2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: In the precinct today are a number of people who are representatives from the Automotive Industries Association of Canada — Greg Sims, the executive director, and Jason Kerr, the director of government relations; also, Gary Hoover, director of the Western Canada Tire Dealers; Dave Deley, the general manager of store operations with Fountain Tire; Michael Rutherford, the director of business development for O.K. Tire; and Kim Reynhoudt from Canadian Tire based here in Victoria.

They are in the precincts today and are having meetings and had meetings with myself and meetings with the government side. They’re talking about road safety and the safety of all of us as we drive around this province, and they’re talking about the importance of small business in our communities.

I know that we all have the opportunity to meet with them this evening. They are hosting a reception for all members who wish to join. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

[1335]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
INCOME TAX ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: With the introduction of balanced budget 2014-2015 earlier this year, the government revealed its intention to introduce a new tiered income tax that would be applicable to the LNG sector.

We also at that time pledged to introduce legislation containing the details of that tax by October. It is October, and this bill, No. 6, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, is provided for in the legislation that I’ve tabled today and also amends the Income Tax Act to implement a corporate income tax natural gas tax credit.

The LNG income tax will apply to the net income from liquefaction activities at LNG facilities in British Columbia. The tax rate on net income will be 3.5 percent, effective for taxation years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. During the period when net operating losses and the capital investment are being deducted, a tax rate of 1.5 percent will apply and is creditable against the 3.5 percent rate.

In 2037 the LNG income tax rate will increase to 5 percent. This ensures that proponents have time to build a strong foundation in the communities in which they operate before the full extent of the taxes apply. It also ensures guaranteed revenue flow for the next generation of British Columbians.

Also effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, the natural gas tax credit under the Income Tax Act provides a non-refundable credit based on the cost of natural gas owned by a corporation at the inlet to an LNG facility in British Columbia. The tax credit can be used to reduce the effective British Columbia corporate income tax rate to as low as 8 percent.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 6, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax 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.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3, Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

(continued)

L. Krog: I am delighted to see so many members in the chamber who want to debate Bill 3. It’s always a flattering thing when the members take such an interest in the work before them.

You know, a very wise judge quoted a senior Vancouver counsel to me many years ago, the late Ralph Long, who once said that a poor settlement was better than a good lawsuit any day. What we’re really dealing with here in Bill 3 is essentially, arguably, a poor settlement.

[1340]

In this case the defendant is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and several John Does and ABC contractors. So we’re not the plaintiff in this proceeding, and that, of course, raises some issues.
[ Page 4768 ]

The CP Rail is willing to go away for $19 million. Essentially, what that means is they will extinguish their rights to both the stone and timber under several thousands of hectares of land as set out in the schedule to the action, which was filed under registry No. S134003 in the Vancouver registry back on May 30, 2013. The rights to those lands, in terms of stone and timber rights, will be gone.

Now, that may in fact be a good deal for the province of British Columbia. It may save a great deal of litigation costs, and it may indeed potentially bring, could bring, some revenue to the province, actually. But that’s not the intent of the bill, which is fairly clear in a careful reading.

The minister hasn’t had time to or chosen to — whatever the case may be — explain to the House the background that may lie with this fully in a way that I’m sure is going to come out during the course of committee stage. I don’t mean that as a criticism. All I am saying is in a practical way, we’re being asked to essentially approve a bill which, obviously, unlike many pieces of legislation that come before this House, actually has a significant history behind it, and that history is incredibly important.

The opposition is going to want to know, legitimately — I’m sure the minister’s folks are listening carefully to every word I have to say — what sort of evaluations were done to determine whether or not the $19 million is an appropriate settlement sum; whether or not the rights that are being purchased, if you will, are in fact worth that much money or if there is a potentially larger claim; and if it is good benefit for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Because what is also clear, as I said earlier this morning before lunch, is that some British Columbians in particular are going to benefit significantly as a result of this bill.

The stone and timber rights that other private land owners have purchased over time quite specifically, in addition to purchasing what is referred to in the litigation itself as essentially surface rights…. Those owners have paid more. Owners under this bill will get the benefit of those rights being forgiven — well, literally gifted to them — by the province of British Columbia, whereas others have paid significant sums of money.

The opposition’s understanding is…. I can’t guarantee that these figures are accurate, but one landowner in the Kootenays paid $250,000 to have the stone and timber reservation removed on a 160-acre plot. On a small, 3.1-acre lot in the Kootenay Land District a real estate agent brought the reservation from CPR For $10,000. We have another situation where it was part of a purchase of 379 acres, the subsurface rights. That was $1 million.

Obviously, some of the land involved in this may be productive, some of it may be covered with timber, or some of it may have precious little stone on it, but we don’t know that. We haven’t heard the minister address that in his opening remarks with the introduction of this bill or his comments in second reading.

There is a great deal that the opposition doesn’t know and, frankly, that the opposition needs to know, but most importantly, we are simply the voices of the people of British Columbia here. The people of British Columbia deserve to know why their government is not simply settling this claim and taking an assignment of all of the rights that the CPR would have and then determining, once having secured those rights, what is an appropriate disposition of those rights with respect to those lands that are marked as private under this, because we’re talking about a great deal of real estate.

My understanding is that we’re talking about several thousands of hectares of land, and surely it behooves the Crown to do the best that it can. We hear over and over again in this chamber that the government cannot afford, for instance, to stop the clawback of child support to parents on social assistance — $17 million, less than the total sum being paid out for this.

[1345]

We hear over and over again: “We can’t possibly afford to do that because, after all, the budget has to be balanced under all circumstances.” Yet to the hungry children of British Columbia quite literally we say: “Sorry, you’re not a priority.” But to landowners in the interior, who may be fine and deserving and upright citizens and have contributed to the province in ways that we can’t even imagine, nevertheless, we say: “We’re prepared to gift to you potentially millions of dollars of rights with respect to stone and timber on your property.”

I have to say — I hope the minister is going to be able to answer these questions when it comes to committee stage — I’d like to hear from the minister what possible justification a government has that on one hand says to the poor and vulnerable, “Sorry, we can’t help you,” but says to those who already own real estate…. Some of these owners may well be extremely wealthy British Columbians, may in fact own thousands of hectares of this land, but we don’t know that yet.

On one hand you say to them: “We’re prepared to give you Christmas early this year, in October.” But to the children of the province who live in circumstances which everyone, I’m sure, would agree must be pretty grim — if your parent or parents are on social assistance — you’re prepared to say: “Sorry. Tough luck. No money in the kitty. You’re on your own.”

Those are what we’re supposed to deal with in this chamber, the balances here. I look forward to hearing from this minister, who I believe to be a man of good conscience, how he explains just the single juxtaposition I have raised here today, which is between the poor children of this of province and property owners who will get the benefit of this bill.

What possible justification is there for that? How can you possibly explain this away? Wouldn’t it make more sense to, in fact, take the rights, dispose of them to the private property owners, even at a discounted rate, and then take that money and allow the parents of this prov-
[ Page 4769 ]
ince whose children live in poverty to keep the child support that the other parents are legally obligated to pay? Not an unreasonable question. I look forward to that minister’s explanation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House today joining with us is my good friend, an outstanding community leader, ex-president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, with stellar community service. Surjit Singh Gill is here with us. Along with him are his brother Amrit Singh Gill and Professor Devinder Singh Suner. Also joining with them is my brother-in-law from Stockton, California, Jagmohan Singh Badyal. He’s here with us. Please help me welcome them to this wonderful House.

Debate Continued

B. Routley: I, too, would like to add my voice to the discussion about Bill 3. While there is much that we do not know about this bill — I look forward to the opportunity that we’re going to have tomorrow to have a more fulsome briefing on all of these issues — I am familiar from my past career with the problems that were created by certain actions on private land.

I’ll just give you a few of the examples of those. One was the private lands that were held by companies such as Pacific Forest Products, back when they still existed, in the forests of British Columbia. It was primarily forested land, and the granting of rights to the railway, the old E&N land grant…. The purpose was to create the railway.

Well, today, as history has unfolded, we no longer have a railway. I’m sure our forefathers, if they could have looked ahead…. Of course, at the time they were just simply focused on opening up this raw land to business opportunities, and I think we can really reflect on that when we’re thinking about the relationship to what was then raw land and look at what’s going on now on Vancouver Island.

[1350]

Now we’ve got road corridors, all kinds of infrastructure and development. I’m certain, though, that we would have said, if we were there at the time that the language was being drafted: “Not only are you going to be granted this land for the building of the railway, but we want you to ensure its upkeep and that it’s maintained.”

I wish, personally, that the forefathers had seen the need to have a clause in there that said that if there’s no longer an established railway and a corridor linking communities on Vancouver Island, we would reserve our right to take that land back. Unfortunately, we’re benefiting from the hindsight of seeing what has actually happened since that time. Again, I’m sure our forefathers couldn’t have imagined a day such as we’re actually living in today.

I do understand that this bill is about an action taken by Canadian Pacific Railway. The CPR was suing the province of British Columbia, and I understand that this is in effect a settlement agreement. This is about lands in the Kootenays, in the Okanagan regions. These are about rights that were held on stone and timber. Well, those are similar kinds of rights that were handed back in the same era of time on Vancouver Island. There was stone. There were timber rights. It was exploited.

I might add that they carved off a forest company called Pacific Forest Products. I’m sure that was part of the CP Rail, although don’t hold me to that. I don’t have the time to research the history of what went on back in the spinning off of forest companies from railways. I do know that Pacific Forest Products was somehow related and had the benefit of all of those lands, and they did eventually sell out those lands.

The areas on southern Vancouver Island all the way from Sooke right up over the San Juan used to be the dividing line between the lands in southern Vancouver Island and leading up to the Pacific lands in the Cowichan region. So it was a large, huge tract of land — all private lands. It was not logged sustainably, and that was one of the downsides. You would have thought that people were going to log it in a sustainable manner. They didn’t log it in a sustainable manner. In fact, I got to be there when they went from a 300-man crew down to a 100-man crew working for Pacific Forest Products in Sooke.

I still recall the day that I got called out to the camp to meet with the manager. They were downsizing from 100 men down to 25. They made that announcement, and they said: “We’re going down to 25 men so that we can continue on into the next century.” Well, a century, it turned out, was only a year away. A year later the rest of that Pacific Forest Products crew was laid off. Those were folks that had worked on private land, thought they were working on it sustainably. In the end, basically all of the company crew was eliminated and replaced by a small group of contractors.

As a matter of fact, I might add that during that time I got to know Vince Ready on pretty well a first-name basis. Vince and I have been to many, many mediations and arbitrations over the private lands issues and the contracting out that went on during that time. In fact, it would take at least two hands to count the number of times I went before Ready over private lands.

I do understand that the government has found themselves in litigation. Obviously, I can’t second-guess, without having a briefing, exactly why they came to the conclusion that they needed to cut a deal for $19 million.
[ Page 4770 ]
Obviously, we’re going to have some thoughtful questions about how it became $19 million. Why wasn’t it $15 million or $10 million? What was the motivation? How did they come about those values? Who valued the timber? Who valued the stone that I’m sure was not all actually…?

[1355]

I mean, it wasn’t gold in them there hills, or I don’t think we’d be giving it away — getting it back for $19 million and then promptly turning around and giving it away.

It’s the giving it away part that really gives me pause, because as other speakers have mentioned, we’ve heard already from at least one person who has said: “Well, wait a minute. I paid good money for this value.” I often hear the folks from the other side talk about their free enterprise hearts and how they know all there is to know about business and that we just don’t get it. They try to tell us. And yet here the plan is to give it away.

We haven’t even got it yet, but as soon as we get it, we’re apparently going to give it away and not even recover a dollar. Yet other people have paid good value for the stone and timber. So I will be asking a lot of questions about why that’s the case and what the motivation is for that line of reasoning.

Obviously, the other issue that comes into play is First Nations rights. When you look at the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions about consultation…. Again, we’re turning back the clock in time and dealing with a matter that refers to 1892 to 1908. That was when the province was granting three historical railways — B.C. Southern Railway, Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Co…. That was the time that this was granted, these rights.

I’m sure there was some rationale behind it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t…. As one of my colleagues mentioned, there were a lot of decisions made over time. Whether it was B.C. Rail, the whole notion was to open up northern British Columbia, so I can understand that there were actions being taken.

I should pause there for a moment and caution today’s decision-makers on things like LNG. We have to think about the decisions that we’re making today, because look at the long-term ramifications they have. I’m sure we’re going to be talking about lands, whether they be private lands or Crown lands — all part of the manoeuvring that will go on with government looking at how to do something new with LNG.

Back to this decision to carve out a settlement. Again, I may in the end be supportive of the government’s notion of carving a settlement if I can be convinced that there were other legal matters, that they were convinced that there could have been even more cost to the province. Normally, my experience with lawyers in the past has been that lawyers will say: “You should cut this deal, pay the $19 million, because it could be twice that amount if we go to court and lose.” So I do understand the nuances and possibilities of dealing with a matter such as this.

I’m sure any reasoned person is going to say to themselves: “What the heck have these guys been doing all this time?” Since 1892 to 1908 somehow they missed out on the fact that there were people busy buying up land rights that happened to have their timber and all of their stone and who knows what other minerals under there. But gee whiz, they were busy doing something.

They didn’t have the time to pay any attention to the fact that somebody was actually harvesting timber or other minerals. Gee, they were just quite busy running their railway to have the time to worry about timber and stone, I guess. Now they’ve gotten around to it and decided in 2013, this says, to sue the B.C. government.

[1400]

There were probably some lawyers that had a real idea of how the province ought to pay and probably came forward, dug through the filing cabinet and found a few bits of timber rights and some old mineral rights and said: “Well, let’s go and take the government to task.” So here we are, dealing with this.

Some of the notes that you look at — you say to yourself: “Oh boy, what does this mean?” It says they’re going to extinguish all stone reservation interests. All stone reservation interests that are currently held by CPR are going to be extinguished. Then they’re going to grant…. “A historic grant of railway land that includes a stone reservation in respect of which the stone reservation interest is extinguished under subsection (1) must be read as if the stone reservation had not been included in the historic grant of railway land.”

Oh, here we are. Fun with words, hon. Speaker. I could use the “j” word, but I won’t go there. I won’t go there, not today. It’s too soon.

You look at the extinguishment of timber reservation rights. All timber reservation rights held by CPR are extinguished. So we’ve got a real deal here. We’re busy extinguishing rights. But just for greater certainty…. Again, I love these. You’ve got to love these lawyers and spin doctors who come up with this stuff. It’s just so much fun. I can honestly say that when I was younger, growing up, I never, ever envisioned the day I’d be having fun reading legislation and finding something humorous about it. But it really is quite fun and quite humorous if you’re in the right mood.

I’m in the “Settlement and extinguishment of claims.” What could be better than that, to have a clause that says: “(1) The payment of compensation by the government to CPR under the settlement agreement constitutes full and final settlement of all claims by CPR against any person, whether or not the person is named or described in the current action, in relation to any of the following matters: (a) a matter that is raised or referred to in the current action”?

My goodness. More about the stone reservation and the timber reservation. Claims by CPR under subsection (2) of this section and claims by CPR against any person in relation…. The lawyers really went to work.
[ Page 4771 ]

Then we get down to another one of my favourite kind of clauses. They’ve got section 7: “Certain actions and proceedings prohibited.” These are the things that are prohibited, and we can’t wait to hear the full explanation for this one: “A person has no right of action and must….”

No, this is a person. This includes pretty well everybody — not just British Columbia; anybody anywhere on the planet, I assume, and any new ones to come. If you’re a person, you have no right of any action and “must not commence or maintain an action or other proceeding against the government for compensation or damages in relation to the enactment of this Act.”

They’re going to enact an act to make sure that you as a person, anywhere where you are and where you live — that includes the folks up there — have no rights. None. Be certain of that. They’re extinguished as a result of the proceedings in this legislation.

You might ask, and you’d be right to ask…. Certainly, the opposition has an obligation to thoroughly question all of these matters and go through this with a fine-tooth comb.

It does trouble me that often we have these trial balloons land on our table and the government says: “Oh yeah, well, you guys should just run in here and support us, because we’ve got this $19 million lawsuit problem that we want to make go away, and it’ll all be good.” Apparently they’re going to get around to giving us a more fulsome and complete understanding of what this is all about, and the fine details.

I do want to go back to if you were one of the persons that had shelled out real cash — in some cases thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions of dollars — to buy timber and mineral rights from the railway.

[1405]

I don’t know why somebody in the railway didn’t have a department in charge of this, because they were obviously taking in some cash. Maybe they were too busy coupling and uncoupling trains to really worry about such matters. Maybe they were riding in the caboose. Somebody had to be on the last caboose. Whoever it was that was in charge obviously stopped paying attention for a while.

Now we’ve this legislation brought down, the heavy hammer here, that’s going to extinguish all of the rights of other persons, including those folks that might say: “Well, wait a minute. I want to be compensated because I paid good money, and now my neighbour gets this handed to him for free.” The province is just going to have this giveaway plan. This manna from heaven somehow comes floating down with this substantial gift — what I would call a substantial gift.

And again, there is this matter of: what about the First Nations right to be consulted?

You think about it. I know that in the time that I was representing people working on forested land, private lands, I saw the exploitation that went on — the hundreds of millions of dollars. Had our forefathers known what a tremendous asset that was in terms of the millions, if not billions, of dollars in timber rights that went down the road, out of those rights that were granted….

Basically, it was a free gift in return for what? Well, we got a railway. It wasn’t all that long. In a century or less the railway had come and gone. The trains are gone. They’ve stopped riding. I got to ride, by the way, when I first started here in 2009. I actually took the train home from Victoria. I’m glad I did that, because it was probably one of the last few rides on the train.

As we were going over the bridge at Niagara Creek, by Goldstream Park, the conductor had them stop the train on the trestle. I said: “Why are you doing that?” He said: “Because you’re on the train, and you’re asking me all these questions about the train.”

So he says: “I thought I’d want to stop here and let you just think about the fact that this trestle hasn’t had any work done on it for 50 years. You’re here riding across this trestle with us. Every time we go across this trestle, we think about whether or not it’s going to be our last, whether or not this trestle is going to really make it one more time.” Fifty years is a long time with not a lot of maintenance on the trestle.

When you think about these things…. They’re complex. I’m sure this is no different. I’m sure there’s a multitude of questions that we can get into, and we intend to be thoughtful about it. Again, I know that the minister works hard at these things, and his crew are usually very good at sitting down and giving us a briefing. Unfortunately, this time around we’re getting a briefing after we get to talk about it for a while.

We do get to express today, right now, our concerns about instruments that may validate certain rights for the government, but it also retroactively is giving a gift to certain parties who may or may not have known that they were going to be receiving this gift.

That in itself is a huge question. How many…? If some people knew that they needed to buy the timber and mineral rights, and other people bought land and they didn’t even know that somebody else owned their timber and their mineral rights…. Imagine you’re sitting in your lawn chair. One day a great big machine comes in and starts digging a hole, and they’re digging for mineral rights. I gather they’d be perfectly within their rights to do that.

Maybe that’s what happened. I don’t know. Maybe that’s what brought alarm bells to the government, and they’re going: “Oh my goodness, what have we got here?”

[1410]

Anyway, I think that’s pretty well it for me in terms of what I’ve got to say on this matter right now. I’m sure I could think of a few more things to chat about, but I’m not sure how relevant they would be. I’m sure the relevance will come with the full briefing.
[ Page 4772 ]

Again, I look forward to that briefing and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about this matter today.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite and the questions raised, and I look forward to addressing those during the committee stage of debate. I was going to make a comment around the relevance of some of the comments from the member opposite, questioning whether the comments he was really making were relevant or not. There is probably some debate over that. But I’m sure that in the fullness of time in the committee stage we’ll address the relevant questions that have been raised.

There has been quite a bit of comment around providing the appropriate briefing on this legislation. I just want to make it clear that we received a request for a briefing just yesterday on this. The lack of availability of the key staff didn’t give us the opportunity to provide the briefing right away. But we have organized an appropriate briefing for the members opposite. I look forward to doing that tomorrow, which I’m sure will help provide some clarity around some of the questions and comments that have been made.

Again, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate where we’ll be able to address those in detail. An important piece of legislation. The comments that were made around the necessity for it, too, we understand. We will look forward to addressing the specific comments around First Nations consultation, valuation — all of those points that have been raised.

With those comments, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the act be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

L. Reimer: Hon. Speaker, it’s an honour to rise in the House to respond in favour of last week’s throne speech and, in addition, to update you and the members of our House as representative of the best riding, Port Moody–Coquitlam. While the legal name of my riding is Port Moody–Coquitlam, it also includes the beautiful communities of Anmore and Belcarra.

Before I begin, I would like to thank a number of people who have supported my move to provincial politics and have allowed me the rewarding experience of serving others as MLA. They are my family — my wonderful husband, Les, who is now the official grocery shopper; our sons, Gord and Bill, who are now engaged and following both local and provincial matters; my wonderful mother, Norma; and my brother and his family — and my wonderful friends, who I do not see enough of but who are always there for me.

In addition, my ability to assist and represent others always depends on our staff, who keep our busy lives sane. I would like to thank my constituency assistants — Mary Sanzovo, Vicki Collins and Barbara Spitz — very much for the support they have provided me in our office.

My thanks also go to Isabel Acosta Sowerby, who is on maternity leave with her three young, wonderful boys, the newest a newborn named Azeff.

I’m not certain any of us expected our office to be as busy as it is. To my staff who support me all the time — my communications officer, Fatima Siddiqui; Stephanie Wray, my research officer; Suneil Karod, who takes good care of me as my legislative assistant here in Victoria — thank you to all. I wish I had more time to recognize the wonderful work you all do more often.

[1415]

The throne speech delivered last week reaffirms our clear direction in building a stronger economy, a stronger society and a stronger British Columbia. First, let me begin by echoing the remarks delivered by some of my colleagues that our country and our province are in an enviable position in the world. We are blessed with having one of the highest standards of living. We enjoy personal freedoms and liberties that others around the globe still dream of, and we live in a free, democratic society.

As British Columbians, we should never take these things for granted, and we must never forget the men and woman who fought valiantly in both world wars and on missions since for these freedoms and for our democracy. November 11 is Remembrance Day, and we shall never forget. This theme has resonated most especially with myself and the people of Port Moody–Coquitlam, as just last month we honoured a local fallen hero, Lieutenant McKnight, and hosted his current engineer cadet unit from North Vancouver. His original cadet unit served our country bravely during the First World War.

The actions of these heroes should serve as a constant reminder for us to learn from yesterday and to continuously strive towards the betterment of our province. This is why I fully support the Speech from the Throne. The throne speech reminds us that we can’t get anywhere if we do nothing. The status quo won’t serve us well.
[ Page 4773 ]

My community of Port Moody–Coquitlam is an example of this. I’m honoured to represent my constituents, and it is the people of these communities that keep it moving forward. There’s much to celebrate.

This past September I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the re-expansion of the Port Moody Arts Centre. The Centennial/Appleyard home was conjoined to the Port Moody Arts Centre via an atrium. It was an interesting process to watch as the home was placed on the property on a frame and then gracefully lowered so that its floors sit at the same level as the arts centre floors. This has allowed the expansion of programming, galleries and services for the community, while recognizing our heritage.

More recently I had the opportunity to celebrate the 30th anniversary of our local Eagle Ridge Hospital. The foundation there works really hard to ensure they have state-of-the-art medical equipment and programs and services for patients. They’ve been working hard to advocate for a much-needed expansion.

Mossom Creek Hatchery, which burned down last December, is in the process of being rebuilt thanks to our wonderful community and our local businesses and both civic and provincial governments, who all chipped in to move things forward. This new building, which is built with cement instead of wood for fire hazard reasons, will be a state-of-the-art hatchery on the beautiful Mossom Creek.

If status quo is not enough in our communities, then I ask: why should it be for government? How can it be when world markets are changing rapidly? How can status quo work in the global fight against climate change? We need in our world to utilize cleaner energy, and LNG will allow many who use coal the opportunity to be more environmentally responsible. An expanded economy will allow us to compete in rapidly changing times.

In order to grow and to move forward, our first order of business is to ensure that all British Columbians are equipped with the skills and training necessary for the future we envision. This is why our government is working hard to deliver on the B.C. jobs plan, our long-term strategy to secure a strong and prosperous economy for British Columbia now and for generations to come. It provides job stability and opportunity for families and communities throughout B.C.

Already steady progress has been made in achieving B.C.’s economic goals, and we’ll continue to seek new ways to grow our economy and support job creation. If we don’t seek these avenues, then how will we get where we want to go? If we don’t push forward with a plan, how will we get where we want to be? We are seeing signs of success, such as a near-record 2.3 million people working in B.C., $3.9 billion in economic growth last year, $7.2 billion in economic expansion since 2011 and more than 50,000 new jobs since August of 2011.

This year the focus is on four cross-sector areas of strategic priority: small business, international trade, manufacturing, and aboriginal peoples and First Nations. Each of these is in an area of renewed focus to help foster job creation across the original eight sectors of the jobs plan and across our province.

We also have a new forum, the B.C. Job Makers section of the website, so small and medium-size businesses can share their success stories with government and each other. Success stories are a tangible way government and industry can cite evidence that the jobs plan is working for our people and for our communities. There again, while we may not be exactly where we want to be, we are headed in the right direction, and we have a plan.

[1420]

This plan focuses on ensuring that we provide more and better opportunities for women, because diversity is critical to building B.C.’s highly skilled workforce. Employment levels for women are at near-record levels, and women are earning more money today than at any other time in our province’s history. We have also increased funding for child care and introduced full-day kindergarten to help improve opportunities for women.

In 2013 the average hourly rate for women in B.C. reached $22.05. This is an increase of 36 percent from $16.26 in 2001. The average hourly wage rate for men increased by 34 percent over the same time horizon. Since August 2001, B.C. has added 425,000 jobs to the labour market. Women accounted for 51 percent of this job gain. In August 2014 over 1.1 million women worked in the province, among the highest in B.C.’s history.

In 2013 close to 38 percent of the self-employed workers in B.C. were women. This is higher than the national average of 37 percent. B.C.’s share ranked fifth in Canada after Newfoundland and Labrador with 41 percent, Quebec with 38, Nova Scotia with 38 and New Brunswick with 38.

We may ask ourselves: why is this important? Why do we need to constantly move forward? We have to ensure that we provide what we provide today, but we will still need to provide flexibility for increasing population and flexibility for innovation with those services as well.

The following are services we’ll need to think about. The Ministry of Children and Family Development will invest $292 million on child care in 2014-15, a 38 percent increase since 2000-2001. This funding goes towards operating funding for almost 107,000 licensed child care spaces in communities throughout the province. Child care subsidies, including special needs supports for low-income families, help approximately 45,000 children and their families every year.

Child care resource and referral programs offer quality child care referrals, resources and support to families and providers in over 400 communities throughout the province. Minor capital funding helps licensed group child care providers meet licensing and safety standards.
[ Page 4774 ]

B.C. is steadfast in its commitment to the early years, currently investing more than $1 billion annually on early learning and childhood development initiatives and child care services. An additional $129 million is invested annually in full-day kindergarten.

We are improving early learning while reducing child care pressures on families. Budget 2014 confirmed an additional $350 million over the next three years to support families, individuals, and community safety, including an additional $243 million over three years for Community Living B.C., an additional $15 million over three years for the Ministry of Children and Family Development for children and youth with special needs, an additional $15 million over three years for increased RCMP policing costs and $6 million for legal aid–related services.

In health care and education, as we know, the budget will increase $2.5 billion over three years. Total health spending by function will reach $19.6 billion and be more than 42 percent of all government expenses by 2016-2017. B.C. continues to achieve key health outcomes that lead the country while maintaining the second-lowest rate of health spending per capita among provinces.

Provincial funding for the K-to-12 and post-secondary systems continues at Budget 2013 levels. The B.C. training and education savings grant program announced in Budget 2013 is anticipated to benefit 27,000 children in 2013-14. In the year since government first announced the program, the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent. Children born in 2007 or later are eligible for this $1,200 grant. Families now have up to three years after a child turns six to apply for the grant.

Our government is also making significant investments in skills training to ensure that British Columbians are first in line for the jobs of tomorrow. That includes $2.3 billion for capital spending towards skills-training facilities and post-secondary, and $1.3 billion in capital towards a world-class K-to-12 system over the next three years.

Budget 2014 provides $29 million over three years to ensure the appropriate management of the province’s LNG strategy to foster the successful development and growth of the industry. An additional $9 million over three years will help support environmental assessments of resource development impacts of proposed LNG facilities and pipelines, mining and other major projects.

[1425]

The film and television production regulation has been amended to include the capital regional district in the distant-location tax credit. This applies to productions with principal photography beginning on or after February 19, 2014. A new investment of $5 million over five years will help attract global aerospace and defence contractors to B.C.

B.C. early childhood tax benefits will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years old, effective April 1, 2015. Families with those young children can receive up to $55 per child per month. Most will receive the full amount while those with family incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 a year will receive a partial benefit. About 90 percent of B.C. families with young children are expected to be eligible.

Personal income tax rates. We know that we have the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $121,000 a year. Provincial personal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. Today an additional 400,000 people no longer pay any B.C. income tax. An individual, as an example, earning $20,000 a year pays $650 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. A seniors couple earning $40,000 pays $791 less in provincial tax than they did in 2001.

An individual earning $50,000 a year pays $1,340 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. A family of four earning $70,000 a year pays $1,990 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001.

Many British Columbians buying their first home will pay less property transfer tax as the threshold for the first-time homebuyers program has increased to $475,000 from $425,000 — an exemption that can save the purchaser up to $7,500 when buying their first home.

We’re working hard to better the lives of British Columbians, but we can’t do that without exercising restraint with our taxpayer-funded purse. When the budget was introduced in February of this year, we were one of only two jurisdictions in Canada to balance our books. Balanced budget 2014 reaffirmed our government’s commitment to control spending, to diversify and create jobs, to grow the economy and to increase our relationship with emerging economic interests. It was a significant accomplishment, one that showed leadership and resolve.

With a commitment to not living beyond our means, spending more money than provided by taxpayers is not a sustainable way to manage an economy. The greatest advantage of a balanced budget is having the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families. Taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion. This includes $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 facilities, $2.3 billion for capital spending by post-secondary institutions across B.C., $2.6 billion on health sector infrastructure and $3.4 billion for transportation investments.

These are just a few examples of how this government continues to invest in British Columbians and just a few examples of why I’m honoured to stand in support of the Speech from the Throne. These are the good-news stories that we need to maintain and to build on. We need an expanded economy. To do this, we must support a larger, more expansive LNG industry. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you.
[ Page 4775 ]

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise in response to the throne speech that was delivered and to speak on behalf of constituents in Vancouver-Kensington and also constituents around the province. I’d like to just give recognition to my office staff — constituency assistants who do a great job supporting the work I do there and really do a great job of welcoming constituents, providing services in different languages and just being great public servants in the area. So I want to thank them for their hard work.

[1430]

Also, I’m going to get into talking about some of the specifics in the throne speech. But I want to just share, first of all, a few of the activities and events that I think have been quite special in Vancouver-Kensington, and set the context and the backdrop in terms of some of the points I’m going to be raising with respect to the throne speech on particular areas of concern that residents in Vancouver-Kensington share.

First of all, I was very excited when the South Vancouver Majors All-Stars from the South Vancouver Little League won the 2014 Canadian championships and represented Canada in the world Little League in August in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

When I was elected, folks from the Little League — actually parents — approached me and said, “Mable, we don’t have a batting cage for our Little League,” and asked for help and support. I approached and worked with the parks board and was very pleased to help them establish that.

I know my colleagues around the province also appreciate just how active Little Leagues are right across the province and how parents and kids are involved and engaged. Very excited and very happy that they not only won the Canadian championships, but that they represented Canada.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We also had, very significant…. The Dalai Lama spoke just down the street from my office, at John Oliver Secondary School today, bringing a message of compassion. John Oliver hosted this event because of its work linking compassion and learning. I think it shows the dedication of the leadership, the teachers, the principal at John Oliver and really the community, reflecting the type of community that we have in Vancouver-Kensington.

We also have in Vancouver-Kensington a lot of diverse backgrounds. We celebrated the 88th anniversary of the Polish Harvest Days in September. We’ve got the Polish community festival — always a big event and celebration there.

Also a very special opening that I attended: the open house for Bahay Migrante — the Migrante House — which is Migrante B.C., an organization that advocates on behalf of temporary foreign workers. They purchased and renovated a house just down the street from my office, actually. They had their open house advocating on behalf of temporary foreign workers and providing a space for people who were in need of housing or needed access to legal services.

Those were very positive developments that I wanted to convey in terms of the community. It’s very diverse but very active and involved, participating in building community and bringing issues and concerns forward to me in my role as MLA.

In addition, we have an excellent community-based policing office, the South Vancouver community policing centre, led by very capable folks. They’re a volunteer board, and they just do an excellent job. I know of other community police centres in other areas.

We just have two full-time officers there, but they involve hundreds of volunteers from the community and really contribute not only to ensuring that streets are safe but building a sense of community through their many programs and activities.

Their Citizens on Patrol program — where they have a bike patrol, a foot patrol, even a pooch patrol. They’re very innovative, so people who walk their dogs also keep an eye out for their neighbours. It’s an excellent program of engaging neighbours and young people being involved. I’m very supportive and appreciative of the work they do. Really a measure of success. They’re looking to open another satellite office — I hope along Fraser Street, closer to my office. There’s great support from the business improvement association looking to also have that model really take root there. So that’s positive.

They’re very active in their road safety program SpeedWatch — pedestrian safety, bike safety, traffic studies. In particular, I want to highlight a couple of their community and education outreach programs. They have an international student safety project, and they’ve also done a project against international trafficking.

[1435]

This is very significant and a real contribution to being able to produce these materials and really be leaders in these areas.

I wanted to give an idea of, to recognize, some of the community groups and activities underway in Vancouver-Kensington, to give a background to some of my comments with regards to the throne speech.

First of all, I was listening hard to the throne speech for commitments and promises that would address the concerns and priorities of my constituents. We have a lot of folks, and I know that many of my colleagues as well…. Most of the work coming into the office is casework, people who have questions or difficulty navigating through the system around social assistance, having access to legal aid, single parents dealing with a crisis in access to affordable housing.

These are a number of the concerns that come forward to me in my office on a daily basis. My hope was that the throne speech would address some of these concerns. But
[ Page 4776 ]
I would say that I was disappointed in the lack of focus, number one; the lack of content; and, I think, a lack of recognition of those challenges, certainly, that I identify as priorities in Vancouver-Kensington.

We heard from the Premier during the election — wild promises in terms of the promises to be delivered from liquefied natural gas. Certainly, there are, you know, expansive fields of natural gas, and there was the potential there. We heard wild promises — I would characterize them as wild promises — of a prosperity fund that would eliminate the sales tax, eliminate the debt, provide billions of dollars in revenues and create just scores of jobs.

That’s the rhetoric, on the one hand. Today, and certainly in the throne speech, we’re seeing the reality. While there is the great potential for liquefied natural gas, we’ve seen a delay — missing those targets.

Just today, as a matter of fact, by coincidence we have the income tax announced for liquefied natural gas. We’ve had that come out. In fact, we see a downgrade not only from the promises of the Premier in the last election, of hundreds of billions of dollars, but even in terms of the previous budget. It was just eight short months ago when the government laid out what it thought would be a fair return to British Columbians in terms of liquefied natural gas around an income tax rate of around 7 percent.

Now we’re seeing that in actual fact that has been cut in half and that we have…. So for eight months…. We’re seeing the reality of a real downgrading of those expectations and, I think, a real disappointment in terms of the lack — very poor leadership. You know, in eight months, the kind of jostling, certainly with the wild plans, the wild promises in the public — what the impact is in terms of actually landing on a deal.

You know, today the amount of downgrading…. It’s cut in half. It’s cut in half in terms of what is actually going to be delivered, and, certainly, the focus on LNG is also the question with regards to the actual number of plants that are going to be delivered.

We heard in the throne speech, which focused exclusively on liquefied natural gas, on the one hand, that delays in the implementation…. You know, we’re still waiting to actually have a commitment for those projects moving forward. So we’ve really seen…. It’s been disappointing, for the mismanagement in terms of this resource.

[1440]

That’s specifically in terms of looking at what’s promised. The one thing is the wild promises from the Premier and from this government with respect to liquefied natural gas, and the reality, which falls far short and also is disappointing in not being able to really see the returns for British Columbians in terms of what looks like our fiscal framework.

Another aspect I want to touch on is the promise of jobs. Certainly, we’ve seen and we’ve heard a lot about that — that that is a priority. I know that is certainly important for British Columbians.

We look at what is, on the one hand, the promise of jobs, and on the other hand, we look at what’s being delivered — what in actual fact. We see that promise that we’re going to have great job creation in British Columbia, but in reality, the reality doesn’t quite meet those grand promises. It’s falling far short in actual fact — today for British Columbia, second worst in terms of private sector job creation in Canada. Certainly, that is disappointing and doesn’t meet the expectation and the need of British Columbians.

We see that there’s the claim that jobs would be created in our private sector, but with the second-worst rate for job growth in the private sector, the reality, again, doesn’t meet that rhetoric. So that is a problem.

When we talk about jobs, not only is there a lack, a very dismal record of job creation in the private sector, we see, on the other hand, what type of jobs and jobs for who. On the other hand, we’ve heard stories comes forward around the open door policy around temporary foreign workers into British Columbia — tens of thousands now of temporary foreign workers here.

Clearly, if the B.C. government jobs plan is to provide jobs for temporary foreign workers, I think you can count that as a great success — certainly in the tens of thousands, ten times the success of creating jobs for temporary foreign workers versus jobs for folks in British Columbia in the private sector.

We’ve seen, as well, an exodus. People have had to leave British Columbia to find jobs elsewhere. So we’re seeing a net exodus around that.

In addition, to add insult to injury, we have stories. Not only has this government taken no responsibility and no oversight around the flood of temporary foreign workers into British Columbia. There is no oversight, there is no monitoring of employers, and there are no investigations. There are rampant problems and discrimination against these temporary foreign workers. The entire program is structurally flawed, and it creates the conditions not only for denying British Columbians an opportunity for those jobs, but it gives employers basically control over these workers.

I know my colleagues were talking about temporary foreign workers being terrified to come forward with problems. They are basically in a situation across our province…. In every community and in every community of my colleagues across the way, you have temporary foreign workers who are terrified to come forward, who are held under the grip of their employer, who will endure terrible conditions that are a disgrace that we see in our province and in our country.

It’s unacceptable. This government has taken no action. They are allowing this to continue. It’s a disgrace. In every community in our province, this is happening and going on.

I visited…. I have calls into my office, and I hear, when I bring this up, “Oh, Mable, no, there are no problems,”
[ Page 4777 ]
because people don’t come forward and complain. Well, when it’s an employer-driven program and when people have their job under the behest of their employer, if they complain and come forward, they’re sent back home, and their work permits are not renewed. This is a situation that is a disgrace in our province and allows people to be discriminated.

[1445]

They’re not even second-class citizens, because they don’t have access to those rights. They don’t know they have rights. Not only is there a lack of enforcement and investigation but any support for these. It’s a great, I would say, stain on our province and just a deplorable record around this government and their so-called jobs plan. That is the reality of this government’s record on jobs in British Columbia.

When we look at, besides their grand promises around liquefied natural gas, we see, to the exclusion of everything else…. Also disappointed at the lack of recognition that — surprise, surprise — British Columbia has a very diversified economy, very robust. We have other sectors of the economy. We have tourism, which is very robust. We have our forestry sector. We have mining. We have our tech sector. Many other sectors are — because of the single focus on liquefied natural gas to the exclusion of others — not being paid the due attention that they need.

This is part of the failing, I think, of this throne speech and really points to the failing of the record of the government in terms of their dismal leadership around navigating and ensuring that we develop our liquefied natural gas sector and provide jobs for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has the floor.

M. Elmore: Another issue I want to address, which the throne speech falls short on, is addressing affordability for British Columbians. We heard, on the one hand, great promises that in the election there are going to be no taxes brought in by this government, by the Premier, and taxes are going to be kept low. Well, why is it that we see record tax increases — hidden taxes, I would characterize — and we’re seeing the cost of living really skyrocketing out of the means of families and putting incredible pressure on families?

When we look at the increases in B.C. Hydro — a hidden tax increase, 28 percent. When we look at the increases in ICBC — 23 percent over the last number of years and still more fees, more raises expected. Tuition has doubled since 2001. When we look at the cost of ferries, ferry fares are going up. We also see costs rising for medical services premiums. Now, these are hidden taxes that apply and are also regressive taxes. They apply across the board, and they are not dependent. They are not based on income, but they apply to everybody.

This increasing burden — and you put that on top of the lack of affordable housing — is creating incredible pressure on families, hardship. We see a record number, just a very disgraceful record of child poverty in our province.

On top of it, to even make it worse, this government is continuing to claw back child support payments from single parents, mainly from single mothers. These are single-parent families who the other parent, mainly the father, is paying, wants to contribute towards the upbringing of their child even though they’re separated. Single-parent families on social assistance are not able to have those child support payments go towards raising their child, go towards the basic necessities, go towards back-to-school items, for buying food or clothes or contributing towards programs for their children. It’s clawed back by the government.

[1450]

Now, what is going on? What is going on in our province? I think the government should give its head a shake — and us also. Each member sitting across there give your heads a shake. What is this going on under your watch? Just a disgrace.

These are children and single-parent families living under the poverty threshold. You’ve got their parents, mainly fathers, who are doing the right thing and making their payments to support their child, which would help for the basic necessities. We’re not talking about contributing to going to Disneyland or these types of things. It’s towards basic necessities. It is disgraceful, and it is just a real symbol of what is wrong with this government, with the B.C. Liberals and with the throne speech. It is inexcusable, and there’s no excuse for it.

When we look around what characterizes this throne speech talking about liquefied natural gas…. The exclusion of other sectors, the lack of recognition of the pressure that families and British Columbians are under with respect to affordability and just the compounding and the layering of the hidden taxes makes life less affordable for British Columbia.

When we look at the dismal record of the so-called jobs plan, British Columbians leaving B.C., a lack of new jobs being created in the private sector and just scores of temporary foreign workers coming into B.C. with no oversight, we see, I think, that this speech really characterizes and really gives an example of the priorities of this government and of the B.C. Liberals, of the Premier really not looking out for British Columbians, not considering what families are going through.

My colleagues across the way will know that they’ve got families right across British Columbia that are facing these challenges and these difficulties, and there is no recognition of that in the throne speech. Certainly, that’s a disappointment in terms of what we need to see happen in this province and where the throne speech and the
[ Page 4778 ]
Premier and the B.C. Liberals are taking us here in B.C.

I want to address concerns around the environment and protecting our air, land and water. When you ask British Columbians or you ask anyone who visits our province…. They come here for the natural beauty, for the spectacular mountains, the ocean, our rivers, our wilderness. I’m also a great supporter of our park system. I’ve done a lot of hiking and enjoy that.

When you ask British Columbians or anyone who has come to British Columbia what their impression is, it’s certainly respect for our wilderness and respect for our parks and really the incredible natural beauty that we have here in British Columbia.

When we hear any lack of that recognition in the throne speech, we see, certainly, the record of not only a lack of protection for the environment but also a record of the Park Act, which looked at allowing more industrial activity in our parkland, moving in the wrong direction against British Columbians. We have a lack of commitment towards species-at-risk legislation.

We have a real diluting of our environmental assessment, a cutting of our mining inspections and also a real unbalanced approach in terms of development at all costs versus a balanced approach of looking at not only developing our natural resources to benefit all British Columbians, which is what the opposition is proposing, but that environmental concerns should also be factored in.

[1455]

We should see jobs for British Columbians and also consider First Nations concerns. Those are, as well, lacking in the throne speech.

It’s following, as well, on the issue of affordability. Not only is the burden increasing on families and British Columbians — the plethora of the hidden tax increases.

We wonder: why does B.C. continue to have the highest child poverty rate? Well, those are factors contributing towards it — and, also, a lack of any commitment to addressing that. While we have eight jurisdictions in Canada that have adopted a poverty reduction plan, again, zero commitment or I think just a lack of focus or a lack of prioritization on taking the steps towards addressing that problem.

Again, it’s a real shame in our province that we do not have a plan around poverty reduction. We had a pilot project for a regional poverty reduction plan, and we know where that went. It didn’t go very far. There were about 120 families — something like that, or less than that — that were able to access that program — just a real failure and a lack of focus or leadership on dealing with these issues facing us, confronting us here in our province.

The real disappointment in terms of not only the burden of hidden taxes on families or the lack of investment in and focus on reducing poverty in British Columbia, the lack of child care, the lack of affordable housing is made even more galling when we compare it to and contrast it to the record of wasteful spending and mismanagement on a number of projects — just incompetence.

It’s incompetence equating to, when you add it up over a number of projects, over $3 billion in either overspending or mismanagement or cost overruns — a real record of fiscal incompetence in terms of managing projects. When we look at the northwest transmission line cost overruns, the Vancouver Convention Centre, the B.C. Place roof, the Port Mann/Highway 1, it totals over $3 billion.

It’s a disappointment, and British Columbians deserve better.

Michelle Stilwell: Before I delve into my response to the throne speech proper, I’d like to take a moment to give a few words of thanks to the constituents of Parksville and Qualicum for electing me and giving me the opportunity to represent them here in Victoria.

Of course, I’ve spent much of my time this summer travelling around the area, meeting many of my constituents and going to organizations around Oceanside, listening to the ideas and the concerns of my constituents, attending announcements and groundbreakings. Every day it reminded me of how lucky we are to live in a beautiful part of our province, in a beautiful part of our country, where we have so much to be grateful for, so much to be thankful for.

I’d also like to take this moment to express my gratitude to my staff in the constituency office, Shari Cummins and Heather Mahony, who work so hard every day to ensure that the needs of my constituents are met and well taken care of.

I of course would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge my wonderful husband and my son, Kai, for supporting me and encouraging me and being so understanding as I try to do my very best to serve the people of British Columbia and the people of Parksville and Qualicum.

As an Olympic athlete, I know the importance of focus and hard work to achieve one’s goals. I found it fitting that the focus of the throne speech was ensuring that our legislative agenda was clear and focused in the direction of LNG.

[1500]

Some may say that it’s putting all of our eggs in one basket, but I simply see it as having a focused plan to achieve one’s goals, goals that will take hard work, dedication and teamwork.

One of the things that I’ve learned over the years is: don’t take anything for granted. Anything that is worth achieving is worth fighting for. Yes, luck can play a factor in achieving success and your goals, but luck should never be taken for granted.

Another lesson is how we need to change and look at new technologies and ideas as opportunities for success.
[ Page 4779 ]
What is successful today will change and even become obsolete tomorrow. Companies and products that were once everyone’s darlings can soon be resigned to the history books or the proverbial scrap heap.

Just think for a moment. Horses and buggies were replaced in less than a generation by automobiles and trucks. Airlines quickly replaced ocean-going vessels in transporting people across the oceans, opening up the world to global travel. Ten years ago video and DVD rental stores were commonplace, but now they’re extinct. They’re replaced by on-demand services through cable and Internet companies like Netflix.

Even how we view the Internet is changing. For most, slow dial-up modems with cables hooked up to the desktop computer are a memory, replaced with laptop computers or tablets connecting wireless, high-speed Wi-Fi connections. Even our cell phones these days have evolved rapidly over the past decade. It’s not long ago that we held to our ears cell phones that were the size of a shoe. They’re now called smartphones, and these devices can perform most functions that once required purchasing half of the goods in a RadioShack catalogue.

My point to all this is that our province has a choice to make. Do we choose the path of growth, create hope for the future and leave a sustainable legacy for our children, our grandchildren and future generations? Or do we continue along the existing path and not seize the opportunity that is presented to us and put at risk B.C.’s reputation as an innovator, not to mention our future economic stability? Well, I say we choose the path of growth.

We can’t take things for granted. We need to roll up our sleeves. We need to work hard together to achieve the best possible outcome for our province. We need to responsibly develop our resources so that we can create a legacy that will benefit all British Columbians and all Canadians.

I don’t think anyone here would be surprised to hear me say that I believe in free enterprise, and I hope most of you all do. My hope is that you know that it is the entrepreneurial spirit by people willing to take a chance that has shaped our province for the better. I believe in and support small business and local organizations that encourage their growth. It’s because of their hard work that our neighbours have jobs, our municipalities have tax bases, our children’s sports teams get sponsored and our communities thrive. Small businesses are the grass roots of our villages, our towns and our cities.

Ninety-eight percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses employing fewer than 50 people. There are few big businesses in British Columbia, as least not to the extent of our counterparts in Ontario, Quebec or Alberta. While we should celebrate and help cultivate our small businesses, it’s unfair to rely solely on them for growth. We need to think big and to look at other foundations to grow our economy and our province.

The throne speech is about thinking big. It’s about choosing growth, creating legacy and hope for the future. While this session is not the longest in length, it is certainly one of the most important in recent times, because we’re here to move forward with the legislative framework for B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry.

In fact, today, just moments ago, the taxation framework for LNG was unveiled. We can now move forward with certainty for businesses and investors. They now know what is being offered so that they can make their decisions. More importantly, British Columbians, who are the owners of the natural resource, now know what’s in it for them. This framework specifies how the resource will be responsibly developed to protect our environment and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[1505]

Just to be clear, I want to ensure that we all know that natural gas has been safely extracted in British Columbia for over six decades. That’s longer than most of us have been alive — certainly longer than me. This includes extraction using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as it’s usually called. The science is clear, and it’s proven on this. Hydraulic fracturing is a safe, efficient and environmentally sound method of extracting natural gas.

Natural gas is also the cleanest of all fossil fuels, and by getting people and countries to switch to using it, the planet and future generations will be better off.

Just think: over the past 20 years or so China has changed drastically. It’s now the world’s second-largest economy and soon will take over our neighbours to the south. China gets most of its power from coal. It’s the world’s largest consumer of coal, and the country’s demand for energy is growing. It means that they are going to use more coal. No surprise — that’s not good.

We’ve all seen the pictures and the videos of the pollution in China, the deadly haze that’s clearly visible. I’ve been there when I competed in the 2008 Paralympic Games. I was there at a time when they took drastic measures to make it better. They shut down manufacturing plants to reduce the emissions. In all that had been done there, there was still a haze, and I still found it difficult to breathe.

A 2013 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimated that emissions from coal plants were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in China in 2011, plus damaging long-term health of hundreds of thousands of children. Last year China surpassed Europe in CO₂ emissions per capita — approximately 7.2 tonnes per person compared with 6.8 tonnes per person in Europe.

Based upon China’s estimated population of 1.367 billion people, this works out to about 9.8 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions last year. The Chinese government realizes that reliance on coal-generated power is not good and that they need to quickly address their CO₂ emissions.

At last month’s UN climate change summit in New York, China pledged that the country will peak its carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible. China has set some
[ Page 4780 ]
ambitious targets domestically to put coal use as a part of its effort to deal with air pollution problems. Currently 12 of China’s 44 provinces, which account for 44 percent of the country’s coal consumption, have pledged to control their consumption. This is, of course, good news because it shows that China is committed to increasing the use of natural gas.

A report released in August from the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast that China’s demand for natural gas will more than triple in the next 25 years. In 2012 demand for natural gas in China was reported at 5.2 trillion cubic feet. In 2040 this is expected to hit 17.5 trillion cubic feet. Now the U.S. Energy Information Administration said this increased demand of over 12 trillion cubic feet will have to come from two sources: one, domestic production; two, liquefied natural gas imports.

Well, it’s well known that China does possess significant shale gas resources. They face some significant hurdles. The first is that most shale gas formations are buried far deeper underground than the reserves that are found in British Columbia, and this increases their drilling costs.

Second, Chinese shale is laden with clay and is far wetter than our shale through hydraulic fracturing. This increases the production costs. Third, where most of China’s shale gas formations are located, there is little access to transportation given the terrains.

Finally, and I think most importantly, is the lack of nearby water near most of their shale gas deposits. Without water, you can’t extract this gas. This year the director of China’s natural energy administration predicted that domestic supply would amount to only 30 billion cubic metres by the year 2020. This figure barely meets 1 percent of China’s energy needs now, never mind 2020 or in 2040.

This is B.C.’s opportunity, and we need to absolutely seize on this. Now, there might be some who say it’s too late for B.C. to get into the game. But I would disagree with them. I refuse to take what they say for granted, because LNG is worth fighting for. Our future is worth fighting for. I say: stop with the pessimism. Start focusing on what is possible.

[1510]

These people are just like the video rental stores and the buggy whip manufacturers who refuse to see new ideas and evolve and adapt to the changing world. Like them, they will become but a footnote in the history books when they’re proven wrong.

British Columbians are optimistic and looking for leadership that will say yes and have a positive outlook for our future. I truly believe that most British Columbians want to see the natural gas industry grow and export LNG to countries including China, South Korea, Japan and India.

Most British Columbians know what a successful and thriving liquefied natural gas industry will mean for our province. Developing LNG, we can continue to support B.C.’s small businesses and make sure that they continue to thrive. It means the opportunity for immense wealth to be developed that will support our most vulnerable citizens of British Columbia through funding of social services and disability support.

Just recently our government released Accessibility 2024, our plan to make British Columbia the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. This ambitious ten-year plan is designed around 12 building blocks ranging from employment to accessible service delivery, which reflects themes that emerged after listening to the public and advocacy organizations.

These 12 building blocks included income supports, financial security, accessible housing and accessible transportation. But in order to achieve this goal and to assemble these building blocks, it’s going to take money. Liquefied natural gas will be the source of revenue for this, to create a society where no person is ever told that their goals and dreams aren’t realistic because of their disability.

Successfully developing LNG means that we would be able to contribute more to our education system, including hiring teachers and investing in our schools’ infrastructure. As a government, we’ll have additional funds to put into the classroom, and teachers will be able to earn more money. This is why I support programs like the LNG Buy B.C. program, which is connecting LNG project proponents with homegrown companies throughout the province.

Our government wants the entire province to fully participate in the opportunity that LNG will provide. This is why I’m so pleased to work with the Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce by organizing the Buy B.C. information session this coming Friday, featuring our colleague from Peace River South. This will be a great opportunity for the people and businesses on Vancouver Island to learn how LNG can benefit them. I’d like to ask my colleagues from central Vancouver Island to spread the word to their constituents.

Port Alberni also wants to take a chance and get into the game with LNG. In July the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and Steelhead LNG announced an agreement for an LNG project on the First Nation’s own land on Sarita Bay at the southern end of the Alberni Inlet. Success in Port Alberni would mean jobs for hundreds of people and families on Vancouver Island.

Over the next ten years more than half a million young people will enter B.C.’s job market. We’ve created a blueprint to help guide them through their educational and career journey. We’re training people right now for tomorrow’s jobs through B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint.

I am so proud to support our positive transformation of B.C.’s education and training system, helping students access an increased variety of career options, including
[ Page 4781 ]
well-paying careers in the growing skilled trades and technology fields. This will help them get jobs in LNG-related fields as one of the blueprint’s objectives — a shift in education and training to better match with the jobs that are in demand. Our government is supporting this shift, including on Vancouver Island.

This summer I was proud to help take part in an event in Nanaimo to announce that trades students would have access to more training seats, especially in the LNG-related occupations. For Vancouver Island University this translated into 132 seats: 80 for welders foundation, 36 for electrician foundation seats and 16 heavy-duty-equipment mechanic apprenticeship seats.

[1515]

For Camosun College, 90 seats were added: 18 steam/pipefitter, 18 welder and 18 carpenter, as well as 36 electrician foundation seats. For North Island College, 16 heavy-duty-equipment mechanic seats.

Success in developing a thriving LNG export sector will lead to continued and increased funding for our health care system as well. I can’t stress enough how important this is, given our aging population. As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I know what’s at stake. Right now almost 1/6 of B.C.’s population is over the age of 65, which is about 700,000 people. Within the next 20 years the number is expected to double to over 1.4 million people.

A responsible government needs a plan, and it needs to make sure that there will be funding in place to support the plan for our aging population. We know an older population equates to more demand for health care, for more assisted-living supports and for resources to families who will look after our aging loved ones.

Developing our LNG resource means that there will be money for us to continue to fund places like the Oceanside Hospice Society and help support end-of-life care services for Oceanside residents and their families.

There will be money to continue to build affordable housing complexes for seniors and families with low income or low to moderate incomes, such as the Qualicum park village, which is currently being built to replace an existing 20-unit building — 24 one-bedroom and ten two-bedroom apartments.

If we choose to not seize this LNG opportunity, we are putting into jeopardy plans to take care of our growing elderly population. We need to work hard for the sake of all British Columbians, young and old. It’s what a responsible government will do.

I started off by talking about taking nothing for granted. As elected leaders, we absolutely owe it to our constituents to create a legacy that will benefit future generations and give hope to everyone today. British Columbia was forged by people who did not take things for granted or who did not say no.

B.C.’s indigenous people, our First Nations, built settlements and created thriving cultures that we all cherish today. Early inhabitants from Europe and Asia travelled thousands of miles from their own lands to trade with First Nations but also to trap and mine and fell B.C.’s natural resources, such as fur, gold and trees.

Over time, our province has evolved and thrived and has earned a reputation around the world as a welcoming and pristine place to visit, to live, to work and to trade. British Columbia is a success, and we must make sure it remains so. We can’t take anything for granted.

We face competition from overseas rivals who don’t want us to choose growth or to develop our resources. They realize that our abundance of natural resources, a well-educated and skilled workforce and our advantage of geographic location to the Pacific are threats to them, to their own interests and their trade prospects.

Over the next few weeks and few years there is a great deal at stake. It’s our province’s future, and we must evolve and take nothing for granted. British Columbia must change and look to the future, because we cannot afford to miss out.

I support the throne speech, and I urge all my colleagues to also support and vote for it.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the House today.

V. Huntington: We are here this fall responding to a rare throne speech that reiterates the consuming goal of this government: the way to make LNG happen before the trade window closes, making LNG happen in what government characterizes as the chance of a lifetime — an either-or opportunity.

I think most British Columbians wish the government well in its negotiations on this clear-cut economic opportunity. We would like to see the benefits of an efficient LNG regulatory and taxation regime that accrue not just to industry but even more to the people of the province.

[1520]

We hope it will be the prize government claims, because it will mean the difference between unimagined — according to government — prosperity or the slower, more classic B.C. economy that has, with ups and downs, maintained a standard of living and a quality of life that has served us fairly well.

There is doubt out there. We are hesitant to accept the assurances by government that wealth is at our doorstep. Why? Because so many of us have values that extend beyond this government’s narrow focus on development.

Do we want the levels of prosperity promised if it means our resources are going to be gutted for the benefit of offshore buyers? Do we want a prosperity that pretends to mitigate irredeemable losses to our environment? Do we want a prosperity that is built upon imported labour, imported physical plants, imported attitudes toward corporate citizenship?

We shouldn’t have to be worried about these things. We should be confident that the broader values the public
[ Page 4782 ]
interest holds would be the same as those of government. But we aren’t confident at all, and we worry that the long-term public interest is not being protected.

We worry about the environmental impact of these developments. Why? Because our Minister of Environment has a mandate to say yes to development in spite of concerns that the possibility of disaster is real and the reality of disaster would mean irretrievable loss of sensitive habitats.

It didn’t matter that the Fraser River estuary is threatened by an aviation fuel spill. It didn’t matter that Site C has alternatives that could and should have been examined. It didn’t matter that our parks were once off-limits. It didn’t matter if we reduced enforcement and inspection, and if we have to manipulate facts about emissions in order to pretend we are building a clean industry, well, that doesn’t matter either.

The result is that we the people no longer trust that our Environment Minister is charged with protecting our beautiful land. Rather, we know it is there to streamline or gut every effective piece of meaningful environmental legislation and regulation on the books, a reality that the government called in its budget “process improvements” that will “ensure that timelines are appropriate for…economic development.”

The tax regime the government is bringing in. Will we find we have given up our sovereignty in order to get the promised prosperity? Will B.C. really prosper the way government claims? Will we discover that the Premier’s promises for an LNG windfall weakened the provincial bargaining position in an internationally competitive marketplace? Will we ultimately see a net benefit from LNG development?

That is the question. Can we believe that the costs and benefits of the total package have been holistically examined, with all our inputs and incentives fully costed and calculated into the overall potential?

Now there are hints that the tax package will limit municipal taxation room. Will government legislate an LNG tax cap for municipalities, just like it has for port development? Will the province compensate municipalities? Has the province brought municipalities into the discussion, or will it just announce the penalty after the fact? Have those costs been built into the cost-benefit analyses?

There are so many questions, and the lack of detail and transparency, sadly, results in less-than-enthusiastic support for the project. What a difference it would make if the government had ensured some form of all-party or independent involvement in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enrich British Columbia, if the government had somehow reached out to the opposition and brought the opposition leaders into the fold with regular, detailed, confidential briefings.

If the government had a real desire for input, it would have strengthened this generational opportunity in the eyes of British Columbians. It is hard to stand up with a wholehearted yes when so many questions and so little knowledge dominate the project of a lifetime.

All of that said, I hope the government does well in its negotiations. I hope the potential of LNG is realized. And I hope the north isn’t torn apart in our urgency and that our land continues to be a beautiful and rich legacy we can pass to the future.

The government has worked hard to make LNG a reality, and I wish it well. A prosperous LNG industry in B.C.’s north will be the generational game changer the government claims, if it is done well, safely and with the interests of the people foremost in mind.

[1525]

In his response to the throne speech, the Minister of Natural Gas Development said something very interesting. He admitted: “…it’s a challenging thing to take on something this massive in a short period of time and amass the resources of government and focus it in one direction.” He went on to saythat every single ministry, every single deputy minister, every single ADM and other people right down through government cooperate without silos, and “we’re all working together in a way I have never seen in my 18½ years in this House.”

I wonder what we could have accomplished if this government had approached some of our other great issues in the same manner. What would happen if government decided to tackle the subject of health care in the same focused, determined way? What could we do with the social policy file if we focused on the issue, without silos, with a determination of a single priority directive to all deputies, ADMs and administrators? We could probably solve our greatest public policy problems. That’s what would happen.

These huge public policy dilemmas need just such a vast new approach, an approach that considers the issues so critical to the public interest that the silos of government are broken down just as they have been in the LNG file. I know that the government will say: “We did it because without LNG we can’t afford health or social supports.” But that possibility is what makes the need to innovate so much greater.

Can you imagine what this province could accomplish if our deputies, our ADMS, our administrators, directors and policy analysts were directed to revolutionize the delivery of health services to the province; if the financial and service silos were removed and the whole delivery system re-examined with a new and innovative eye; if the barriers to delivery in areas of mental health, dementia, care homes, at-risk youth, acute care, emergency care and on and on were rethought and reorganized; if we actually measured our success by the outcomes that a new, pragmatic delivery model could engender?

Similarly, can you imagine what could be accomplished by a focused priority review, across all ministries, of our social policy framework? We could focus on the development of a modern, efficient, compassionate approach
[ Page 4783 ]
to delivering services to those who need assistance. We could look at whole new possibilities — possibilities that would give that dignity, that would reduce complexities, that could reduce costs and provide enriched care.

We could develop that child poverty plan. We could look at the costs and benefits of a guaranteed income. We could reduce the layers upon layers of bits and pieces of support. We could give individuals the ability to make their own decisions, live without fear of homelessness or hunger. This government could provide the leadership that sets that direction, because revolution does need intelligent and extraordinary leadership.

The throne speech goes on — ad nauseam, I must say — about leadership. I answer that throne speech boast by challenging the government to achieve its goal in the LNG sector and then to go and apply that focus and leadership to other policy areas — areas that desperately need every single deputy, every ADM, every director, every administrator to put their minds to the task. Make war against ourselves, and lead us to a goal of achieving a new way of delivering health and a new way of supporting our most vulnerable. Show real leadership, and truly accomplish a revolution in this province.

It can be done. The government is doing it in the industrial sector. Now it should move on to the social and health sectors, and it should be the leader it claims to be.

J. Martin: It truly is a privilege to be able to respond to the throne speech today. On behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack, I’m thrilled at this opportunity.

Particularly, I would like to espouse and elaborate on the government’s efforts to promote and expand the LNG industry in British Columbia. The throne speech outlined the government’s plans this session to present a competitive tax regime that will attract global investment and help construct the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. It’s a bold vision, and there are no apologies for that.

It had better be a bold vision. We are acting on our promise in the last election to seize an opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to harness our natural resources in order to provide a better future for the people of British Columbia and for generations to come.

[1530]

Throughout the history of this province we have relied on our natural resources to pay for public infrastructure and social programs such as health care and education. Without forestry, without mining, without fisheries, we would not have been able to build hospitals, schools and just about every road and bridge and piece of infrastructure that spans this wonderful province. Virtually every job in B.C. is either directly tied to natural resources or it’s at least dependent on the resource industry to generate spinoff employment in the private sector.

There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in this province with our industrial development. In the B.C. lumber industry our products are exported around the world, and we’re proud of that. We’re proud that our mining industry has customers in major industries depending on the metals and minerals that can only be produced by British Columbians. Why would anyone feel bad about our ever-expanding agriculture industry? Our food and wine products are gaining a reputation worldwide that makes our province synonymous with taste, quality and excellence.

Why on earth would anyone want to stand in the way and deliberately try to impede the development of our natural gas industry? British Columbia is already the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country, and 13,000 people are already employed in the production of natural gas. These are good, high-skilled, well-paying jobs, and our plan is to create more of them by exporting natural gas in its liquid form to developing economies in Asia.

The world needs energy, and British Columbia is better positioned than anybody else to provide it. The province sits on trillions, literally trillions, of cubic feet of natural gas. It is sufficient to supply not only our own domestic needs for generations, but there’s plenty more sitting in the ground ready for export.

We have to first build the export facilities necessary to render the gas down to a liquid form so that it can be safely exported abroad to those emerging economies. This takes investment, and it takes leadership. It will also take both the cooperation and the participation of First Nations. It will take time to prepare our workforce in advance so that British Columbians are first in line for all the jobs to emerge from the natural gas industry.

We’re going to do it right the first time. We’re going to develop the cleanest LNG export industry on the planet. Again, I ask: why would anyone deliberately oppose the opportunity to grow our economy and support job creation?

Unfortunately, the current Leader of the Opposition and his party always seem to be first in line to shout down any made-in-B.C. proposal to expand opportunities for our young people to live and work in this wonderful province.

For example, when a well-known British Columbia entrepreneur suggested last year that it would be possible to finance a fuel refinery in B.C. and make it safe to export energy products, it was the now Leader of the Opposition, in his former capacity as Energy critic, to say in a CKNW interview: “It is irresponsible to assume that because the guy has an idea, it’s going to be successful, because that’s not the track record of private sector investment. Everybody’s got a good idea, John, and, as they say, there’s a sucker born every minute.”

That’s right. That’s what the now Leader of the Opposition thinks about bold entrepreneurs who raise billions of dollars, create thousands of jobs. They’re suckers. Who needs investment? Who needs capital? Who needs job creation? Everyone can just work for the government.
[ Page 4784 ]
What should the business community think when the Leader of the Opposition in this province has that type of opinion of them?

It gets worse. It gets much worse. During a radio interview on CFAX the Leader of the Opposition said: “For Mr. Black to suggest to the public, your listeners, that he has the solution to finding, unleashing, $13 billion worth of investment when he has no market and no product seems to be almost a vanity exercise.” That is indicative of the lack of confidence that the opposition tends to have in entrepreneurship, in free enterprise and in the people of British Columbia.

It stands to reason — I get it — that they oppose LNG. They oppose fracking, pipelines, mining, hydroelectric projects, aquaculture. Pretty well any resource development that you can think of, they’re against it.

[1535]

I could go on. In fact, I think I will go on. They’re against the South Fraser Perimeter Road. They’re against the Port Mann Bridge, against B.C. Place, against the trade and convention centre. They were even against the 2010 Olympic Games. I sat right here listening to the opposition, accolade after accolade for our athletes at the Sochi games, but they were against the games when they were in Vancouver. They didn’t want Vancouver to succeed. They didn’t want British Columbia to succeed. They didn’t think that we could do the job.

I think that if the NDP had been in charge back in the day, we wouldn’t have the Trans-Canada Highway. We wouldn’t have the national railroad. We wouldn’t have the Hudson’s Bay Company. What would poor little Gordon Lightfoot have ever had to write about in his repertoire? There’s pretty well nothing there.

How do you build an economy? How do you grow a province? How do you create jobs? You have confidence in British Columbians, you take chances, you think big, you have a bold vision, and you get used once in a while to saying yes.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and respond to the throne speech today. I’d like to begin by thanking the people who make it possible for me to be here, my very talented constituency assistants — Gala Milne, Junie Chong and Chantille Viaud — who work so hard every day for me in my office and for our constituents. Incredibly appreciative of their efforts.

I’d also like to thank the people here in the Legislature who work hard for me in our research and communications department, talented legislative assistants. Without their efforts, it would be impossible for me to be as effective as I am at representing the constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey.

Starting with Vancouver–Point Grey, and thinking about and reflecting on the very different nature of the throne speech that we heard from the Premier, we have a number of priorities that simply aren’t on her radar. Certainly, that’s something that the community has noted, that they aren’t on the Premier’s radar, and something that they took very seriously in the last election.

With respect to the disposition of provincial lands in our community, there is a large parcel of provincial lands known as the Jericho lands. We just recently heard that the federal government has reached a deal with three First Nations to sell and develop those lands.

The province’s intention in relation to this piece of property, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars…. Estimates range as high as $1 billion to develop this piece of property. The silence in response to that federal announcement was noticeable. The province has made it very clear that it’s their intention to develop the land. They retained a real estate consultant to facilitate that process. Yet even trying to file a freedom-of-information request, we can’t get any information from the government. When my constituents hear a throne speech that talks about one thing and one thing only, they wonder about what the government’s intentions are in relation to our community.

Another local issue in our community that we didn’t hear about in the throne speech was the future of youth health care, not just in my community but in Vancouver. The government, in its wisdom, has decided to close the Pine Free Clinic, which is a clinic that’s been open for 40 years, serving young people in Metro Vancouver.

This clinic is not just any health clinic. They have a particular expertise in supporting young people — young people with addictions, young people with mental health issues, young people who need sexual health advice. Every guidance counsellor in the Lower Mainland knows that if you have a young person that needs medical assistance and support, and they’re nervous, and they don’t know where to go, send them to the Pine Free Clinic. Yet this government has decided to close that clinic.

Even worse than simply deciding to close the clinic is the manner in which the government has gone about closing this clinic. In the face of the decision to close it, Vancouver Coastal Health, with this government’s approval, released a big poster saying: “None of our health centres are closing. None of our health centres are closing.” This poster was displayed in clinics across the Lower Mainland. It simply wasn’t true.

[1540]

Pine Free Clinic is closing, and its services will no longer be available to young people in our community. The doctors who used to work there will not be available, and the staff will not be available. In addition, when cornered on this, when pressured on this, the government said: “Well, yeah. Okay. We are closing the Pine Free Clinic, but don’t worry. There will be expanded hours at Raven Song. In fact, it’s going to be open even more hours for young people than Pine Free was. So actually, there will be a gain in hours for young people to access medical support.” Well, that wasn’t true either. We found
[ Page 4785 ]
out what the actual hours were for the new youth clinic at the Raven Song clinic — a fraction of the hours, 20 hours compared to the 40-plus hours, including Saturday hours, that were available at the Pine Free Clinic.

Here we have a government that sees no problem with saying one thing — “We’re not closing any clinics. Oh, but don’t worry. We are closing the clinic, but don’t worry. There will be more hours available” — and then doing completely the other, closing the clinics and reducing the hours. That’s totally unacceptable, and it’s entirely consistent with the pattern of this government.

It’s entirely consistent with the pattern of the throne speeches — promising a prosperity fund, promising the elimination of the PST, promising that the goose will lay a golden egg. Then today we find that in eight months, in just eight months, the projections are half of what they were, and the talk of the prosperity fund and long-term gains for many generations of British Columbians evaporated. This is to pay for basic health care we’re told — the basic services of the province.

Another issue in my community — an issue we can’t get the government’s attention on, with their singular focus on their rapidly evaporating natural gas plans — is the University Endowment Lands. Now, it’s very clear to the residents of that community that there needs to be governance reform there.

The idea that the mayor of a very small neighbourhood in Vancouver is a minister of this government is the complete opposite of efficiency. This government is making zoning decisions for an area of about 20 square blocks at UBC. And they’re doing it poorly at that. There is understaffing of the administration office. There’s been a hiring freeze, resulting in delays.

In addition, there are basic issues. There’s a street called Northwest Marine Drive. I’ve written to the Minister of Transportation, because it’s a provincial road, if you can imagine this. Two community members have written to them. Bikes on this road are forced off onto the shoulder, onto a dangerous path. Someone will have an accident. That is ostensibly the bike lane. It’s not safe. Yet we can’t get anyone’s attention from this government on this issue. Nor am I suggesting we should.

There’s no reason why this government should be making decisions about a small bike path in the UBC area. Yet this is the structure that is perpetuated by a government that is indifferent to these important issues in my community because it has no time for anything other than their failing natural gas dreams.

UBC — an issue incredibly important to students. Try to get the attention of the Advanced Education Minister about the very real issue that you cannot borrow enough money on government loans in B.C. anymore to attend the University of British Columbia at the lowest tuition level, at the light eater meal plan level — residence, meal plan, tuition, books. Never mind living expenses. You cannot do that on government student loans in B.C. at the lowest tuition level. This isn’t law school. This isn’t dentistry. This isn’t tuition levels that exceed $4,000. This is at a basic arts degree — $4,000 a year.

As UBC tries to balance its budget, after ten years of flatline funding from this government in the face of inflation, they have announced a 20 percent increase in the cost of residence rooms. I see that the members are trying desperately not to acknowledge that members in their communities will not be able to attend UBC as a result of this decision — 20 percent higher residence fees and flat student loans.

Interjection.

D. Eby: They won’t be able to attend UNBC either, because you can’t borrow enough money to go, which means that if you’re not very low income and you don’t qualify for the bursaries, and you’re not very high income and your parents can support you in either borrowing money or giving you money to go to school…. If you’re in that middle class, you’re not going be able to go to B.C.’s universities. UBC has been forced to make it even more difficult for people from out of town to go to the school with this 20 percent rent increase.

[1545]

Try explaining to a student how your advocacy on post-secondary education has come to the point where you’re fighting for them to be able to borrow enough money to go to school, for their right to take on more student debt so they can go to school. That, in a nutshell, summarizes this government’s commitment to post-secondary education and access to post-secondary education in B.C.

As critic for Advanced Education, I found myself fighting for the right of students to be able to borrow more money so that they could go to school. What an impoverished vision of training our next generation for the jobs of the future.

Down the street from UBC, Bayview Elementary — desperately in need of a seismic upgrade. “Where are we going to find the money?” asks the government.

Well, for the price of the B.C. Place roof that we talked about in question period today, this government could have seismically upgraded every school that needs it in British Columbia. Yet the kids at Bayview Elementary still have to attend a school that is not seismically safe because a retractable roof was essential for B.C. Place. It was essential. It had to happen — a retractable roof that was broken, that didn’t work, that still leaks. It’s covered with stains from cables. It has panels being replaced. It lost $10 million last year.

Where are we going to find the money? Well, there was $100,000 for the president, $100,000 when he missed his attendance targets, when he missed his revenue targets and when the roof continues to leak. The kids at Bayview Elementary continue to go to a school that’s not seismically upgraded.
[ Page 4786 ]

In my community, maybe we’ve all forgotten already, there was a school strike — five weeks lost of summer school, parents scrambling trying to make ends meet and trying to figure out where the kids are going to go, our international reputation tarnished. This government says how important it is to bring students from other places to B.C. schools to fund our education system, and yet they completely disregard the impact that shutting down our schools for five weeks would have on that market.

I had the opportunity during estimates to ask the Education Minister — this was before the school strike — to come and visit the schools in my constituency and talk to parents. He promised me. He promised on the record that he would come and visit schools in my community and talk to parents. He said: “Set it up with the school board. It’s a short drive from where I live. I love meeting parents.” I can tell you, we’re still waiting. We’re still waiting.

Is this a sign of a minister who is incredibly proud of his record on education? Is this a sign of a government that’s incredibly proud of their record — that they will promise to come to a community…?

Interjection.

D. Eby: Well, I hear the member say: “He was too busy to come.” Yet he said: “No problem. It’s a short drive. Glad to come.” Still waiting. He says one thing, does something else.

Interjection.

D. Eby: You know, it’s interesting hearing the members on the other side talk about a script. I wish that there were things in their script — I’m listing them here — that meant something to the day-to-day lives of people in my constituency, other than a promise of natural gas that may materialize, maybe years from now, as they struggle to figure out where to put their kids during a school strike that was unnecessarily protracted, while they try to find health clinics that will look after their needs and while they try to find somebody to answer the basic question about how they can ride their bike safely on Northwest Marine Drive. Put that in the script.

I’ve taken on a number of new spokesperson roles within our party. One of them is very close to my heart, which is the issue of housing. I worked on homelessness for many years in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. There’s no greater symbol of this government’s failure to address the issues of homelessness, mental health and addiction than the tent city that was evicted recently from Oppenheimer Park.

[1550]

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear the member say: “Oh, it was the city of Vancouver.” Well, isn’t that a convenient message — that a municipality with no taxation ability, aside from property tax, should be building housing for the homeless.

You know, it used to be that the provincial government built housing in B.C. In fact, there was a study that showed that this provincial government…. It used to be that this provincial government was in the business of social housing. It used to be. This government is no longer in the business of social housing. If it were, there wouldn’t have been hundreds of people in a tent city in Oppenheimer Park.

Interjections.

D. Eby: I hear the members opposite suggesting that they’ve done a great job on homelessness. [Applause.]

Absolutely, and they’re clapping at their success. I hear them applauding themselves and patting themselves on the back. Now, would a government that is patting itself on its back for homelessness…? Surely, they would have an accurate homelessness count — wouldn’t they? — for the province so that they could say: “Here is the absolute number by which we reduced homelessness in B.C.” Has this government done that? Do they have a single metric, in terms of how many people are homeless in B.C., that could be relied upon in terms of the number of people they’ve gotten into housing?

Oh, the silence now. Oh, the silence now. Wouldn’t it be nice if they counted the number of people staying in shelters in British Columbia and showed that there were fewer people staying in shelters as a result of their efforts? Oh, the applause stops so quickly. It’s not just the homeless on the housing issue. It’s affordable housing. It’s rental housing and first-time homebuyers in B.C.

People with a bachelor’s degree earn the least in British Columbia of anywhere in Canada — which is a stunning thing, especially in Vancouver, where housing costs are the highest. The government’s lack of action on affordability and assisting people into the housing market…. We’re looking at the end of co-op subsidies. Co-ops used to be a great model for people to get into housing. It was middle-income people who could get into rental housing that they could afford. Those subsidies are coming to an end.

What’s this government’s plan for the end of co-op subsidies? I wonder, but I suspect I know the answer: “Shrug, shrug. We don’t know what we’re going to do.” What an interesting approach to homelessness, affordability, the end of the co-op subsidies — not to mention mental health and addiction, which leads to homelessness.

In my constituency the environment is an incredibly important issue. Nothing illustrates better this government’s approach to the environment than the disaster at Mount Polley. I was up there in my role as the spokesperson for Tourism for the official opposition.
[ Page 4787 ]

There are just a couple of basic elements that you would think would be part of the response to a disaster of this scale. First, you’d probably have a cleanup plan, and you’d want to communicate that plan to the community. The second piece is that you’d probably want to stop the spill. The third thing is that once you had a cleanup plan and you’d stopped the spill, you’d probably want a plan to restore confidence in the area and encourage tourism to take place. As Tourism spokesperson, it’s very important for me to emphasize that.

Yet I went up there, and I heard from people in the community. One, it’s still spilling.

Interjection.

D. Eby: Oh, I hear the member from Cariboo. I hear the member saying that I should have visited the one person who got $50,000 from the government, because he has good things to say. Well, no surprise. But I visited the business owners in the area. I visited the business owners who said (a) it’s still spilling, (b) the plume is growing, and (c) the cleanup plan has not been communicated to the community.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear the member saying: “Ah, it’s under review with the First Nations and the regional district.” Now, I guess it doesn’t need to be under review with the community members of Likely.

Interjections.

[1555]

D. Eby: The members on the other side can say what they please, but I sat down with businesses and with the tourism association in the member from Cariboo’s area, and they said: “This government has failed. The government has failed us. We have plans. They ignored those plans. We had a spill. We don’t know what the cleanup plan is. They are operating on a totally different planet from us.”

I am here to bring that message to the member from Cariboo, who sat by while ferries were cut to her community that supported tourism businesses there as well. If there is a failure, it is not my failure to conclude this speech. It is the failure of the member from Cariboo to support her constituents and the failure to ensure that the throne speech reflected priorities of her community.

Deputy Speaker: We’re tracking on a course. I’ll get the member to get back to the throne speech.

D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I will.

A lot of talk in the throne speech about one issue, which is LNG development. With the reckless approach to resource development of this government, the lack of inspections and — put a capital letter at the beginning of this sentence — the Mount Polley disaster, it’s no wonder that people have no confidence in this government. They say one thing, and then they do another.

There are many opportunities in this province — and I want to speak to them a bit — that this government is missing. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many biofuel operators who would love access to the stuff that is simply burned right now at the side of the roads of B.C. They say: “Don’t burn it. Give us access to this so that we can turn it into biofuel and sell it. We can build an economy out of this. We can build jobs out of this.” Yet we continue to burn. We continue to burn that valuable material that they could turn into jobs in B.C.

There is not a lower-hanging fruit than somebody else’s garbage that someone can turn into jobs and productivity in this province, and yet this government cannot bring itself to helping them capitalize on that. You know, it’s ironic that we had the manufacturers here the other day, because there was something absent in the throne speech as well, which was discussion of manufacturing while we export raw logs in record numbers out of this province.

We’ve lost many hundreds of milling and manufacturing jobs adding value to lumber in B.C. Pulp mills can’t get access to the fibre they need. It’s interesting. In my constituency — talking about opportunities that weren’t in the throne speech — is FPInnovations. This is a group that properly receives funding actually from this government — actually receives provincial funding to come up with innovative uses for forest products.

They’ve come up with amazing technologies, and where are they implementing these technologies that this government helped fund? Well, they’re implementing them in Quebec. They’re implementing them at pulp mills in Quebec. Why is that? Because this government does not support developing value-added products out of B.C. wood in this province. Why else would they be taking their innovations and taking them to Quebec?

Between the access to fibre for pulp mills and making sure that there are opportunities for groups like FPInnovations to have their experimental technologies developed in B.C., in B.C. mills, between reducing the number of raw log exports and ensuring more value-added in B.C…. That’s just the beginning of the opportunity for a balanced approach that protects our air and water for future generations and also builds on the successes of an industry that exists right now in British Columbia, where many people work.

Sadly, we lost another mill just the other day.

M. Hunt: In Point Grey?

[1600]

D. Eby: I heard the member say, “In Point Grey,” as if it didn’t matter to members of my constituency that
[ Page 4788 ]
an industry based on a renewable resource was being so poorly managed by this government, but it does matter. It matters very much to members of my constituency, so I thank the member for reminding me of that. Another area missing in the throne speech.

I note, as spokesperson on liquor policy, this government’s attempts and failures in relation to happy hour. Happy hour. They managed to actually raise prices in B.C., a stunning accomplishment.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I wonder about the plan to introduce alcohol to grocery stores, with perimeter rules that mean, effectively, that it’s going to be incredibly difficult to do that without transferring licences. Small communities are concerned that they’re going to lose their cold beer and wine stores as they’re sold off to grocery stores across the province. Yet another initiative of this government mishandled — reducing access, reducing ease and convenience for people in smaller communities while they promise that they’re actually making things better.

I wonder about the craft beer distributors. I wonder about the craft distillers in our province and why they don’t have prime access to B.C. government liquor stores. Why are we not using our government liquor stores to promote small craft beer brewers and distillers? What an opportunity to support them, and yet they’re not there because they have to brew a certain amount in order to even get in the front door of B.C. Liquor Stores — B.C. Liquor Stores that I note still don’t have refrigerators.

I’m going to jump back to tourism because I feel that I need to address one additional piece here — two, actually. That is the impact of the ferry cuts on aboriginal tourism. Don’t take it from me.

Headline from the Globe and Mail: “B.C. Ferries Cuts Leave Aboriginal Tourism Under Dark Cloud.” Now, after investing $1.5 million over the last two years, the Aboriginal Tourism Association of B.C. said that the cuts to ferry service forced it to gear down campaigns to train coastal First Nations. “Organizations like ours, we’re doing a lot to try and bring more people through…. That’s critical to our success. But if we can’t get visitors there efficiently, that’s unfortunate. I can tell you confidently, we’ve started to minimize our investments around training and product development.”

That association sent a letter to the Premier outlining its concerns. This throne speech is silent on that.

“The timing of this announcement to cut the ferry couldn’t have been worse,” the tourism association of B.C. said. “Tourism operators in these regions have been receiving bookings for the 2014 season for months, and now they will have to be cancelled.”

You know, when I listened to the throne speech…. I know that people in the craft brewing industry, the people in the tourism association are listening. They’re listening and trying to hear where they fit into this government’s agenda and where they fit into their plans.

I wonder about how the innovations brought about in my constituency through UBC’s work, through FPInnovations, how that fits into the government’s plans. When I, in my role as spokesperson in relation to PavCo, look at the ongoing financial disaster and the costs there to the public in B.C. — $10 million last year and more to come — I wonder about a government that has completely lost its priority, which is the people of British Columbia.

In their push for an industry that I think all of us can support, which is the natural gas industry…. In their single-minded push, they have lost track of the rest of the province. I think that failure is going to cost us for a long time unless they get it straightened out.

I was disappointed by the throne speech. I won’t be voting in favour of it. This is no surprise to the people across the aisle.

[1605]

But I’ll be watching to see if they stand to vote for it, because of its silence on the priorities of their constituents — if only for the kids who won’t be able to afford to go to UBC, won’t be able to afford to engage in the training they need for the jobs of the future because of this government’s loss of direction. I look forward to seeing that.

I want to thank, just at the end of my response here, my lovely wife and our beautiful son for their support. I couldn’t do this job without them, and I am appreciative every day of their support at home.

R. Lee: It’s my pleasure to stand up today to respond to the throne speech. First of all, I would like to thank my constituency assistants, Gary Begin and Winney Xin, for their assistance in my riding. Also, I’d like to thank my Legislative Assembly assistant Kadagn Klepsch, and also Olivia Cheung, for their assistance over here in Victoria.

It’s my pleasure to serve this House and also serve my constituents. This is my 14th year, so it is my honour to be able to represent them in the House.

Burnaby North is a riding I very much treasure. I get in touch with a lot of people in my daily life and also during my coffee meetings. Every month I have a Saturday coffee meeting, and I meet quite a few people. It’s advertised in the newspaper. Also, we send out e-mails to the people interested, so we have, in general, quite a few people in the coffee shop. We just sit down and talk about issues, and I listen to their concerns. I think this is a great way to get in touch with our constituents.

Burnaby is growing, as the hon. Speaker knows. This is a community with a lot of development. Just around my office a lot of highrises are coming up, and across from my office in Brentwood Mall they are building, in the plan, 11 highrises just inside the mall footprint and also some low-rises as well. On the south part of my office there will be four highrises coming up. One is, actually,
[ Page 4789 ]
probably the second-tallest building in B.C. — 550 feet tall. This is an area of a lot of development.

A lot of people actually work in Burnaby, including a lot of companies — some mid-sized, a few larger companies. But mostly. they are small businesses. In fact, in our province in general 98 percent, I think, of our businesses are small businesses.

I think this is a good sector and a sector we should support in terms of tax policy, in terms of training, in terms of getting their products into the market. This month is actually Small Business Month, so this is a great time to celebrate their achievements as well as to see how we can help, as a government to help them to do better.

This is also an area with education. BCIT is in my riding. BCIT, of course, is one of our best institutes in terms of training, skills training, so it’s really fitting into our government’s policy right now to encourage training and encourage skill development and also encourage employment. This is a great institute situated inside my riding. I’m very proud of BCIT. They just celebrated an anniversary — the 50-year anniversary.

[1610]

In my riding we also have a new school, Burnaby central. The members opposite probably don’t think about infrastructure as important — infrastructure in terms of the building of new facilities, highways and expansion of bridges and hospitals as well as supporting research institutes.

I recall during the ten years of the NDP, they didn’t build any bridges. Do you recall any? I don’t recall any new bridges built over those ten years.

I don’t recall them increasing any seats in UBC for doctors and for nurses. I don’t recall that. In fact, I recall the number of nurses per season in UBC actually got reduced. That’s why I think there’s some catch-up to do for the government to increase those seats and also to build the infrastructure so that we can support health care, economic development and transportation.

We had a very good gateway policy that actually kept us apart from the federal government — the Pacific gateway policy. As a province we are the only province next to the Pacific Ocean. We all know that the throne speech…. The 20th century was the North American century, but this century is the 21st century. It’s the Pacific century. So we are very fortunate to be situated close to the Pacific as well as in North America.

In the throne speech, first we talked about tributes to some members of the community that passed away. I would like to especially recognize Erich Vogt. Dr. Erich Vogt was a director of TRIUMF, the place I worked for many years — to be exact, about 21 years. This is a facility of research and development. Among the accelerators in the world in that kind of energy level, it’s one of the top facilities.

I’m also happy to see the future development of TRIUMF. They have a plan to develop isotope productions, replacing the Chalk River facilities. I think this is a way for our province and also for our talent in B.C. to contribute to those scientific developments — also applications in terms of medicine and in high-tech development.

They developed super-conducting devices that have been tested recently, and it’s working. They also planned in the past to cooperate with facilities from India and from around the world. So in terms of super-conducting technology, I think this is a way for our province to make a world contribution.

I’d like to also to mention, in the throne speech…. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. Many brave Canadians defended our country, defended our values, defended our system of democracy. I think we should remember their contributions.

In fact, this year also marks the 75th anniversary of the start of the Second World War. We had some commemorative activities in the community as well.

[1615]

The veterans — especially in the minority community, the Chinese veterans, despite many negative forces preventing them going to war and serving the country — actually participated in the Second World War to contribute their time, their ability — one of the factors in the army and the navy. So I think this is a thing that sometimes we didn’t recognize them enough.

With their effort, the Chinese community actually got the right to vote in 1947. I think we should recognize those contributions from the community as well.

In fact, our aboriginal veterans also contributed to the community. Recently the aboriginal veterans and the Chinese-Canadian veterans got together, and they had a lot of sharing of their experience as well.

Talking about aboriginals, I have my connection to the aboriginal community through my grandfather’s involvement in Musqueam land. We had, in the ’50s and the ’40s and the ’60s, many Chinese Canadians actually farming on those lands. They were small pockets of land leased from the aboriginal people, but they had to pay the rent, somehow, through the federal agency.

I heard a story from the Musqueam elder, Larry Grant. He told me a story about how the market grants actually were paid to an agent. Then the aboriginal people had to go to the shop near Dunbar and Marine Drive to get the payment. The payment was not for cash. The agent at that time said that you had to get “the merchandise from our shop,” instead of getting the cash payout. So I think these are some of the stories in the community that they talk about.

I would like to spend a few moments on how we can transform from a member of the North American century into one of the Pacific century. We have a lot of trade connections right now with Asia-Pacific and Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, the ASEAN countries in the south
[ Page 4790 ]
and also India. Our trade missions, organized by the Premier and her staff, have been there many times in the last two or three years.

This is a great way to promote our industries, not only about LNG but also agrifood, agriculture. We know that the Minister of Agriculture and also the Minister of Forests were all in China recently to promote our products.

So I think this is not, as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said, that we put everything into one basket. It’s to diversify our products and our exports.

We have very good success in terms of promotion. I always give a sample about our lumber promotion. In China about 13 years ago our exports in the lumber products were about only, I think, $30 million — around that. Now it’s $1.4 billion. This is an increase of 40 to 50 times as a result of our expanding our markets in that area.

We also have to develop, as the throne speech mentioned, innovation and risk-taking. That’s why I think it’s essential for our labour force to be able to see the advantages of innovation.

In Burnaby we have many companies. They work in the energy field and in gaming, in terms of electronic games, and in terms of fusion. That’s a new technology that hasn’t been very successful in the past, but in our company in Burnaby, they actually are taking the risk of doing fundamental research and application.

[1620]

We also have companies like the producers of cellulosic ethanol, that kind of fuel, which would be helpful to convert wood waste into fuel and useful products. So I think those companies are very helpful in the new economy.

As we note, we have an aging population — in the future, how to provide seniors services with some kind of innovation so that our senior population will get better served. I’m sure that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will agree with me that seniors are very important.

In terms of how to make their life easier, innovations I know right now in some of the cities…. They actually build into the place they live in consideration for wheelchair access. The switches are lower, their control system may be built in near the back, so you can just touch them without moving around too much — to have control on their environment, living conditions. I think those are the innovations that we want to encourage.

To serve an aging population, we also need to expand our revenue, because if the tax base keeps shrinking when people are aging, then we don’t have enough resources to support, to maintain the benefits to the seniors. I think it’s essential to continue our economic development so that we keep growing, getting more revenue, and then we’ll get the financial resources to help our people in need in the society, including seniors.

Balance in the budget is very important, so I am very pleased that for two years already we have a balanced budget. This is something the previous government, in the NDP era — they didn’t care too much about balanced budgets. They spent a lot of money on operation, on programs. In fact, if I recall correctly, their operating deficit over the years was around $13 billion.

Interjections.

R. Lee: Now we are only…. We are actually catching up. We paid down for operating — I’m talking operating. If you can define what’s the operating deficit….

We reduced the operating deficit, from accumulating, from $14 billion, $15 billion, down to $6 billion, right? Down to $6 billion until the economic downturn in 2007.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

R. Lee: And then we increased the operating deficit a little bit, but it’s still below the NDP era. So in terms of the operating deficit account, we are still ahead of the NDP.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Members, please. Order.

R. Lee: We paid down the debt for what you incurred during your era, so we are still in a positive compared to 14 years ago. I think this is something we should keep in mind.

We do a lot of infrastructure. That is capital investment, investment we need for our next generation. I think that we should keep the two accounts separate somehow.

Now, in terms of trade, I would like to talk about how to do a better job in terms of the LNG legislation. Just today I heard the government actually announce the plan, the tax regime — how we can do better and attract investment and provide some kind of comprehensive and competitiveness in this kind of investment so that the 18 projects….

[1625]

There are different project proposals around LNG, and if they know for some certainty what they are getting, what kind of investment they are going to put into it, what kind of revenue they can generate and what kind of market they can explore, I think that will help them to make their final decisions. I think it’s very positive today that we have these tax proposals put forward. I’m sure the House will give those proposals due consideration.

Also, yesterday we heard about environmental concerns, environmental ability for this industry, how they can be the cleanest industries in terms of LNG production, one of the six in the world. I think this is really good, so they can move forward in that regard.

We are the people of British Columbia. We own the resources. I think it is essential that we get some benefit for
[ Page 4791 ]
our people. I think this is a balanced, a fair and a really competitive market.

I would like also to turn to other issues. For example, somebody mentioned log exports. I would like to actually say a little bit on that. In the NDP era they also had log….

Interjection.

R. Lee: Well, if you include other…. Not on Crown land. On private land the increase is actually not substantial. It’s a small percentage.

Interjection.

R. Lee: No, it’s only double — the one including the Crown land and the private land. If you look at the numbers, right now it’s about six million cubic metres, and before it was about three million cubic metres, if you include the private land as well. This is a way…. You have to add up two numbers. It’s overblown by the opposition in terms of….

Interjection.

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

R. Lee: For those logs, I think they also create employment for the loggers, for the truck drivers and also for people handing the logs — the employment with that kind of operation. I believe it is much less than 10 percent. It’s a small percentage of the total exports, so I think this is good.

I also would like to say that someone mentioned today job creation and population flow. In fact, in the last few months we’ve seen a very positive movement in terms of population. In fact, starting last year we have more people coming to B.C. instead of moving to Alberta or Saskatchewan, to take advantage of those jobs in the energy sector. I think we are doing well in terms of encouraging people to come to B.C. to work and to study.

On study, I would like to say that for every foreign student coming to B.C. to study, they have to pay their tuition, sometimes three or four times more than our own students. They have to consume. In terms of economic benefit to B.C., every one of them probably spends at least $20,000 to $30,000. This is good in economic development as a sector for our economy.

I would also like to say that some of the agrifood exports are very positive. We have crab exports, now geoduck, sea cucumbers. Those are good exports for us to generate revenue for the companies here. In agricultural products we are very happy to see cherries actually now getting permission to go into the China market. Blueberries — I think some people are working very hard to get blueberries to export to the Asian market as well. I think that this is very positive for our farmers and for our agriculture sector.

[1630]

I’d like to say that in the future we need, of course, to develop our LNG sector. This is a sector where we can have a lot of revenue coming in, potentially, to balance our budget and also to create more jobs.

I’d like to say that in the jobs plan there are quite a few initiatives to encourage students to get into skills training. I think this is important, because in a lot of cultures the children are encouraged to go into university to get a degree. But a lot of jobs that are available in society, in our community, require skills training. We need carpenters; we need pipefitters. We want to have more welders doing their job for the industry.

Actually, it’s very positive to see that the unions are very keen to do projects in cooperation with training. I think this is a way for them to get the apprentices into the system, and they can actually train them and provide mentorship and training. They are also in cooperation with the higher institutes to work with them, and I think this is a nice development in terms of working collaboratively.

We know that sometimes institutions or universities cannot do the complete training, including high schools. Right now in our high schools we have the ACE IT program. The ACE IT program has been very successful in auto mechanics, hairdressing — all those ACE IT programs. The students are actually getting the experience in the school just next to my office, Alpha Secondary. They have a very good ACE IT program. I encourage students and also school boards to look into those opportunities so the students can get prepared so that they have a job they can depend on.

I would like — I think my time is almost up — to say that leadership is very important. In the last 13 years we have been leading in terms of economic development. We want to encourage free enterprise. That’s how it was reflected in the tax structure, in our education facilities and also in terms of safety.

Our programs for seismic upgrades — the new program. We haven’t seen those in the NDP era — how to increase support for seismic upgrades to make our schools safer, to make our emergency response better. I’m very pleased to see those programs getting continued.

I would like to conclude by saying thank you to all of my constituents for their support and also for a lot of volunteers in my constituency. They work in different sectors. They support the non-profit groups. They come to their volunteer jobs voluntarily and spend a lot of time and energy. Last night I was in Burnaby participating in some of the recognition of the volunteers, ten volunteers who were recognized as local heroes in Burnaby. I congratulated them, and I said: “Thank you very much for your services and your commitment in the community.”

With that, I also would like to thank my colleagues. They are very supportive of my job. The ministers come
[ Page 4792 ]
to my riding. Yesterday the minister responsible for children and family…. This is a great way for us to…. Social services. The Minister of Social Development was there in my riding.

[1635]

Thank you very much for the support, and I look forward to serving you in the next few years.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. [Applause.]

S. Robinson: Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues.

I’m really pleased to be back in the House on this fine fall day engaging in the work of governing that British Columbians expect of their MLAs. It’s such an honour to be able to bring the voices of all British Columbians to this House in the fall of 2014. Many of my colleagues have remarked that it’s been a number of years since this House has had a fall sitting. So I’m pleased to take my place in this debate of this elusive, rare, once-in-a-blue-moon exercise known as a response to a fall throne speech in British Columbia.

I thought I would reflect a little bit on what a throne speech means to a government and to the citizens that the government serves. I thought I would check that really valuable resource known as Wikipedia just to see if maybe I’d missed anything about what we ought to be expecting from a throne speech and what it’s supposed to mean for British Columbians.

I quote from Wikipedia: “The Speech from the Throne is the oration given before the Legislature…as part of a lavish affair marking the opening of parliament…. The speech is written by the sitting cabinet, with or without the reader’s participation, and outlines the legislative program for the new parliamentary session.”

It goes on to note that “for the Legislatures of Australia’s states and Canada’s provinces, with the exception of Quebec since 1973” — and I’ll have to do a little bit of research about what that’s about — “a throne speech is also performed to outline local legislative plans.” So the throne speech, if I understand this correctly, is to outline the legislative plans that this government has for our six-week session.

On October 6 we heard an 18-minute speech about the fall legislative session. The only thing we heard, certainly the only thing I heard, that had any legislative substance was about LNG legislation. That’s it — 18 minutes of words, and the only thing this government sees fit to address in British Columbia is LNG.

Let’s start with what we’re going to be debating this legislative session — the LNG. Then I’d like to talk about what it is that we’re not talking about.

So LNG, debt-free, prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs — familiar terms. Certainly heard a lot about them. About 18 months ago it was all we heard. The B.C. Liberals were going to deliver billions, billions of dollars into public coffers. They said they had a plan. The plan involved getting many LNG plants on line. In fact, the opportunity was so phenomenal that we would be able to get rid of the sales tax. I couldn’t believe it. Get rid of the sales tax. This was going to be so spectacularly productive that we would also be debt-free.

Whenever I hear those words “debt-free,” I always have a vision of a bus with those words in oversized letters printed right across it — debt-free. I wonder where that bus is now, these days. Where might it be parked?

Interjection.

S. Robinson: My neighbour over here chuckles at that. I really would love to see it. Move that bus. Let’s sort of see what’s on the side of that bus these days.

We know that debt-free is actually not accurate at all. Under this Premier and her government, they have racked up provincial debt faster than any other Premier in B.C.’s history. By March 2015, the end of this current fiscal year, this Premier and her government will have racked up $18.6 billion in debt. Perhaps the latest slogan ought to be: “Say one thing. Do another.” It might not fit quite on the side of a bus. After all, they’re only words. For this government, what it says and what it does are not really connected.

In the February throne speech, just seven and a half months ago, the Liberals were standing in this House paying homage to the February throne speech and saying that they had to move very fast on this LNG file, that we had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs throughout the province.

[1640]

There was going to be such a windfall from this industry that it would not only eliminate the provincial debt, the debt which continues to mount, but there would also be a prosperity fund. This fund was going to take care of all of our problems, kind of like the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and a unicorn all rolled up in one.

Furthermore, they said that on top of laying out an overall framework for LNG that includes taxation, they were going to take specific actions to help to make B.C.’s LNG industry the cleanest in the world — I emphasize the word “industry” — and there were going to be some very clearly defined First Nations benefits.

What’s the reality of what was said in February? Here we are seven months later. What’s going on? In the throne speech the Liberals announced that they would be bringing forward a new LNG tax. Well, back in February 2013 they promised that the details were going to follow the following November. Maybe they meant November 2014, because it didn’t materialize in 2013, which is when they were committed to bringing it forward.

Oh right, commitments. You don’t have to follow through on your commitments. Any November will do. So here we are, a year late, finally getting some legislation on the taxes.
[ Page 4793 ]

What have they been doing to get ready? They’ve been dealing with the industry. They’ve been spending lots of time talking to industry, and they’ve been negotiating in public all these months. We have no negotiating position. We’re going to be debating that the rest of this session, and I really look forward to it.

The commitment to the cleanest LNG, a promise that was made seven months ago in the February throne speech? Well, now it’s a slightly different focus. It has a little bit of a different feel to it. Now they say they’re choosing “to develop the world’s cleanest-burning non-renewable resource and ship it to the world’s fastest-growing economy,” somehow implying that their actions will contribute in some way to a reduction in the overall GHG emission output made by China — as if this government actually had the power to influence whether or not China even burned coal.

Clean Energy Canada makes the point that the province’s argument that exported LNG will displace more GHG-intensive fuel sources such as coal hinges on a study that has yet to be done and assumes that LNG will displace other fuel sources rather than generate additional capacity. In other words, they don’t know. Somehow their legislation is going to address the commitment to have the cleanest LNG industry in the world.

I know that we’re going to be debating a bill, but I want to be really clear that the commitment was to an industry — not to a plant, but to an industry. We were going to have the cleanest industry, and that’s certainly what I’ll be looking for when we debate the appropriate bills.

What about their commitment to First Nations? In this last throne speech: “Leadership means developing a real partnership with First Nations and giving them the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a thriving economy.” What does that mean to First Nations? There’s no commitment in this throne speech. There are certainly a lot of words that have the right tone, but given how readily this government changes its commitments, I don’t believe there’s a plan to work in partnership — given that there’s nothing in this throne speech for the First Nations of this province, nothing to demonstrate a commitment to partnership.

This Premier and her government love to tell people what they think they want to hear, but certainly First Nations leaders are wise to this strategy. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called the Premier’s address on First Nations reconciliation this past September “powerful platitudes.” Grand Chief Edward John, on the First Nations Summit, said: “In the past what we’ve been met with is mostly forked tongues. We can’t have that again.”

The courts have set the new course for First Nations in this province, and while the Premier and the Liberal government can say the right words, we know that their willingness and commitment to follow through are considerably weak.

Now, the throne speech also talked about leadership in the area of local government. They’re wanting local governments to control spending, find savings and balance budgets. These are expectations of local government.

[1645]

I have no idea where the Premier has been, but local governments are bound by legislation to balance their budgets, and all the local governments that I know do just that. They also control spending and look for savings, but I will tell you that when you have other levels of government getting out of the business of caring for citizens, it’s local governments that feel the pinch.

When the federal government got out of the business of housing or providing tax incentives to developers to build rental housing, it was local governments who had to deal with street homelessness and other forms of homelessness. When the B.C. Liberals failed to properly produce community-based treatments for those with mental illness, it was municipalities that had to pick up the slack with added police force services.

Now that the B.C. Ambulance Service has downgraded 70 types of calls, the burden of responding to these emergencies is once again falling to local government firefighters — a burden once again that is falling to local governments. We also see that Emergency Management B.C. has changed their mission statement so that instead of the province taking leadership in the event of an earthquake, the expectation is for municipalities to actually take the leadership, and the province will take a back seat. I don’t see any money flowing to these municipalities for these new responsibilities.

Once again we have a Premier that knows exactly what to say but then does what she wants. I mean, it does sound really good to say these things, but it doesn’t tell you the whole story. A government that says to local governments: “You need to control your spending and find savings. By the way, you also need to provide these additional services, and we aren’t going to give you money to do it.” If this isn’t crazy-making, I don’t know what is.

Of course, while this government once talked about working 24-7 to bring labour peace with teachers, we saw the longest labour disruption in history. The real impact of this disruption will be felt for a long time — teachers who had to borrow money to pay their mortgages, families scrambling to find child care, students anxious about catching up on their studies, school boards now having to deal with clawbacks after having been promised that they could keep 20 percent of the dollars saved from the days that the schools were closed.

This government took the summer off because they wanted to send a message. While they were mouthing the words “We will work 24-7,” their actions said: “We need to teach those teachers a lesson. Let them suffer.” So much for working 24-7.

What else does this government say? It would seem that the B.C. Liberals like to say things in order to win an election, and then they just don’t deliver. Before there
[ Page 4794 ]
was Debt-Free B.C., it was Families First. Now this one was my favourite. It’s a good slogan. The alliteration is just really elegant, but the F in Families First really belongs to the B.C. Liberals. It’s the letter grade they deserve for their inability or their lack of willingness to follow through on their commitments.

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, in this throne speech that supports families — nothing about those disgusting clawbacks that have been making life harder on single mothers on disability, nothing about those other clawbacks that foster children have to endure now that post-secondary institutions have offered bursaries to these young people, nothing for health care that consumes 40 percent of our health care budget.

I guess that under the new slogan of “Out with the old, in with the new,” they no longer believe they have to live up to these other commitments. Now, the Liberals did mention, and I quote again: “The opportunity afforded by LNG is more than a chance to make a smart investment. It’s the expanded patient care tower in Victoria and the one planned in Vernon…. It’s Kordyban Lodge in Prince George, giving northern cancer patients a place to recover closer to their families.”

It’s really lovely, promising these already announced plans but nothing about anything specific to address a single health policy, program or legislation. No mention of seniors. No mention of mental health. No mention of northern or rural health. No mention of any platform promises or past government promises, such as a provincial mental health strategy, addiction resources, a family doctor strategy or hospice expansion.

No mention of a Violence-Free B.C. I actually really liked that slogan. I was actually really excited to hear that slogan in the February throne speech. It didn’t catch on, though. We only heard it once, in February. No new programs or new money to actually do something to protect women trapped in the cycle of violence, and of course there was nothing for the perpetrators of violence — usually men, who need to understand the impact that violence has on their families.

[1650]

These slogans can be very, very powerful. They can be catchy, easy sound bites that fit on the side of a bus. But this government changes its slogans the way I like to change my wardrobe: out with the old and in with the new. “Oh, that was so last season. I’m not wearing that old thing. I need something new to freshen up the look.” I guess they’ll have to find a catchy new slogan this fall that would carry them through the season — I mean, the sitting.

This is the thinking that I have been witnessing over the last year and a half. Sadly, this is the kind of government we have. We have a Slogans-R-Us government. They love the slogans and the messaging, but when you read the fine print, it all just falls apart. There’s nothing that describes when and what they are going to deliver, and that’s because they don’t have anything to deliver.

My constituents are looking for a whole bunch of things. I think back to my days of knocking on doors back in April and May of 2013.

I talked about this family in my response to the February throne speech. I knocked on this door. It was Sunday afternoon, late in the day. A woman appeared at the door. She was preparing dinner, because she had a knife in her hand, and she was waving it around. She was pretty angry.

Both she and her husband had employment, but they weren’t really getting any further ahead. They didn’t have any access to child care that would be affordable for her so that she didn’t have to pick up evening and weekend shifts. That was really how she was making ends meet — working extra shifts, evenings and weekends — and therefore wasn’t with her family. They didn’t have easy access to transit that would minimize their need for a second vehicle, and they didn’t have time to be together as a family.

There was nothing in this throne speech and there was nothing in February’s throne speech that would make a difference to this woman and her family.

I heard from other families more recently. One that stands out is about health care. This is a constituent whose 90-year-old mother fell, and she broke a hip. We all know that when 90-year-olds fall and break hips, it’s usually not very good outcomes. This woman is actually pretty much a tough cookie, and she survived the broken hip. But part of the outcome of falling and hurting herself is that she suffers from extreme anxiety, and she’s really afraid to be alone.

The assessment was made that she ought not to live alone and that her level of care is increasing. So while she was in hospital, she was told not to worry. “We’ll find her a bed.”

Her daughter, my constituent, said: “That’s great. I’m really excited to hear that.” She proceeded to sell off her mother’s furniture, kept a few things that she can take with her into care. She let go of her mother’s apartment, only to be told six weeks later: “Oh, you know, we can’t find a bed. Your mom’s going to have to move out, and we’ll get her some home care support. We’ll get her, like, a couple hours a day.”

Well, this woman was having panic and anxiety attacks at all hours of the day. This woman was afraid to get off the bed. This woman was afraid to walk independently. She’s 90 years old, and now she had no home. Now the message that she was getting from the caring doctors and nurses was: “We have no room for you to go to.”

What is a person to do? What do I tell my constituent? This is a government that isn’t ready to respond because all they care about right now is LNG. That’s all we’re seeing. That’s all we’re discussing.

Coquitlam-Maillardville citizens and British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a caring government that
[ Page 4795 ]
provides services designed to support all British Columbians throughout the province. They deserve a government that will provide them with the tools that they need to flourish. They need a government that will properly fund education.

The earlier speaker from Burnaby North talked about the ACE IT program. It’s a great program, but I’ve been talking to teachers who said: “I don’t have enough equipment” or “I have 30 students and 15 pieces of equipment, and I don’t have enough eyes to make sure that everyone is safe. I need a smaller class size.” That’s not acceptable.

So you can have all these fabulous ideas, but if you don’t invest, if you don’t invest in making sure that it’s done properly, then you fail.

[1655]

You fail on a families-first agenda. You fail on taking care of citizens. You fail on a debt-free agenda. You fail on a violence-free agenda. Slogans do not cut it.

I’d like to be able to say that I liked something in the throne speech, that there was something that stood out that said: “This is something that really will make a difference. This is something that will really make life better for British Columbians.” This is a government that has yet to deliver, and that’s disappointing.

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make some introductions, if I may.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Today I had the pleasure and the honour to tour a group of UVic students, B.C. Young Liberals, around the House and to show the people’s House off. I took them behind the scenes and showed them places like the jail cell in the basement, and the library. As well, I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce them to the House. They are young people who I think will be going on to great opportunities in their life, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them eventually working in this House.

Today I’d like to introduce, if I get the names correct: Andrew Chan, Will Dahlem, Jennifer Harvie, Arya Hejazi, Devon Hill, Quinn McTavish, Steven McLelan, Niall Paltiel, Nicole Paul, Jordan Quitzan, Ryan Trelford, Taylor Verrall, Dion Weisner, Amit Dewett, Ashley Ram, and they are accompanied by Stephen Roberts. Would the House please make these individuals welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am pleased to stand here and support the most recent throne speech. Before I do, like my other colleagues, I really want to start by thanking the folks that make it possible for us to be here. I’ll start by thanking Debbie, my full-time constituency assistant, who is ably assisted by Chris in my North Vancouver office. Thank you very much for keeping things running when we’re not there, and regrettably, that is more often than not when we’re in session. I’d like to also thank Angela, who keeps us on schedule in my Victoria office here.

Of course, I have to thank Fred, who has made it a lot easier to do this job because of his support and his constant encouragement and his text messages to me when I seem to need it most. Thank you to all of these people and, of course, my family in North Vancouver, who have been very supportive over the last few years.

I was very pleased to see the throne speech address small business. I think, like most of us on this side of the House, we’re listening to key words in the throne speech. For me it was small business. I will quote from the throne speech: “Last week this government released the three-year update of the B.C. jobs plan. It places a renewed emphasis on four cross-sector priorities: small business, manufacturing, aboriginal peoples and First Nations, and international trade and small business.”

I checked, Mr. Speaker. It does mention small business twice in the same sentence.

It goes on to say: “This government is focused on helping to open new markets for small business because there is no more effective way to create jobs and opportunities for British Columbians to build their careers and raise their families here at home.”

To that point, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations just returned from a trade mission to Japan, China and Korea. Our Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education just returned from a trade mission to India. In a couple of weeks our Minister of International Trade will be going to China, Japan and Korea, again to open up new markets, not just for small business but to open up new markets to create more opportunities for British Columbians to build their careers here at home.

It’s also October, and it’s Small Business Month. It’s fitting that a throne speech mentions small business. Small Business Month is our chance to recognize the tremendous contributions that small businesses make and to celebrate the success of businesses in our own neighbourhoods. Most of us know that the majority of businesses in British Columbia are small business. In fact, 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia are considered small business, which is defined as having 50 or fewer employees.

[1700]

That means that over 382,000 businesses in British Columbia are considered small businesses. Over a million British Columbians work for small businesses in British Columbia, and nearly 55 percent of all private sector jobs in British Columbia are provided by small businesses. That’s the highest rate in all of Canada.
[ Page 4796 ]

We also rank first in Canada for the number of small businesses per capita, with 83.4 businesses per 1,000 people. The national average is 70. I think that speaks to our entrepreneurial spirit and our innovative culture.

Women make up almost 38 percent of self-employed people in British Columbia. That’s well above the national average as well. Small businesses in B.C. account for 31 percent of British Columbia’s GDP. That’s higher than the Canadian national average, which is 29 percent.

Small businesses, small business owners, aren’t just those who are employing the million people in British Columbia. Small business owners are those owners who tirelessly work to volunteer in their communities. They are members of their local chambers of commerce.

I know, as a former member of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce and a former chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, how important the chambers are to our communities and to our province.

I know that the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development was involved in her local chamber of commerce, in Quesnel. I know that we have many members on this side of the House who are proud members of their chamber of commerce. I know only too well how much of a contribution my local chamber, the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, has made to our community.

The North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce just this year has raised, at their North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Governors’ Gala, over $160,000. And $110,000 of that went to the Novaco Daycare facility, and $50,000 went to the Presentation House Theatre.

That’s $110,000 that was raised to help rebuild a North Vancouver daycare after a devastating fire in December displaced 30 children.

That’s $50,000 for the Presentation House Theatre, in North Vancouver, that believes that professional theatre is for everyone. Every show that they put on appeals to the diversity of the North Shore. They offer programming for children, for youth, for adults, young and old. They have programming for those who enjoy music and those who enjoy dancing. They are the cultural hub in my neighbourhood.

That’s the chambers of commerce. That’s a reflection of the chambers of commerce and the good work that they do all over the province. I think that the fact that it is Small Business Month is a great opportunity to thank the local chambers of commerce in this province for all they do to make our communities stronger.

I am also working hard to continue to cut red tape and boost small business’s share of government spending on goods and services. We’ve committed to increasing, by 20 percent, the amount of business the government buys from small business.

We’ve already cut the small business tax rate in British Columbia by 44 percent, and we’re committed to continue to cut it a further 40 percent. That means that British Columbia, by 2017, will have one of the lowest small business tax rates in Canada.

Small business owners are passionate. They’re innovative. They’re flexible. They react to change. That’s why I think we need them to be role models, and that’s why I think it’s so important that we support shopping local.

I know that I’m a huge supporter, as many of my colleagues are, of supporting local businesses. One of the reasons why I think it’s so important to support local business is…. That business owner that you are helping is also probably coaching hockey. They’re probably cutting up oranges during halftime on the local soccer field. They’re raising money for the hospital foundations. They’re raising money for local daycares. And they’re raising money for theatre, culture and the arts.

I hope that this month British Columbians will join me in thanking small businesses in our communities and support shopping local.

[1705]

What you can do, though, is to support and recognize your local small businesses by nominating your favourite business for a Small Business B.C. award. This is a plug for a huge, huge program that’s being sponsored by Small Business B.C. You can get some more information on this at sbbcawards.ca. Small businesses make a difference to individuals, families and the B.C. economy every day.

I also have an opportunity to receive advice from small business owners through the government’s permanent Small Business Roundtable. I would note that the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and our MLA from, I think, Boundary-Similkameen are former members of the Small Business Roundtable.

They are part of a group of individuals that give up their time to provide small businesses a voice through the Small Business Roundtable direct to government. The roundtable has hosted consultations in regions all over the province and has engaged with over 1,000 small business owners in British Columbia.

They have told us through their annual small business report to government that we should continue to reduce our regulatory requirements — the unnecessary ones. I am proud to say that CFIB has presented the province with an A, for our red-tape reduction efforts, on their report card. We are the only province in Canada, in fact, to receive an A grade from CFIB.

As part of Small Business Month, and in an effort to further reduce red tape, we are working closely with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and others, like the B.C. Restaurant Association. We are actually embarking on a very interesting pilot project with the B.C. Restaurant Association to make it easier for small businesses to open up restaurants in our communities all around the province.

Our goal is to make B.C. the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada, and this is just one way that we are working with the business community to
[ Page 4797 ]
do that. But we don’t just work with the Canadian and B.C. chambers of commerce and the B.C. Restaurant Association. We are actually working with over 125 chambers of commerce in our province. I am very, very proud of the work that we’ve done.

During the UBCM — the Union of B.C. Municipalities — conference a couple of weeks ago in Whistler, I was able to participate in a wonderful program that the Small Business Roundtable is responsible for adjudicating. It was at this conference that we announced the winners of the 2014 Open for Business Award. The awards recognize local policies, projects and programs that support small businesses.

I’m proud to announce that this year’s recipients — and there are nine of them — are Grand Forks, Kelowna, the city of Langley, Parksville, Port Coquitlam, Salmon Arm, Smithers, Surrey and Vernon. A big thank-you to these municipalities, who have recognized how important it is to support small business not just in words but in actions. Congratulations once again.

Liquefied natural gas has the potential to unleash incredible opportunities for our province and for British Columbian businesses. Through the LNG–Buy B.C. program, we’re working to ensure that the entire B.C. business community can take part in the incredible opportunities that LNG has to offer. The LNG–Buy B.C. program is a platform for major investors across a range of industries to tap into B.C.’s local businesses.

As part of the program, the LNG–Buy B.C. on-line tool is being developed so that B.C. businesses can promote their products and services to proponents and make important business connections.

Some of the things that this LNG–Buy B.C. tool has for businesses: the ability to inform businesses of commercial opportunities, help make connections that businesses need, generate exposure for their businesses, promote B.C. businesses’ capabilities, help B.C. businesses find suppliers and business partners, and keep B.C. businesses informed of the major project activities.

Businesses can pre-register now for the LNG–Buy B.C. on-line tool at www.lngbuybc.ca. All you need is your business number and the year that your business was established. My request to the members opposite is to embrace this opportunity to help your local businesses in your communities, and let them know about this tool, because I know that our side of the House certainly has done that.

[1710]

On to something a little bit different, but certainly a hugely important part of our economy and certainly growing: the craft beer industry, one of our emerging small business sectors. In fact, in August the Minister of Health and I had the difficult task of joining the B.C. Craft Brewers Guild to visit four different craft breweries in the Lower Mainland.

We visited Conrad at Brassneck Brewery, Don at Bomber Brewing, Jim at Red Truck brewing and Martin at Green Leaf Brewing, which is in my neck of the woods at the foot of Lonsdale. These gentlemen shared with me their passion for beer-making, because beer is more than just water, hops and yeast. We learned that every craft beer has its story, and that’s what makes this industry so unique. So I’d like to do another shout-out to the bccraftbeer.com website so that the member opposite from Point Grey can learn more about this growing industry.

I’m not only the Minister of State for Small Business; I’m also the Minister of State for Tourism, and I can tell you that 2013 and 2014 have been great years for the tourism industry in B.C.

Tourism is one of the most important industries and generates more than $13 billion in annual revenue. There are more than 18,000 tourism businesses in British Columbia. And an interesting statistic which reflects our general percentage of small businesses in B.C.: probably 16,000 or 17,000 of those industries are actually small businesses as well.

We have 127,000 people who work in tourism in British Columbia. That means that one out of every 15 people is employed in the tourism industry in British Columbia. This industry creates careers that are high-paying, full-time jobs and also flexible jobs that support diverse needs, from the seasonal heli-ski guides to part-time work for students.

In fact, this year the province of B.C. proclaimed that August was Staycation Month. It was really entertaining and informative to see the tweets of my colleagues, who used the hashtag #staycationbc to promote the opportunities that they had while touring British Columbia during their vacation. If anybody would like to check out our Minister of Transportation’s tweets during that time in August, you’ll see what an enormously fun time and entertaining time his family had doing the coast Cariboo circle tour.

Getting back to the throne speech, it’s disappointing that the NDP felt the need to criticize the length of the recent throne speech. There is a contrasting statement that I looked up. It’s actually a translation from the French mathematician and philosopher Pascal. He said: “I have made this longer” — and he’s referring to a speech — “than usual because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”

We have had time to be clear, concise and focused. I will be supporting this throne speech, because it’s like small business. It’s a reflection of our willingness to be entrepreneurial and aspirational, innovative. We have made an acknowledgment that this will take hard work, but it’s hard work to ensure that British Columbians have the world-class services that we have come to rely on.

J. Darcy: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the throne speech this fall and to bring forward the concerns of my constituents in New Westminster so that
[ Page 4798 ]
their voices can be heard in the deliberations and in the decision-making here in this House. I also welcome the opportunity as the opposition spokesperson on Health to bring forward concerns about health care from my community, from my region and also from people across B.C.

Let me begin by thanking some very important people — first of all, the constituents that I am very, very honoured to serve in New Westminster. As you’ve heard me say on many occasions, it’s a very special and very caring community and certainly a community where people are never shy about sharing their opinions with me about the issues that come up in this House and showing their support for me for speaking out on their behalf.

[1715]

I want to thank those people from New Westminster but also from across British Columbia who come to me with their health care concerns, because I’m often in, I think, a very unique and privileged position that people invite me into their lives by sharing their stories, often very difficult stories, about the challenges that they’re facing in health care.

I want to thank my constituency assistants, my full-time constituency assistant, Nadine Nakagawa, and my part-time constituency assistants, Michael Cheevers and Parm Kahlon, who keep the home fires burning and take care of constituents’ concerns every single day in our community. I couldn’t do this job, possibly, without them.

I want to thank my legislative assistant, Veronica Harrison, who is absolutely made of gold and indispensable. I also want to thank our wonderful opposition caucus staff, in particular our communications officer, Megan Mills, and the newest member of our team, research officer Jackson Flagg. I hope that they’re listening today, because they don’t get thanks in public very often.

Most of all, I want to thank my family — my wonderful husband, Gary, and our remarkable son — for their constant support but also for the wisdom that they share with me about everything in life, frankly, including about politics and about this place.

Turning to the throne speech, to be honest, it’s difficult to know exactly where to begin, not so much because of what’s in the throne speech but because of what’s not in the throne speech. I know that it’s rare to have a fall sitting of this Legislature at all, but it is also rare to have a throne speech that is so devoid of substance, so lacking in vision, so out of touch with the concerns not just of my constituents but also out of touch with the real lives and the real concerns of people across B.C. To call it thin gruel would be an understatement.

Let’s start by taking a look at the government’s much-touted jobs plan, which the throne speech says is this government’s strategy to grow the economy. Well, the fact is that that jobs plan has already been a failure. Since it was launched in September 2011, a full three years ago, only 2,800 jobs have been created in the private sector, the second-to-worst record in the country.

Secondly, the government is focusing only on LNG and ignoring other sectors of the economy. They’re signing memorandums of understanding with China to expedite temporary foreign workers for the LNG industry and refusing to guarantee apprenticeship training opportunities for B.C. workers. There’s no manufacturing strategy to speak of.

Hydro price hikes are hammering B.C. industries that once enjoyed a competitive advantage because of cheap renewable power.

They’re having ferries built in Poland instead of coming up with a strategy to have them built here in British Columbia.

We’ve dropped commitments to the film industry. The forest industry gets smaller and smaller.

We privatized much of our municipal recycling system, charging British Columbia’s businesses exorbitant fees. And one of the biggest concerns in my community, where small business really is what keeps the economy going…. There’s nothing in this throne speech that speaks to the concerns of small business.

Even on liquefied natural gas, which is virtually the only thing this throne speech talks about, the government is backing down on every previous major commitment about LNG. In previous throne speeches there was nothing that the LNG industry couldn’t do for this province. It was going to create 100,000 jobs and eliminate the provincial debt. We would no longer need a sales tax, and we would have a $100 billion prosperity fund. All of those promises were absent from this fall’s throne speech.

LNG was supposed to be the greatest economic opportunity our province has ever seen just a few months ago. Now it’s become “a chance, not a windfall,” and a way to help to pay the bills for provincial services. Gone are the promises that LNG would magically enable us to fund education and health care forever. This throne speech shows very clearly that the B.C. Liberals are a whole lot better at telling British Columbians what they want to hear than at keeping their own promises.

[1720]

Yet when the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out how the government’s over-the-top promises about LNG have put the government, quite frankly, and the province in a very weak negotiating position with LNG companies, the Premier has actually responded by saying: “Oh no, I do know how to negotiate. Just look at how I was able to settle the teachers strike and bring about labour peace.”

Labour peace — are you kidding me? If having the longest provincewide school closure in B.C. history is what labour peace looks like, I can’t imagine what this government thinks labour conflict looks like. But the Premier actually said that. You can’t make this stuff up.

It brings me to the subject of public education, the issue that continues to be uppermost in the minds of many of my constituents, because public education is missing in action in this throne speech. I have received,
[ Page 4799 ]
as have I’m sure MLAs on both sides of the House, literally hundreds of e-mails and phone calls about public education. I held a public forum on public education last week. Here are just a few of the things that my constituents had to say.

“I’m a resident of New Westminster with two children in the school system. I’ve also been a grade 1 teacher in Vancouver for the past 24 years, and I have personally seen the erosion of our public school system firsthand. It has been devastating trying to teach with limited support. It’s stressful, demoralizing and sad. I personally feel that I’ve let down so many children because I couldn’t do my job properly and support their learning needs.”

A parent from New Westminster writes:

“I have a daughter with an as-of-yet undiagnosed learning disability. The wait-list for having her tested through the public education system is lengthy, and the cost of doing it privately runs to thousands of dollars. So my husband and I have scrimped and saved to take her to a private vision therapy to assist her with her learning struggles. We do it because what’s the alternative?

“Her self-esteem levels are heartbreaking. Her anxiety is palpable. My ten-year-old tells me she can’t cope anymore. What would happen if she were from a family who couldn’t afford these extras? I am truly frightened for our education system. We spend $1,000 per student less than the average Canadian province on education. Can we really afford to not even be average?”

Another parent writes to me:

“Let me tell you about Tom’s classroom. Amazing teacher, fabulous school, stellar resource teacher. Tom had 24 children in a primary classroom, the maximum number allowed. Of the 24, 11 were diagnosed with special needs. Nine had specialized learning plans, stating they needed adaptations to meet their potential. One student arrived from China in December with no English. Another had come from Korea the year before. Another six were English language learners.

“There was no money for a teacher assistant in this classroom. The teacher did an amazing job, but the truth is no one can juggle all of those balls with excellence, and teachers strive for excellence.”

Another parent, another constituent, wrote to me:

“I’m tired of government steamrollering over social program funding and claiming fiscal prudence. As a taxpayer, I want all children to have an exemplary public school education. I want everyone to get medical care when they need it. I want supports in place for underprivileged and immigrant families. And you know what? I’m willing to pay for it.”

That was from someone who didn’t have children in the school system.

Another constituent wrote:

“I work at the B.C. Centre for Ability. We see children from birth to kindergarten-entry age with neurological disorders and developmental delays. We receive a contract through the Ministry of Child and Family Development to provide services to these children and families. My job is challenging, as either I’m telling families they don’t qualify for our services and there’s very little in the community that will address their needs, or that they do qualify for our services, but that due to staffing shortages as a result of limited funding, there will be a long delay in services.”

She points out that those delays have often been as long as a year.

[1725]

A grandparent from New Westminster wrote to me:

“The money spent on pursuing the court case that was lost at the Supreme Court of B.C. against the government and the $40 a day offered to parents would be much better spent providing support for children and the public school sector. I have volunteered in my grandchildren’s elementary school, reading with primary students who need extra one-on-one time to progress. I’ve seen master teachers tired and weary from trying to bring each student along to the level they are capable of with just a little more help.”

She urges us to remember that great minds are found not only in the ranks of those who can afford to pay additional funds for private education.

I could go on. As I mentioned, I’ve received literally hundreds of e-mails and letters. But my community is not unique. These same stories are being told right across British Columbia.

While I’m on the subject of public education, I have to make comment on the crying need for a new high school in my community and about the unacceptable delays of this government in responding to the need for a new New Westminster Secondary School. This is the only high school in our community of 67,000 people. The school is over 60 years old, and it is in terrible shape. Parts of the school are quite literally falling apart — the physical structure, the plaster. There are holes and exposed wiring everywhere, rotten window frames, a roof that needs replacing. The list goes on.

I invited the opposition spokesperson on Education, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, to tour the school with me last May, and he said he had never seen a school in worse shape in his travels across British Columbia. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate my invitation to the Minister of Health to come to New Westminster and see New West Secondary School for himself.

This government has recognized since 2005 that a new high school is needed, yet the capital project for a new New West Secondary School has faced delay after delay after delay. The fact that such excellent learning goes on in our high school is an enormous credit to our incredible teachers and support staff. But the students in my community deserve better. They deserve 21st-century learning in an environment that meets their needs.

This government brags in the throne speech about balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit, but quite frankly, it is doing so at the expense of high-quality public education for our children, and it’s creating a social deficit for this generation and those to come.

Let me turn now to health care, which is certainly always a top of mind concern for my constituents, whether they are seniors or young families, as it is for people across B.C. This is a deeply disappointing throne speech from a health perspective, with no mention of health other than vague references to existing or planned hospitals. No mention of the pressing issues in health care, even though health care accounts for over 40 percent of the budget.

The Premier clearly can’t be taken at her word. Once she touted a families-first approach to government, and now she has a throne speech that’s fixated on scaling back her overblown and unrealistic election promises on LNG while not even mentioning health care.

There is no mention of any specific health care policy,
[ Page 4800 ]
program or legislation in this throne speech. There’s no mention of seniors, of mental health, of northern and rural health, no mention of any platform promises or past government promises such as the provincial mental health plan, addiction space expansion, the much-touted GP for Me — every person in B.C. who needs one will have a family doctor by 2015 — nothing about hospice expansion, preventive health care. In short, nothing about health care.

Let me take a few minutes to talk about a really serious health care issue in my part of the province, in my community and in the Fraser Health region. B.C.’s fastest-growing health region is Fraser Health, serving 1.7 million people, including my community of New Westminster. One-third of B.C.’s population lives in Fraser Health.

The government commissioned a major review and report that reported out in the summer and reported very clearly what the people in Fraser Health region have known for a very long time and issues that this government has ignored for a very long time — that Fraser Health Authority was plagued by very serious problems.

[1730]

Fortunately, at the end of the day, this review and this report were released, even though the Minister of Health had earlier resisted the release of that full report. But because of pressure from the official opposition and from front-line health care providers, it was in fact released. It identified some very, very serious problems. One of the serious problems it spoke to was the lack of attachment to family health care practitioners. It said that in our region, in fact, the lack of attachment to a family doctor is rising. It’s growing — it’s not going down — especially amongst the frail elderly, despite the commitment of A GP for Me by 2015.

Fraser Health is also home to the highest number of residents affected by mental health and by substance abuse, including a population of 50,000 severely addicted and mentally ill residents. I know from discussions with the police in New Westminster and our local chapter of the Canadian Mental Health Association that in the absence of adequate mental health services, more and more of those folks end up being dealt with by the police because the services they need are woefully inadequate.

In the area of home support. Fraser Health has some of the lowest client rates for home support in the province — also for home nursing care, for rehabilitation services. In fact, home support hours have steadily declined over the last decade at a time when home support and home nursing should be going up, because it’s what seniors need in order to be independent in their own homes and also because it’s cost-effective — something that seems to be lost on this government.

In the area of residential care beds. The population of Fraser Health has increased by 6.2 percent in the last four years, but the number of residential care beds has not nearly matched that increase in population. So we have the second-lowest percentage of residential care beds in the province. No wonder we also have some of the highest occupancy rates in our acute care hospitals, in Fraser Health, compared to the rest of the province.

We also have — and this is really critical — the lowest number of acute care beds per population of any health authority in the province. What’s the result of that? The result of that is very serious. The result is that virtually all of our hospitals are operating at, at least 100 percent capacity and in many cases far more. Chilliwack Hospital, 113 percent. Mission Memorial, 131 percent. Royal Columbian, 103 percent. Burnaby, 108. Ridge Meadows, 110. Surrey, 102. Delta Hospital, 116 percent capacity. What does that mean? It means that hallway medicine is alive and well throughout Fraser Health, as it still is across B.C.

What about emergency departments? Well, the hospital in my community, Royal Columbian, routinely makes headlines most frequently for things like the overflow in the emergency room. People end up being put in the Tim Hortons or in the lobby. The front-line staff who work there, the people who work in emergency — the doctors, the nurses, the admitting clerks — will tell you that the crisis in emergency is far from an isolated occurrence. It’s something that they live with every single week.

Poverty. The Fraser Health report explicitly stated something that this government refuses to acknowledge and refuses to act upon, even though the evidence is crystal-clear. Quoting from the Fraser Health report, it says that frequent users of the emergency department tend to have “lower socioeconomic status.” That is, those who are most socially deprived use the emergency department the most and experience the poorest health outcomes. Yet the B.C. Liberal government refuses, year after year after year, to put in place a poverty reduction strategy.

Surgical services. Almost a quarter of our operating rooms are not regularly staffed. Is it any wonder that wait times for surgeries are as long as they are?

[1735]

If all of that were not bad enough, here’s the most worrisome piece of all. The technical term for this is “nursing-sensitive adverse events.” What it really means is poor patient safety and poor quality of care. We’re talking about things that happen to patients while they are in the hospital, not that are caused by complications of their disease or illness itself. We’re talking about things like bedsores, hospital fractures, urinary tract infections or pneumonia.

Several Fraser Health hospitals perform very poorly in this regard, not just in relation to other hospitals in British Columbia, but they were some of the very worst in comparison to hospitals right across this country when it comes to patient safety, when it comes to quality of care — Royal Columbian, Peace Arch, Ridge Meadows, Surrey Memorial. And, sadly, Burnaby Hospital was the
[ Page 4801 ]
worst in Canada for two consecutive years when it came to issues related to patient safety and quality of care. But there was not a single word in this throne speech about a financial commitment to address these enormous problems. Not a single word.

In fact, the government was crystal-clear in its response to the Fraser Health review, “Yes, we need to shift to more community care; we need greater access to primary care,” which I agree with wholeheartedly. But it also said very clearly that the issue is not about underfunding in any way, shape or form and refuses to recognize shortages of residential care beds, of acute care beds, of home support funding, and also that Fraser Health is experiencing a severe shortage of nurses and other health care providers right across the board.

In this throne speech and every day in this House and in every media release that the B.C. Liberal government puts out, we hear bragging about this government supposedly balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit. But let’s be very clear. This government says one thing and does another. This budget is being balanced on the backs of patients who need health care in New Westminster, in Fraser Health and across B.C. We are seeing the accumulation of an enormous social deficit — one, once again, that the B.C. Liberals choose to ignore.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Another critical area in this throne speech is seniors. We had a comprehensive report a few years ago from the Ombudsperson, who recommended action in several key areas. Some of the most important recommendations have been ignored, like the need for expanded home support. It should not have come as a surprise to this government or to the Minister of Health that home support hours were going down in Fraser Health, not up. That’s a sign of this government being asleep at the switch.

What about the Ombudsperson’s recommendations to improve staffing levels in residential care? Again, no action. The sad reality, as clearly set out in the Ombudsperson’s report and as shown in a recent survey of care aides, is that the frail elderly are not receiving the attention that they require and that care staff very much want to provide.

Whether that’s comforting or calming a patient with dementia, whether it’s making sure a resident is toileted on time or whether it’s making sure there are sufficient staff so seniors can have regular baths, this government — this throne speech — is failing our seniors. The B.C. Liberal government says one thing and does another.

Finally, I want to speak to the issue of health care in northern and rural British Columbia, an issue that I also had the opportunity to speak about earlier today in question period.

The B.C. Liberals are very fond of saying that resource communities are fuelling the B.C. economy, and that is certainly the case in Fort St. John in northeast B.C. But at the same time that the B.C. Liberal government is relying on resource communities and extracting more resources out of these communities all the time, they are not putting in the necessary services for people that these communities desperately need and are crying out for.

I was invited last month to attend a community meeting in Fort St. John. Hundreds of people packed the seniors hall, and they spoke out one after another. The meeting went on for two or 2½ hours, people rising and speaking out. They were passionate, they were eloquent, and their stories were very disturbing. They were heartbreaking stories.

[1740]

Fort St. John has perhaps the worst shortage of health professionals in the province — shortages of doctors, of nurse parishioners, of nurses, of X-ray technicians, of care aides, of all health care providers. The government’s promise — again, the GP for Me by 2015 — is a broken promise for the people of Fort St. John, as it is across B.C. The estimates range. The low estimate is that 15,000 people don’t have a family doctor. The high estimate is 25,000. Whichever it is, it’s very, very serious.

People told stories that night about lining up to get into the walk-in clinic, sometimes for hours in minus-30-degree weather. They talked about driving to Dawson Creek, driving to Alberta, some driving to Fort Nelson five hours away. And when the walk-in clinic was closed recently…. People’s records, their medical records, were stored with a private company in Ontario, and they have to pay up to $200 now to get those records back.

I told a story earlier today about Ryan, who waited two months — eight weeks — to get in to see a family doctor. He doesn’t have a family doctor. Now he’s waiting another six months for psychiatric care for mental depression and anxiety.

This crisis did not happen overnight. It’s been developing for years, and the B.C. Liberal government is, frankly, burying its head in the sand. Then just before there’s going to be a big community meeting, we see a last-minute media announcement — in this case, about nurse practitioners.

We do need to be training more doctors in the north in order to recruit them to stay in the north. We do need to do more training and recruitment of nurse practitioners and other health practitioners in the north to stay in the north. Nurse practitioners are an absolutely critical part of the solution, but the model that the government is presently using for nurse practitioners does not create the conditions for success, and I have heard that from nurse practitioners working in Kamloops, working in the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island and across B.C.

We do need to expand and build robust interdisciplinary teams. They are the future of health care. The pure fee-for-service model is failing many British Columbians, and more and more doctors want to work in team-based
[ Page 4802 ]
care. Sadly, while the government pays lip service to this approach, in too many cases it’s moving in the opposite direction, like the cuts to the community health centres in Vancouver.

Government talks the good talk about nurse practitioners, about interdisciplinary teams, when there’s a crisis, but that’s not the same thing as walking the walk. Lurching from crisis to crisis is no way to run a health care system, and it’s no way to run an economy. Crisis-driven management is exactly what the people of Fort St. John and other northern and rural communities are experiencing every single day.

While this throne speech talks about nothing but LNG and the future of the resource economy, it contains nothing about improving services for people who live in those resource communities. Not one single word.

There are so many ways that this throne speech fails British Columbians: on jobs, on keeping the Liberals’ own promises on LNG, on public education for our children, on poverty, on caring for our seniors, on health care for people and in rural communities. I can only conclude by saying that the people of my community, the people of British Columbia, deserve far better.

Hon. D. McRae: I rise to respond to the throne speech for the third session of the 40th parliament. As the members in this chamber know, I get to represent — as we all claim, but I actually have the distinction of doing so — the nicest part of British Columbia. I’m sure many of the members in this chamber would agree, because they’ve been to the Comox Valley, that it is truly a special place.

The city of Courtenay, the town of Comox, the village of Cumberland — all distinctly unique. It stretches from the north, from the Black Creek–Oyster River area, including the towns of Royston and Union Bay to the south — and, of course, Hornby and Denman islands. One thing that most visitors would agree and most colleagues in the chamber would agree is that the Comox Valley happens to be, I think, one of the unique jewels, not just in British Columbia — in Comox Valley.

[1745]

Getting to represent, I would say, the nicest community in British Columbia…. You know, there are a lot of people I need to thank. First of all, because they are so important, I want to recognize my family.

Now, probably, members of this House don’t realize this. Tomorrow is my wife’s birthday, and I get to spend it with you instead of her. Still, nonetheless, I want to acknowledge that she is having a birthday tomorrow, and I’m sure my colleagues in this House, on both sides, would want to extend their happy birthday wishes. Of course, if they’re looking to purchase gifts, her favourite colour is violet.

I’d also like to recognize my two children: Gracie, who has started grade 6, and Chloe, who I think has hit one of those milestone moments of her life. She had the opportunity to start kindergarten this year. It is absolutely a great pleasure to send them both off to Puntledge Park Elementary, or Ecole Puntledge Park.

As well, my thanks, I want to recognize my constituency staff, because they do work so hard. Like has been said by members on both sides, we spend many days in this chamber, many days travelling around British Columbia. Sometimes our duties take us beyond the provincial borders.

We could not do this job and represent our communities without the help of our constituency assistants. I’d like to say thank you to Dianne Lineker and Rosanne Gerritsen, who work so hard for me in the Comox Valley. I had a summer student this year, Danean Neill, who’s now back at school. As well, I have Donald Taylor who works in my office in the Comox Valley. I want to express my thanks.

Lastly, at my ministerial office in Victoria I am supported by Valerie McKnight, Ed Sem and Kirsten O’Byrne. I also want to make a special note of my chief of staff, Joan Dick, who did not want me to mention that today, actually, October 21, is her birthday. She didn’t want me to tell anyone, so I thought I’d just mention it, of course, to all of British Columbia. I want to wish her the happiest of birthdays. I believe this year she turns 49.

Now I want to turn to listening to the throne speech. Obviously, I’m going to support the throne speech, but it’s funny as you sit and listen to the debate in this chamber — and I’ve listened here now for five years — it continually shocks me. I think we must have two different doors when we leave and walk out of the Legislature. I think there’s one door — the ones that I seem to have found; in fact, most of the doors — you walk out, and you enter into a society that is pretty darn enjoyable.

Yes, there are challenges. I don’t want to disrespect that for a second. But you know what? Every day when I leave either the door to this chamber or I leave the door to my home or I visit communities across British Columbia, I can’t help but see opportunity and experience. Yet when I listen to the members opposite, I just feel they must find different doors than I do. When they walk out of those doors, I find it is doom and gloom, where every glass of water is half-full, where every colour is muted.

Yes, again, I do not want to disrespect that there are challenges in British Columbia. We always, as government, want to work harder to make this place better. But you know, if I just sit there and listen to the members opposite, I must think they’re working for perhaps some other travel agency, trying to get people to leave British Columbia and not stay in this province, when there is so much opportunity.

For example, I know the members opposite were referring to liquefied natural gas. Well, there’s been great opportunity, and it is great opportunity — great opportunity without any company making a final investment decision. Yet what have they done in this province because we are open to the opportunity of LNG? Billions
[ Page 4803 ]
of dollars have been invested and a chance to create an industry that we can export to the world — to have cleaner energy for Asian markets. Yet it’s doom and gloom on their side of the House.

I just don’t understand, when a company is spending billions of dollars in British Columbia that’s creating jobs, building infrastructure, giving opportunity. This isn’t even getting to the point where they are actually saying: “You know what? We’re in today. We’re going to make money. We’re going to start building the major plants. We’re spending billions of dollars because we believe in this province and the resource. We want to take advantage of the opportunity.”

I’m so pleased today that we got to see some of the legislation introduced, both on the tax side and of course yesterday on the environmental side. No matter what happens, we want to make sure that this resource is for the benefit of all British Columbians and not to the detriment of British Columbians. There will be thousands of jobs. There will be billions of dollars invested. There’ll be jobs in communities large and small.

I live in Comox Valley. I’m about as far away from northeastern British Columbia in this province as you can get. There are individuals who even today are benefiting because of the LNG opportunity. Sometimes they’re individuals who have made the choice to travel to northern British Columbia and work there and then come back and live in the Comox Valley. Sometimes there are professionals there who are actually able to support the LNG industry without leaving our community.

In certain jobs — perhaps they’re an accountant — you can do some work where you can actually take the information sent down from organizations working up north. You can live in the community you’ve always been in, and you can actually create a job for yourself. Through telecommuting and through modern technology, you get to stay where you want to stay and yet support an industry that obviously is so important.

[1750]

What do we hear from the opposition? It’s nothing but doom and gloom and not good enough. Then we hear things about, for example, education. Again, I know there are challenges. I’m a high school teacher. But do the members opposite talk about how we have some of the best learning outcomes in Canada? No, they don’t. Do they talk about how the graduation rates are improving? It’s not just for the whole spectrum of graduates, but persons with disabilities are actually graduating at a higher rate than ever before.

Do they talk about the fact that we actually negotiated a settlement and we have an opportunity for the BCTF and government to actually work together for five years to make sure our world-class education system not just remains what it is today but improves to support the young people? No, they don’t talk about that.

They will find every opportunity to denigrate the education system in British Columbia, and I think that is just wrong.

As an individual walking out the door, I see opportunity. Yes, we can make improvements. We will continue to make improvements. But you know what? I look at this as five years where government and teachers can work together to make sure that we come together and make sure we’re doing what is best for the students of British Columbia. I honestly believe that.

The same in health care. Oh, the health care system — nothing but bad on that side of the House. I have an opportunity to live in a community where we want to make sure we invest in health care. We want to make sure that our health outcomes are going to be celebrated.

Yes, if you want to look through a huge ministry — $17 billion — and find the areas where there needs to be improvement, I understand that on the other side. But for goodness’ sake, celebrate the hard work and great health outcomes that we have in this province.

B.C. is the envy of so many jurisdictions. It is a great health care system, and I’m proud of the individuals who work in the system, whether they are a specialist physician, all the way to a care aide, to some individual who maybe does custodial work in hospitals. We need them all.

Our health care system is great in British Columbia. We can always refine it. We can always do a little bit better, but let’s not leave this room thinking our health care system is horrible. Because the opposition, if they had that opportunity…. I would be afraid to go to the doctor.

But the reality is that I know better, because I actually live in a society where I’ve been to the medical help, and yes, sometimes I have to wait a little bit in an emergency room. But you know what? That’s okay, because I want to make sure that our health care system is there for all British Columbians.

Seniors. The opposition talks about how we don’t do enough for seniors. They forget to mention that we have some of the longest-lived men and women not just in Canada, not just in North America but in the world. Again, I think we have a healthy society, one that is more active than almost any other jurisdiction in the developed world. There is opportunity there.

Again, the door that the opposition has found — I’m not sure where it is. At the same time, I’m just glad that the doors I’m walking out of are absolutely full of opportunity.

Today I want to talk about some of the opportunities in our ministry that we’re working on that I think are absolutely amazing.

Now, you may not realize this, but there have been a couple of months proclaimed. I find, when I listen to our colleagues on both sides of the House, that we seem to have many months proclaimed. Small Business Month. I guess in the world of competition, we compete with each other for these various months, but we also celebrate some of the opportunity.

Well, just in the month of September we celebrated
[ Page 4804 ]
Disability Employment Month. One of the things that, as you travel around the province and you talk to individuals, persons with disabilities — or, for my constituent Mike in the Comox Valley, persons with diverse abilities; both are interchangeable and both are fine…. Individuals want to contribute in their community. They want to recreate. They want opportunity for cultural activity. They want to socialize. And yes, they want the opportunity to go out and have meaningful employment.

I’ve had the opportunity to travel around not just in Disability Employment Month but in this month as well, which I’ll talk about in a sec, to see where individuals are making a great job for themselves. I’ll give you an example.

Just in September I had the opportunity to go out to visit my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Panorama. We went to the local YMCA — a large facility, obviously a non-profit. It works incredibly well in all communities. There they have a young man, Mitchell, who used to volunteer. He used to volunteer in the gym and thoroughly enjoyed himself. But you know what? One of the things he said is: “That’s not enough. I don’t want to just volunteer. I want to work.”

He now has the opportunity to contribute, not just to help other people get healthy, but he’s also becoming a taxpayer in British Columbia. He has a job. He is contributing. He’s got identity. He’s got clients he works with in the YMCA. He is doing something because he has found a niche that he’s excited about. Again, it comes down to every British Columbian looking for employment opportunities.

As well, you may have realized that it is Community Living Month across British Columbia. Two of the important themes that we talk about in Community Living Month this year are employment and education.

[1755]

I had the opportunity at the start of the month to visit a community which I think is very unique. It’s not in my riding but that of my colleague — across the water, in the Georgia Strait — who represents Powell River.

Powell River has some amazing supports for persons with disabilities. The Powell River Association for Community Living, sometimes called PRACL, has been leading disability supports in communities for 60 years in British Columbia.

I had the opportunity at the start of this month to join them in their celebration. Not only are they a leader in their community providing amazing supports, but they have become, basically, an inspiration for other communities around this province. Ms. Tipton, who runs the organization, just does an amazing job. She’s out there, being a leader.

It just reminds you that when there are great organizations they don’t have to come from large towns. A community like Powell River — I’m not going to say it’s isolated — is not actually easy to get to. It’s either two ferry rides from Vancouver, or a plane ride. The reality is that Powell River is doing amazing work. We wanted to make sure that we were there early, to celebrate not only the 60 years in their community but the 60 years of being a leader in British Columbia. I wanted to say thank you to the Powell River Association for Community Living.

Now, in Community Living Month for British Columbia, when I’ve talked about the themes of employment and education, I’ve had an opportunity to see several things. I want to highlight them if I may.

For all young British Columbians, one of the things that they think about or consider is post-secondary education. I met a young woman in the Comox Valley just the other day at a private post-secondary institution, taking veterinary training. She wants to become a vet tech, looking after animals. Jennifer does a great job doing this. She currently goes to school, getting great supports from her school. She’s doing what every young person in British Columbia wants to do — getting some education to further some opportunity. I look forward to her completing her training and getting work.

The members opposite just recently…. Again, talking about two different worlds. The member opposite was talking about her time up in Fort St. John. I actually had the opportunity to visit Fort St. John just recently as well. Fort St. John has got some growing issues. There’s no doubt about it. It also has some opportunity that is unbelievable. I was up there, and I was meeting with social innovators in Fort St. John — again, large groups.

Whether it is the child development centre for Fort St. John, their local United Way, a group called NEAT, which does recycling work, they have some amazing individuals there working so hard to try to find innovative solutions to unique situations that deal with Fort St. John. I was very impressed. I was pleased to be hosted by Urban Systems, as well, up in Fort St. John while there.

The other thing. When I was in Fort St. John, I also visited the Work B.C. office. It is kind of amazing when you go to a Work B.C. office. Many of you in the chamber have been there, I’m sure. You actually see the job postings. In many communities you’ll have a large poster board, and they’ll have the job postings, and certain areas will be more covered than other areas. This is the first time I’ve seen job postings that actually leave the poster board. They go on to the wall down below and literally hit the floor, because there are so many job opportunities.

If people are willing to move to the north, there are opportunities there that don’t exist, I would argue, in almost every other community, and the jobs pay really well. It has to be competitive. I had the opportunity to visit a Home Hardware. Not only is it a great business, but also they’re a great disability hirer.

I met two individuals. One individual, a young Special Olympian, competes provincially, nationally and internationally in figure skating. They’re able to work with her schedule and her competition level, but as well, she wants
[ Page 4805 ]
to work. She works stocking shelves and doing various chores around the store several days a week. Most of all, she is really pleased to be there because she has employment — an employer who recognizes how valuable she is and who will work around her competition schedule.

As well, I met a young man up in that community who has created his own business. There’s something called job carving, where you actually create a job. You think about what you’re interested in, and you actually make your own job. His job was selling popcorn. There are days where he will walk into a store and he’ll have pre-orders. Those ones are obviously going to be sold quite easily, but then there are going to be just individuals buying. Many times, they were saying, when he actually walks into the store, before he even gets to the lunchroom, his entire product line is sold out.

This young man is literally making over $100 a day selling popcorn — a huge identity. He is a valuable member, not just of that business, because he comes to visit and supports them, but he also has some opportunity for himself because he is actually an entrepreneur.

I know the member beside me is obviously celebrating small business. Well, this young man has a small business. He is a huge piece of his community, and he’s growing. I am really pleased to see that he’s found a niche for himself that they identified, working with his support workers, and that he’s been able to create this identity.

[1800]

Small business is alive and well in all corners of the province for all British Columbians, and I want to say thank you very much to the member beside me.

As well, members on both sides of the House may have noticed that last Friday we actually had a little press announcement. There was a large group of leaders in British Columbia. We created something called RDSP Action Group. The goal of this group is, obviously, to raise awareness of a financial vehicle, created in 2008 by the federal government, called the registered disability savings plan.

Members in this chamber may not realize this, but British Columbia has 20 percent of all of the RDSPs in the nation. While we’re doing well, we need to do so much better. The RDSP has probably 90,000 individuals across the nation registered for it. To be eligible for it, two of the easier tests…. Well, through your income tax: did you actually apply and were you eligible for the federal disability tax credit? Also, are you under the age of 49? If you are able to do those two tests, you are eligible for the RDSP.

There are certain aspects about it that are absolutely unbelievable. If you are a low-income British Columbian and a person with a disability, even if you have no money to contribute to your RDSP, you can literally just register for it every year and be eligible for up to $1,000. Over the course of 20 years, just by signing up for the RDSP, you could actually have $20,000 plus the compounding of interest for doing absolutely nothing other than just applying and taking advantage of this opportunity.

If you have moneys to put into the RDSP, for every dollar you put in, the federal government will put in $3 for it. Over the course of the RDSP lifetime — not the lifetime of the individual, but actually the time that you start contributing — the federal government will actually contribute up to $70,000. The value of compounded interest is…. It’s best to do it yesterday. You don’t want to put it off. You don’t want to find out at the age of 43 that you should have been doing this.

British Columbians across this province, in communities large and small: you need to investigate. Are you someone who is eligible for an RDSP? Can you contribute? Should you get involved? One of the easiest ways to find out more information is by actually going to a website created by PLAN called rdsp.com. They will walk you through some of the very basics.

But government can’t bring this highlight of the RDSP by itself. Through the action group, we brought in a number of individuals to help grow the RDSP in British Columbia. It’s chaired by Norah Flaherty, who sits on the CLBC board and is a business consultant, but we also have a number of other individuals with very diverse and important skill sets that will help grow RDSPs across the province.

We have Neil Belanger from the B.C. aboriginal network. We have Peter Bogardus, who is a retired lawyer; Mike Bonner, who is a senior VP with BMO; Jane Dyson, who is the executive director for Disability Alliance; Al Etmanski, who is from the organization Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network and one of the founders of the RDSP concept; Wendy Lisogar-Cocchia, who is the CEO of Century Plaza Hotel and an incredibly tireless disability advocate. We have Mark Lovick, who works with RBC.

We have Kevin McCort, the president and CEO of Vancouver Foundation. If you are a person with a disability and you are wishing to apply to the RDSP, there are actually funds available through the Vancouver Foundation to support you as you go forward.

We also have Michael Prince, who is a professor of social policy from UVic, and Tamara Vrooman — the tireless Tamara Vrooman — who sits on so many boards and is such a tireless worker for British Columbians across this great province and who is the president and CEO of Vancity. Her skill set and her organization, I find, are just unbelievable in their willingness to step up and be leaders across British Columbia.

I just want to say thank you to those members in this chamber for growing the awareness and the understanding of the RDSP — again, an incredibly powerful financial vehicle that individuals who are eligible need to take advantage of. We want to make sure we don’t only just have 20 percent of all RDSPs. We want as many people in the province as possible taking advantage of that great fiscal vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, as well, you probably remember that in June of this year we actually finished our consultations
[ Page 4806 ]
for Accessibility 2024. Those are the consultations, if you remember, where we went across the province in person, visiting over 20 communities, large and small, as far away as Fort St. John in the north. We were in Powell River; the Comox Valley, of course; the Lower Mainland; the Okanagan, etc. We took on-line submissions.

[1805]

What we are doing is we’re trying to get input about how British Columbia will be the most progressive jurisdiction for persons with disabilities in all of Canada. I must say that the number of things we heard from communities and individuals was unbelievable.

There were certain themes. While there were 12 building blocks that revolved around the doctrine in the end, the four areas that I thought were most telling were areas of built environment — your housing was seen as important. Transportation was important. Employment was obviously important. It is so pertinent that we’re actually in Community Living Month, and we just left Disability Employment Month. And income supports were obviously very important.

One thing we heard continuously in all communities, from persons with disabilities, their families, the organizations that work with them, persons with diverse abilities, is that, again, individuals want to work. They want to volunteer. They want to socialize. They want access to recreation.

I must say that we’re on our way to make sure we are the most progressive jurisdiction. We’ve had the creation of an accessibility secretariat. The MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, because there is so much work and so much conversation and so much awareness to raise, has been tireless in her efforts as Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility, assisting me to make sure that we’re reaching out to the individuals, the groups, to be aware of: how do we need to go forward? What areas do we need to refine? What opportunities and, again, what successes do we hear out there?

We realize that there is great opportunity as we go forward. I am so pleased that not just members of this chamber but the business community, local government…. I find, across this province, that people decide that we need to be a more inclusive society. I am so pleased that as we go forward and we talk about becoming more progressive, there is next to no hesitation in our society. We realize it’s the right thing to do.

Now, as we spent some time talking about my ministry, I’d like to also talk about, as I began my comments, not my family but the Comox Valley. Again, great opportunities. I would like to take a few minutes just talking about how the Comox Valley continues to be vibrant and grow.

Obviously, we’re in the midst of municipal elections, and I’m sure in all communities this is happening. But I must say that democracy is alive and well in all our communities as they go forward. I wish all, both the incumbents and the individuals who put their names forward…. And I thank them for putting their names forward. It’s a great opportunity to serve your community, I know. I had an opportunity before this career to be a municipal councillor. You know what? It’s great to have a measure of incumbents and new faces to bring their experiences to the councils in the Comox Valley.

The Comox Valley is changing. We have the highest building crane that I’ve ever seen in our community. Why? Because we’re building one of two hospitals in the north Island. Two hospitals, a project worth over $600 million, to make sure that our citizens have access to quality health care, not just in 2017, when the new hospitals are scheduled to be open, but for generations to come. I’m excited about this opportunity.

I’m excited because of the health care opportunities that will be created with these new hospitals, but I’m also excited in the here and now for the opportunities for construction. Obviously, in everybody’s community you want to make sure your trades are working. Well, in the Comox Valley the hospitals are a great opportunity to bring employment for literally thousands of individuals, both direct and indirect.

They’re also competing for these jobs, because we also have the $1.1 billion John Hart dam to the north of the Comox Valley, probably the largest single infrastructure project I’ve seen in my entire life in the north Island. A great opportunity, and again, bringing hundreds of jobs, making sure that the power supply will be maintained and also making sure in the community to the north, Campbell River, that their water supply is more secure as they replace aging infrastructure that is literally 50 to 60 years old. I’m glad to see we’re making those kind of investments.

The other interesting thing is the forest sector. Again, I am so pleased to look around and see the opportunity, when you see forest jobs happening in north Island that were not there before. I was actually up in Campbell River at a persons with disability organization, and they have an employment program.

One of the businesses they have is they actually create the little boom markers that go on log booms. This is their busiest year ever, as they create these boom markers to go out. They’re basically serial numbers that go on log booms. They get painted on wooden ones, and off they go. The reality is that you want to track these things. You know what? If you’re not making those things, you’re not actually logging.

It’s unbelievable to see that they’ve had their busiest year ever as they create for multiple companies the opportunity to bring these logs down so they can be milled in communities in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. I’m just really pleased to see that.

They’re looking for workers in the forest sector. It’s great when you have an opportunity where the forest sector is making sure that they are hiring people and individuals — because the jobs are not just there for a week
[ Page 4807 ]
or two weeks; they’re seeing an opportunity that will be career-lasting.

[1810]

As well, like many communities in British Columbia, we had a great summer in terms of weather. There were some challenges, obviously, with water supply, with lack of rain. We had seven days of rain between early July and, literally, October. We were able to make it.

The weather was so phenomenal that the agriculture output in the Comox Valley, once again, was amazing. I think I’ve said in this chamber before that we grow 180 different products in the Comox Valley, and we have 500 farms in our community. It’s just an opportunity to continue to grow and celebrate British Columbia agriculture.

Now with the rains coming, it’s great to see one other important agricultural export: the salmon. They’re actually able get up the streams now to do their spawning. I guess you call it the circle of life. There’ll be the opportunity again to make sure that renewable resource is there for generations to come.

The residential construction sector. Well, we talked before about John Hart dam and hospital construction. Residential construction, again, is coming around. It’s nice to see, as people are coming to the Comox Valley partly, I think, because the Canadian dollar has declined but partly because they realize that there is an opportunity to have a great quality of life in our town. It’s nice to see.

From the other perspective, I know the Minister of Health was in our community this year talking about new hospice beds.

As we continue to make those investments in this government, I’m really pleased to see that St. Joe’s…. It’s the hospital that I was born in and my family was all born in, including my wife and my two daughters. As they transition their purpose — they are an acute care hospital today — with a new hospital, they’re looking to redefine their health care services. The new hospice beds, the four hospice beds that were promised, will be open early in the new year. I think that is absolutely just a great investment for our community.

As we talk about industries — I used to be Minister of Agriculture — we talk about how in 1977, through policies and government support, we were able to grow an industry, a wine industry in this province, which I think all people in British Columbia are proud of.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It’s great to see we’re at a renaissance, as well, for another industry. It’s been mentioned by many members of the House, the craft brewery industry. I believe at this stage there are 85 craft breweries in British Columbia, and there are 14 under construction as we speak. Two of them happen to be in the Comox Valley. Why is this important? And this coming from a celiac, someone who hasn’t had a beer in 12 or 13 years — regretfully so. Nonetheless, it is great to see good-quality product, local product, being celebrated.

Not only that, it is a complement to other products as well. As the Comox Valley sees its craft breweries going forward, across British Columbia local agriculture, local food production, is celebrated. A hops industry that used to be so vibrant in the province 30, 40, 50 years ago is having a resurgence. On the Sunshine Coast, in the Fraser Valley, farmers are making choices to actually put hops in. Why? Because people want not only a hop grown in British Columbia but perhaps a specialized hop, one that will be a benefit to their particular craft brewery.

As we are in October going into November and the seasons are changing, I’m just really pleased to say that Mount Washington is getting ready to be one of the premiere ski destinations in British Columbia.

Now, I know I’ve talked a lot about the good door in British Columbia, going through it and the opportunity. I’m sure the members opposite have taken to heart what I’ve had to say, and I look forward to the next speech, which I’m sure will be full of optimism and sunshine, maybe even mentioning things like daffodils and the Easter bunny.

The reality is that British Columbia is a great province, one that I am proud to be a resident of and a person who gets to represent British Columbians in this House. So without any equivocation, I’m proud to say I’ll be supporting the throne speech and the opportunity for all British Columbians in the days ahead.

J. Rice: It certainly will be difficult to follow sunshine, bunny rabbits, Easter bunnies. I, too, am proud to serve the province of British Columbia. I’m very honoured to be an MLA, a first-term MLA. It’s a great privilege.

I would like to just acknowledge my constituents that I represent in the North Coast constituency, which is a magnificent constituency. It’s so beautiful. I’m proud to say that I am the MLA for the Great Bear rainforest. It’s an honour to be that representative.

I’d like to start off by acknowledging my staff. I have to do a great big shout-out to my constituency assistant, Sarah Nickerson, who has taken over the reins in my office with very little training and guidance. She has essentially wung it and done a fabulous job. I’d like to acknowledge Kim Brownlee, who has also helped me in my constituency office and helped me be a better communicator.

[1815]

I have a brand-new constituency assistant, Alexie Stephens, who has been, again, thrown in with little training. In fact, I’ve never met her. I hired her via a phone call and e-mail and Skype. Actually, we didn’t get to the Skype. Nonetheless, I look forward to meeting her this week when I go back. She’s held down the fort for two whole weeks by her very self. So big kudos to her.
[ Page 4808 ]

I’d also like to acknowledge my legislative assistant, Veronica Harrison. I will not give her up. If they do decide to switch up our LAs, I will fight for her tooth and nail.

I’d like to also acknowledge the support and the communications and the research staff that we have in the NDP caucus. I’d like to do a particular shout-out to Megan Mills and Jennifer Jones in communications, who have put up with my tireless pestering for petty little things.

I am honoured to represent the North Coast. It’s an interesting time to be an MLA for the North Coast, where LNG is on the breath of everyone. I think kids nowadays aren’t learning the ABCs. They’re learning the LNGs. Since Prince Rupert, the community that I live in, is in the forefront right now with all the LNG prospect, it’s interesting times for me to be that representative.

It’s interesting today that I have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech, particularly with this government’s release of the long-awaited LNG legislation. It’s certainly a dominating conversation, as I mentioned.

Since before the last election, the Premier and her team have promoted LNG as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We were going to have a prosperity fund that wipes out the provincial debt within 15 years. We were going to be like Alberta and eliminate the sales tax. The Premier said LNG development in Northern B.C. could translate into a trillion dollar economic opportunity that generates hundreds of thousands of jobs. Her big bus with “Debt-free B.C.” plastered across it toured our province.

Today we find out that British Columbians are getting half of what she promised. I find it hard to take the Premier at her word when it comes to LNG. She knew what to say when she promised a fair share from LNG, then turned around and did the opposite. Shamefully, the LNG tax regime was written by industry for industry.

The Premier eliminated B.C.’s bargaining position with her outlandish promises. Now we see the result of that failure. The Premier and the B.C. Liberals are selling out B.C. They knew what to say at election time, but their grand promises of a “Debt-free B.C.,” eliminating the PST and creating those thousands of jobs have fallen away. Now they’re talking about LNG to just pay for the basics, like health care. What happened to the windfall we were promised? The throne speech is now switching gears.

An LNG industry in B.C. needs to protect our land, our air and our water. That means honouring our climate change commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation covering environmental regulations won’t achieve that. It fails to address upstream emissions from natural gas production and gives liquefication facilities enough loopholes to ensure they won’t meet our emission targets.

We on this side of the House believe that legislation should include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians and a fair return for our resources. It needs to explicitly benefit First Nations and, as I said earlier, protection of our air, land and water, including living up to our climate change commitments. They should be enshrined in legislation. All of this is missing in the throne speech.

We on this side of the House support responsible development, which includes the LNG industry but in a balanced approach, not a free-for-all, unrealistic, grandiose, make-believe bonanza.

The Deputy Premier’s comments recently on his response to the throne…. He was referencing Prince Rupert. He couldn’t remember what year he was last in Prince Rupert, but he was talking about…. He said:

“I was sitting with an elder from one of the First Nations in the north at our LNG conference this year, and she said to me: ‘Rich, I’m really concerned about LNG polluting the Skeena.’

[1820]

“And I said: ‘Well, it’s not a liquid when it goes by the Skeena. It’s not a liquid until we turn it into a liquid at the LNG plant, and then we put it on a ship. If it warms up, if it actually were to rupture…. If the gas warms up, it evaporates just like any other natural gas. It cannot pollute the river.’

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

I’d also like to mention that the First Nations in my community around Prince Rupert are really concerned about LNG and the Skeena River, and they’re concerned about the estuary. They’re not necessarily concerned about the gas evaporating. They’re concerned about the industrialization of the Skeena estuary, and they’re concerned particularly about Flora Bank, which is the largest remaining intact eelgrass bed in British Columbia.

Now, eelgrass is not something you smoke. It’s actually very important fish habitat. It’s important fish habitat for British Columbia’s second-largest salmon run.

We support the development of LNG if it comes with express commitments for the well-paying jobs and skill development opportunities British Columbians need. The government is trying to meet this standard as they continue to fail on skills training and rely on temporary foreign workers and ignore other sectors of the economy.

Before I go on to that, I want to just talk about the impacts on Prince Rupert, the community that I live in. An article in the Times Colonist released October 18 so beautifully captures the issues and concerns of Prince Rupert. I’d like to read it into the record.

“Assume Petronas decides it can live with the final version of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas tax regime and pushes the green light on its massive LNG plant near Prince Rupert. Construction would start on a four-year project to build two processing plants, an export facility and a 900-kilometre pipeline to northeast B.C. It would be an $11 billion build and bring 4,500 workers at the peak. It’s just one of seven such projects being contemplated in the area.

“Is Prince Rupert ready for this?

“The city’s chief financial officer, Corinne Bomben, briefed a committee of MLAs recently, and the answer seems pretty clear. The place would be swamped.

“Coping with a major pulse of activity after many years in the
[ Page 4809 ]
doldrums would put enormous pressure on a community that has been just making do with aging infrastructure for years. She said there are some gaps between what the city offers in services and what the proponents need.

“She offered a quick run-through of the city’s infrastructure. The water comes from a 100-year-old dam, piped through an equally old supply line. Every component of the system is past its expected life cycle, and it would take $12 million to upgrade it.

“The sewage system dates back to the early 1900s and discharges into the harbour with almost no treatment, a scenario familiar to Victorians. Ottawa is demanding a treatment plan, and the early estimates are up to $150 million.

“The city has four traffic bridges, and three of them are wooden. ‘The bridges are on borrowed time,’ she told MLAs. The majority of the roads are rated in poor condition. Over half are more than 25 years old. Retaining walls are a common feature due to geography, and many no longer meet code requirements. Cost of an overall road upgrade is pegged at $85 million.

“The landfill is maxing out, and it will cost $7 million to expand it, which needs to be done in the next five years.

“The potential LNG hyper-boom could create huge fly-in, fly-out construction traffic, even if only one or two projects go ahead.

“The airport was built on Digby Island, and the only access is a city-owned ferry. It runs to a single-lane steel ramp at the dock. The system was built in 1959 and now has a reduced weight limit due to its age and is in constant need of repair. The 12-car ferry needs an upgrade or replacement.

“The cost of improving the air link is put at $25 million.

“That’s $279 million in spending requirements on the near to mid-term horizon to address deferred-maintenance challenges. That total doesn’t include anything for housing, another principal concern in a town rife with renovictions.

“An LNG plant would bring some tax revenue, but the city isn’t expecting a bonanza. Tax rates on port lands were capped in 2004 to guard against municipalities gouging industries.

“Bomben told MLAs the tax regime is a challenge because the nature of the developments is that their assessable value declines.

[1825]

“‘A capped taxation rate on a declining value results in a decreasing revenue stream to the city,’ she said. And all the major industrial properties in Prince Rupert qualify for the cap.

“The B.C. government provides compensation grants to affected municipalities, but Bomben said it doesn’t make up the amount of subsidization by the remaining tax classes. The result is that the tax burden shifts to residents and businesses. Since the population has declined by several thousand over 20 years, the burden is significant, she said.

“LNG plants are not specifically covered by the now permanent cap on port taxes, but the Natural Gas Minister warned northern municipalities not to ‘go crazy’ on industrial tax rates at last month’s UBCM convention and suggested to the Vancouver Sun that some kind of limit on municipal taxes will be included in the upcoming LNG taxation.

“Divvying up the tax take from prospective LNG plants is a balancing act that’s unlikely to leave the host communities happy.”

Just before I conclude, I’m glad that I got that into the record, because this really demonstrates the challenges that we’re going to face with the proposed LNG developments that we’re facing right now.

Watching the clock, I reserve my right to continue and adjourn the debate.

J. Rice moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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