foreign workers from China. How’s that working for you? How’s that working for the ordinary families of British Columbia?

Walter Energy closed the Wolverine coal mine in Tumbler Ridge. That’s a loss of 415 jobs. Walter Energy also closed the Brazion mine, laying off 300 more people. Anglo American plans to shutter the Trend mine by Christmas, putting another 300 people out of work. Teck Resources has delayed in restarting its Quintette mine, which has been closed since 2000.

Nine…. No, eight new mines — I exaggerate. Eight new mines and expanding nine more — good luck on that — by 2015. That’s around the corner. I have to say: how is it working for you? And how is it working for regular…? I’m telling you, it’s fine…. If the Minister of Mines thinks this is good — that you’ve lost 1,000 jobs — I just have to say: how’s it working for you?

You make outlandish, exaggerated promises, and then when they come home to roost, you find it uncomfortable.

B.C. has nearly 80,000 temporary foreign workers, a population larger than Chilliwack or Prince George. B.C. has about 150,000 people looking for work, including 42,000 young people. B.C. lost 4,400 jobs in 2013 overall but issued 48,000 foreign worker permits.

Hey, we’re just going over the record. I mean, get up and defend the record. I’m sure you can find the odd problem here and there.

The other thing that I think is actually quite horrific was, in fact, the mining disaster at the Mount Polley mine. The problem with it is that by deregulating and moving away from consistent and appropriate oversight, not only has the mine disaster hurt the people in the area, but it put a chill on the whole mining industry. It doesn’t bode well for having people’s support and having a good, strong, healthy mining industry. We saw the stocks in the mining companies in British Columbia plunge after that disaster.

We still don’t have a good explanation of what happened. There are small business people who lost everything. The water is not safe to drink, and we don’t have a straight explanation about the investigation. Despite all the talk of enforcement and regulations, there was a catastrophe at that mine due to a lack of regulation and oversight.

Actually, the amazing part of all this is that this government bragged in the previous throne speech about how much red tape and deregulation they had gone in and created since 2001. This has not been good for British Columbia. It has not been good for the mining industry. Again, in terms of growth, I have to ask how it’s working for you. Lowering inspection standards and providing less enforcement has resulted in this disaster and has undermined the confidence in mining in British Columbia. All of us would say that’s a tragedy.

[1750]

I’d like to end up on the LNG, because the LNG is a constant theme through this. The B.C. Liberals based their 2013 election campaign on wild promises that the provincial windfall from an LNG industry would wipe out B.C.’s $60 billion debt, a debt that’s still growing; reduce or eliminate the sales tax; fund enhanced government programs generating $1 trillion in economic activity; fill a $100 billion prosperity fund; and create as many as 100,000 jobs. B.C. would have one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and five LNG plants in operation by 2020.

My goodness. How’s that working for you? Wild promises, desperate risk-taking and all in on one hand. These wild promises sent a clear message to potential investors that the Liberal government would become desperate for a deal, putting British Columbia in a weaker bargaining position and threatening our ability to ensure a fair return for the province.

The Liberal government has now begun to scale back the LNG promises in an attempt to reduce expectations. High expectations, and now we try to reduce them. Since the election, they have called their LNG promises…. What were those promises again? To reduce the debt, eliminate the sales tax, fund entrenched programs, generate $1 trillion in economic activity, fill a $100 billion prosperity fund and create as many as 100,000 jobs. That was the promise, but they now call those promises merely aspirational. They were just kind of aspirational thoughts. They were aspiring to do all this.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Yeah, they were just thinking out loud, right? Like, you know: “Whatever. We’ll just kind of tone it down.”

In this throne speech, the LNG promises that the Premier has repeated relentlessly for three years were completely absent. Hey, there was not a promise of a $60 billion reduction in debt. There wasn’t the promise to reduce or eliminate the sales tax. It’s not gone, and there’s no sign that it’s going to go soon. There’s no description now to generate $1 trillion in economic activity or to fill a $100 billion prosperity fund. None of these are going to happen. They’re just, as we now call them, aspirational. The speech says: “This is a chance, not a windfall.” We don’t have a windfall now. There’s just a chance we will have some prosperity.

According to a senior government source, the province has dialled back its LNG revenue expectations, and it’s
[ Page 4744 ]
also trying to find ways to relax environmental codes of practice that would add to the cost of doing business in the province for the LNG industry.

My father was a wise, wise man. He didn’t quite say it like this. He actually said the negative, but in this House I want to put it into the positive. “You’re always straight with your friends. If you are loose with the facts to your friends or mislead them for personal advantage,” he would say, “in fact they’re not your friends, because you don’t treat friends like that.”

I think the promises around the LNG and many of the promises of this government walk close to that line. They’re not in fact accurate. They’ve taken a notion and exaggerated it to the extent where it is really hard to take the Premier at her word anymore. She knows what to say, but she does what she wants.

[1755]

She’s obviously good at figuring out what people want to hear, but then she’s not delivering. My response to the throne is: I hope that when we go to make outrageous claims again, such as a debt-free B.C. — I could go through the myriad of promises again — we do it with a more honest and straightforward presentation.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, colleagues in this House, thank you for this opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne, which lays out a vision for British Columbia which is appropriate to uncertain and very competitive times.

Earlier in the debate on this speech the opposing member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head castigated us for lacking vision, for ignoring global warming, for bowing to perceived investor demands on LNG taxation, which he suspects is a tax law being written by the prospective investor and not by the government acting in the public interest, and declaring that, in fact, it is all quite pointless since the LNG ship has sailed, leaving us standing on the dock.

He proposed an alternative, more prosperous, more feasible, more sustainable future based on green industry producing low-cost green energy. He moved an amendment to the throne speech that we accept responsibility for developing our future in a responsible manner, not putting all of our eggs in the LNG basket.

He asked us to diversify, and on that last point, at last, he made a point on which we could all agree. But I would respond that we are already diversified sector by sector. Under the leadership of this government, we have also diversified our markets geographically. The Premier has personally sought customers in India, China, Korea, Japan and the Philippines, and if she’s not in this House, odds are that she’s out there somewhere door-knocking.

Interjection.

R. Sultan: I see the former Leader of the Opposition nodding vigorously.

Some say the Premier should sit at her desk in this Legislature listening to criticism hour after hour. I say it’s more productive that she work at filling British Columbia’s order book abroad.

Much of the throne speech was focused on LNG. Why is LNG important? Three factors must be considered. Firstly, the government is facing up to the reality, which they point out in the Speech from the Throne, of a growing surplus of low-cost energy supply in the United States, which has efficient, low-cost electrical energy available on a national grid, unlike Canada, and a growing surplus of exportable crude oil, so much so that the United States is breaking its historic reliance on the war-torn Middle East.

Furthermore, through innovations and squeezing more natural gas from formations deep in the earth, low-cost energy is now available in gaseous form in unprecedented volumes. The traditional model of energy supply has been disrupted.

As the throne speech candidly pointed out, one of the large cash withdrawal machines, what I might call the ATM, up there in the Peace River, where my colleague on my left holds forth…. On this ATM machine, which B.C. has relied upon for years with natural gas royalties, B.C. is no longer assured of export growth in North America.

[1800]

We must geographically diversify beyond North America simply to sustain the revenue stream and the government services that depend on it. This is where LNG fits in.

The second point. We also freely admit that others — starting with the Americans, closely followed by the Australians and many others — are ahead of us in terms of installed infrastructure, in terms of experienced labour force, in terms of established logistics networks built and already paid for. We are very much playing a catch-up game.

Third point. There is serious new competition right next door. Alaska is developing North Slope gas supplies as a by-product of conventional oil production — no need to frack, no need to negotiate a pipeline right-of-way 800 miles long. It already exists, bringing oil from the North Slope to ice-free Valdez. On Prince William Sound there’s lots of space to build however many liquefaction trains the LNG market might sustain. The state of Alaska isn’t too worried about LNG tax structures. It owns 25 percent of the project.

The six, only six, organizations representing all of the Alaskan aboriginals are having their interests looked after and are strongly supportive — how novel, how refreshing. This is the competition.

What this all means is that British Columbia faces a tough scrap in this LNG marketplace. But we have several important advantages.

Let’s start with political stability and reliability. How would you feel today if your economy was reliant upon
[ Page 4745 ]
Russian gas transported to you through a pipeline in the Ukraine? Second advantage. Proximity to key markets, most obviously Japan, which is still in the process of replacing the one-third of its electrical energy supply which was previously based on nuclear. Thirdly, immense natural gas resources in the Peace River country — relatively cheap to drill and rich in the by-product of valuable natural gas liquid. Fourthly, companies well versed in the natural gas engineering and production business. We’ve been in this game for many decades already.

Finally, diversity. If B.C. is advised not to have all its eggs in the LNG basket, neither do other national economies want all of their growing demands for energy for LNG reliant upon only one or two suppliers. There’s room for B.C. in the energy supply portfolio.

For example, we are pleased to learn of the Fortis corporation’s expansion of its LNG facility in the Tilbury industrial district of Delta. The plant is already in operation. Fortis plans to sell its larger volume of LNG output in Hawaii and on the west coast of the United States. WestPac of Los Angeles, an offtake partner, has applied for NEB permission to export three million tonnes of LNG per year from Tilbury to Asia, South America and the United States.

Heavy-duty automotive customers, such as Vedder and Arrow Transportation, already purchase LNG from the existing Tilbury facility. Curiously, the town of Inuvik, in the Northwest Territories, offsets its diesel fuel utility operations cost by using LNG transported from Tilbury today.

Fortis points out the advantages of LNG as a transportation fuel. Natural gas fuel costs have historically been 25 to 40 percent less than diesel. Greenhouse gas emissions are 20 to 30 percent lower. Natural gas for transportation helps achieve B.C.’s objectives under the Clean Energy Act. And it seems natural gas engines are even quieter in the diesel mode than diesel fuel.

As our government continues to pursue the LNG opportunity, I think it’s important that we are all realistic about what we can expect and what prospective investors can achieve. In the world of resources we are price-takers, not price-makers.

[1805]

Members opposite are inclined to say that we seem to be altogether too submissive in our proposed system of taxation, that we are too submissive to giant offshore petroleum organizations who dictate terms harshly.

I have to tell the House that what is harsh is not the giant offshore petroleum organizations. What is harsh is the marketplace. We are either competitive, or we are not. For those who have not experienced life in a market environment, it may seem repugnant to have terms and conditions specified beyond our control, but that is the nature of global enterprise.

We must compete on the basis of having low-cost production, on-time and on-budget project management, efficient transportation, lean administration, competitive workers and smart negotiation. We have no monopoly to determine what the laid-down price of LNG should be — for example, f.o.b. Shanghai. The market will give us that price signal readily enough. Add up the numbers, and we are either in the game, or we’re not in the game. It’s as simple as that.

I believe our natural advantages — our vast supply, our smart engineering, our competent project management, our productive labour and our marketing skills — will allow B.C. to be a significant player in the vast emerging LNG global marketplace. I have confidence in our prospective investors, in our government officials and in our innate abilities to get the job done.

But let us be under no illusions. If we engage in endless consultation and debate, many talked-about projects won’t be there at the finish line. I look forward to seeing us sprinting at the tape, equal to any competitor.

A. Dix: It’s always an honour to rise in this House and respond to the statement of the government’s intention, the Speech from the Throne, and to represent my constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway.

All members, I think, speak in this debate about the qualities of their constituencies. In the past number of years, as I’ve had the opportunity previously of being Leader of the Opposition, I got an opportunity to visit constituencies of almost all of the members in this House — I suspect, in my time as Leader of the Opposition, all of them. I began to understand, with that sort of comprehensive view of them, absolutely, all of them — especially the members’ opposite.

I think extraordinary capacity for innovation and talent and generosity exists in every part of British Columbia from the member’s riding in West Vancouver to the member’s riding in Fort St. John. It’s a particular honour, though, for me to represent a riding that I think is not just one of the most diverse electoral areas in British Columbia or in Canada but perhaps one of the most diverse and remarkable in the entire world.

We have a community in my community where 48 percent of my constituents speak English at home. People have come from all over the world. You see it at Windermere high school and at Gladstone high school, schools that work in such a way that one wouldn’t see anywhere else on earth, and they do in Vancouver-Kingsway. It’s a source of pride.

One of the interesting things in the place I’ll start in addressing the Speech from the Throne this evening….

I think I’ve got 20 minutes. I’m sure, with unanimous consent, I could go longer tonight. I’m not pessimistic like the members opposite. I’m optimistic. I’m hopeful and full of joy, especially as we begin this legislative session.

[1810]

One of the things that they, of course, are most in-
[ Page 4746 ]
terested in, when I attend Gladstone and Windermere, because of my own interest in history, is a discussion of history. I think it’s important to learn the lessons of history. The throne speech began with a discussion of 1914, and it affected, of course, the families, I suspect, of every member of the Legislature in some ways.

Going back, my grandfather fought at Gallipoli. He had gone to Australia to start a new life in 1913 and ended up at Gallipoli, surely an event that defined the 20th century in a way that, I think, in this 100th-year anniversary of the start of the war — that war to end all wars — we should reflect upon and understand.

I was, frankly, surprised and disappointed to read the analysis that apparently was approved by the cabinet of this province and the government of this province. Let me read it to you, because it seems unbelievable that a throne speech that went through more than half a draft could include this level of analysis.

It says here: “The lessons of 1914 remain relevant today.” Indeed, they do. In some ways, what I was talking about…. Those schools in my constituency respond to that, people coming from all over the world, speaking different languages and working together — one of the challenges, surely, of 1914 and the rise of nationalism in that time, which was a huge driver of that war.

Here’s what the throne speech says: “Shortsighted decisions led to a ruinous war. After the war more shortsighted decisions led to economic policies that led to European decline and the eventual emergence of North America.” Let me repeat that. “Shortsighted decisions led to a ruinous war. After the war more shortsighted decisions led to economic policies that led to European decline and the eventual emergence of North America.”

Well, to describe that as facile would be generous. To describe that as an embarrassment to the government of British Columbia, given the seriousness of what we’re talking about, of that period…. That’s how they describe the rise of fascism in Europe. They claim the emergence of North America…. When was that? That was after a Second World War that the world was submitted to.

These are serious issues. The whole purpose of this opening section of the throne speech is that we learn the lessons of history, and they apparently have learned nothing. It is an embarrassment. That period in history — one might suspect there are hundreds of thousands of books written about it.

I think that the government, unfortunately, in this throne speech, which was clearly not written with very much seriousness or time…. The government members get up and speak in its favour. Can you believe that such a section on such a subject, which so many Canadians have sacrificed over, is allowed to be in the throne speech?

I think the lesson, perhaps, is that we do have to understand. We do have to reflect on the lessons of history, what they tell us about our societies, what they tell us about what we need to do, both recent history and past history.

But when you say and you analyze that history and that time in this year when I think so many Canadians who were affected in their families and so many people around the world are reflecting on the events 100 years ago and what they meant for us and for Canada, I think it’s fair to say that, hopefully, all members of the House will re-read that and say: “That is not good enough. That’s not how we want to see history reflected in this House.”

It reflects badly on the entire government — not just the government; members of the Legislature — that that kind of analysis goes forward. Indeed, we do have to learn the lessons of history, and it seems to me that the government fails to do that.

My colleague from West Vancouver talked about the LNG issue. He suggested that the opposition was arguing that the government was being submissive. In fact, by his own test — by his own test — the government has failed.

It was the government, not the opposition, that promised a regime in place by last year to demonstrate stability. They are ten months late, and they are talking about efficiency and stability and why they are going to win the race to LNG. They didn’t deliver on the very basis that they’re talking about.

[1815]

In fact, clearly, they view the LNG issue strictly in political terms, because it requires work. Where does it require work? It requires work when you make commitments in China, in Japan…. I mention Japan because even though it’s a critical market for LNG and this throne speech is supposed to be all about LNG, Japan is missing from the throne speech. I mention it in passing, though, because I think it’s an important question. Around the world what you do, I think, the responsibility of government, is to establish a regulatory regime that will maximize benefits to the province of British Columbia. That is what you want to do and, at the same time, ensure that the economic development promised goes forward.

Instead, what we have is a government that says it’s its number one priority, that puts it on the side of a bus that it’s its number one priority, that brags it’s its number one priority. But this isn’t about an announcement. This isn’t about advertising. This is about actually delivering. When you tell the world you’re going to have a tax regime in place by the end of last year and you don’t deliver, that sends a pretty good message that (a) you’re ready to be rolled and (b) you don’t follow through on your commitments.

Interjection.

A. Dix: It’s an easier test for the Minister of Education. I’m only giving him two choices today. In fact, (c), of course — the Minister of Education inspires me — is all of the above.

That’s the first set of things. It’s the work. It is all right to have the slogans. We all understand the government
[ Page 4747 ]
has the slogans. If they run out of slogans, they’ll just find more slogans. I understand that. But when it comes to this issue of LNG, the responsibility on the provincial government, surely, is threefold.

One is delivering the tax regime on time, when you said you would, and making sure that it meets the goals of the province.

Two is making sure that you have the skilled labour available. As the member will know, and as members around the House will know, the failure of the government to address skills training for a decade, their dismantling of the system, has left us ill-prepared for that, such that the government today is vulnerable in the labour market. The projects are vulnerable in the labour market. Worse than that, British Columbians will not win the benefits to the extent they should, should development occur.

Failed on No. 1 by their own test. Failed on No. 2 by their test.

Of course, No. 3 — because we have responsibility in British Columbia, in general, for environmental policies — is to ensure that the government’s own obligations around climate change, around the environment, which has long-term economic implications to the entire province, are maintained.

So it’s not about slogans. It’s not about going door to door. It’s about saying what you’re going to do, being clear about what you’re going to do and doing the hard work of governing. They know what to say, but they won’t follow through. They don’t do the hard work about following through. The result of that is that all of this discussion of LNG and its benefits for British Columbia has been threatened by, in fact, the government itself — its failure to deliver on the fundamentals that are required to make such a project a success.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I try to be fair to the government. Everybody knows that.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Absolutely. I always try to be fair to the government. My colleague, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, will learn that as past Ministers of Health have. I always try to be fair to the government in my role as a critic of their performance.

But let’s face it. By their own standards, so far, on this file that they call the number one file facing the province of British Columbia, they haven’t met the test. They haven’t learned the lessons of history. They haven’t met the test. We see this in other areas.

I am blessed, hon. Speaker. I am sure he came into the House because he knew that I was going to speaking for a few minutes — my colleague the member for Kootenay East. The minister responsible for B.C. Hydro has made a special visit for this occasion. I am, in fact, delighted to see him across from me in the House. I am acknowledging his presence here.

[1820]

He will know that the government, on power issues in the first decade of this century, engaged in a series of policies that have been extraordinarily costly to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

How costly? In fact, the ratepayers of British Columbia are going to be paying 28 percent rate increases over the next few years as the direct result of government policy. They, in fact, engaged in a private power agenda that, everybody knows, meant that we bought high and are being forced to sell low.

Who pays for it? Not the government of British Columbia. They keep insisting that Hydro sends over the dividend. They keep hoping that Hydro sends over the dividend. What they know….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, after the northwest transmission line, after B.C. Place Stadium, how can they continue on with a straight face with such a suggestion?

The reality is they’ll remember…. The voters of B.C. will remember, during the election campaign, how much these guys over here — because they’re mostly guys — said the northwest transmission line would cost, and how much, a few weeks after the election, we found out it actually did cost. Their credible….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health is celebrating their utter failure to be straightforward with the voters of British Columbia on a key infrastructure issue in British Columbia. It was hundreds of millions of dollars more than they said it was a few weeks earlier. No lessons to give. But what it shows is that the government on energy policy has consistently avoided scrutiny, the scrutiny of the BCUC. They have consistently avoided scrutiny. It’s wonderful, and for people listening at home, they will understand that I have got the government’s attention.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I have got the government’s attention on these key points. They are, in fact, embarrassed by the fact that they use legislation to avoid the scrutiny of the B.C. Utilities Commission, and their policies have been an utter failure on energy over the last five years such that the whole, entire population — every ratepayer, every business, every small business — will have to pay job-killing 28 percent
[ Page 4748 ]
rate increases in British Columbia, job-killing rate increases in British Columbia, as a direct result.

What do they do now? What lesson did they learn from history, having avoided BCUC regulation, having said: “We know best. We don’t have to go before the BCUC. We’ll bring in legislation to avoid that regulation in the House”? That’s what they said. What lesson have they learned from this? “Well, let’s do it again. Let’s again, on the issue of Site C, avoid BCUC regulation.”

This is their answer. They won’t do the homework. They won’t meet the test. They won’t provide the proof. They won’t provide the evidence. They won’t follow the evidence. Whenever they get in trouble, they pass legislation to evade the law. That is their approach to energy policy, and the result of it is that British Columbians, the people living in every one of the 85 communities, even in Kamloops north, will be paying rate increases in B.C. Hydro territory that are substantial — 28 percent increases as a direct result of this government’s failed policies.

This is, for our economy, a disaster. To have wasted the heritage resource of this province in this way is a disaster. They did it. They should have known better. They should have obeyed the rules and proven their case before the BCUC. They didn’t want to do it, and now all of us, everybody across British Columbia who is a shareholder, has to pay the price for this negligence, this incompetence that we’ve seen from the B.C. Liberal government.

Now, I suggested earlier that I seek unanimous consent to continue late into the evening and regale my colleagues on the government side. The suggestion was made by the Minister of Health that I might not receive unanimous consent. I find that hard to believe because, as the Minister of Health will know, as a former leader, I am now a statesman.

However, hon. Speaker, with that, I will move adjournment of the debate.

A. Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Madame Speaker, regrettably, somewhat, I move the House now adjourn.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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