2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 27, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 4

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

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Personal Statement

CLARIFICATION OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

L. Krog: I rise to make a statement with respect to comments I made in the House on October 22.

[1005]

Upon further reflection, I understand how some might have interpreted my comments as a comparison between the undemocratic aspects of Bill 2 and the terrible events that transpired in our nation’s capital last week. That was not my intention. Nor is it to diminish the seriousness of those events and the pain felt by those who suffer the violent loss of a family member or friend.

I regret that some may have taken offence at my comments, and in the future I will endeavour to choose my words more carefully.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE VALUE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the value that local governments bring to our communities.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think Naheed Nenshi, the mayor of Calgary, captured this value well when I heard him speak at a local government conference in the Okanagan last spring. He noted that if the federal government were to stop governing, how long would it take for us to even notice? Two weeks, three weeks. And if our provincial government stopped governing, how long would it take for us to notice? One week, ten days. But if our local governments were to stop operating, how long would it take for us to notice? One day, two days, maybe even three days.

The message here is that local governments pay close attention to the day-to-day lives of the citizens they serve. They are responsible for public safety, with properly supported police and fire services. By funding building inspectors and road engineers, they make sure that the buildings we are in and the roads that we drive on are properly constructed. Our local governments ensure that we have clean water to drink and that our wastewater and our solid wastes are properly destroyed.

Local governments do more than just make us safe; they also ensure that we have a good quality of life. Local governments build libraries, seniors centres and recreation centres. It’s local governments that build the very hockey rinks that bind Canadians together across our nation. Local governments protect lands that we use for parks and lands that we designate for industry. Local governments shape our neighbourhoods and our ability to move from place to place, whether we can easily visit our neighbours, go to work or shop for our groceries.

In short, local governments touch every aspect of our lives. It’s for this reason that it’s important for us to consider how it is that other levels of government treat and engage with local government. As a country and as a province and as communities, we’ve organized ourselves so that each level of government has its responsibilities to care for its citizens. It’s important that each fulfil its commitment to deliver the services as outlined and to recognize that when the three levels of government cooperate, work together on behalf of the taxpayers, then we are best serving our shared constituents.

Since the 1950s, support for building the infrastructure we depend upon, support from our most senior levels of government, has dramatically been reduced. In 1955 the federal government accounted for 34 percent of capital investment in our communities, but by 2003 it had declined to just 13 percent. The municipal share, on the other hand, increased from 27 to 48 percent.

Federal and provincial transfers to local governments to build and maintain the very things that keep our communities livable are $4 billion less today than they would have been had 1995 per-capita transfers remained constant. Federal wastewater treatment regulations introduced in 2012 have billions of dollars in implications for local government infrastructure.

Local expenditures for local governments have increased dramatically as the transfer of responsibilities has shifted from other levels of government. Local expenditures for communities in our province on sewer services between 2001 and 2010 grew by 173 percent. Policing costs have increased by 134 percent over that time and water services by 130 percent.

Local governments are finding themselves picking up the slack on more than just infrastructure. Local governments are picking up the slack on a range of supports and services that have traditionally been the purview of other levels of government. When other levels of government choose to change how they deliver service and then don’t follow through, or if they choose to no longer fund certain kinds of services, these choices have real impact, and the impact is felt at the local level.

[1010]

We see these changes in our communities. We see people who are on the streets, along our rivers or in our parks — people who are struggling with mental illness and addiction. We see fire service attending to accidents, injuries and illness, because they have been asked to do so by the people they serve. But now they are doing so without the proper backup from the Ambulance Service. As a result, fire service is less available to respond to other crises in the community.

The Columbia Institute recently prepared a report based on surveys of local governments throughout British Columbia. They reached out to local governments and their senior staff and asked them about their experiences. These researchers learned that there are a number of these off-loaded concerns that face many of our local governments. They note that when we take a look at things like housing, mental illness, addictions, social services, wastewater treatment, diking and flooding management, drinking water and recreation infrastructure, we see a shift over time.

When the federal government got out of the business of housing and out of the business of providing tax incentives to developers to build rental housing, it was local governments that had to deal with street and other forms of homelessness. When the provincial government committed to developing community-based supports for those living with mental illness and then failed to properly produce those community-based treatments, it’s been municipalities that have had to pick up the slack with police services. They’re now providing social work services.

Now the B.C. Ambulance Service has downgraded 70 types of calls, and the burden of responding to these emergencies is falling to local firefighters — a burden felt at the local level.

We also see that Emergency Management B.C. — the provincial body that’s been responsible for taking leadership in helping us, all of our communities, prepare in the event of a catastrophic earthquake — have changed their mission statement. Instead of taking leadership in the event of an earthquake, they now “support other authorities within their areas of jurisdiction.” In other words, the expectation is for municipalities to take leadership, with the province now providing backup support.

Let’s be really clear. It’s local governments that don’t pass the buck to anyone else. Local governments recognize their commitments to their citizens. When they are elected to serve their communities, this level of local government listens very carefully to what their communities are saying, and they respond accordingly.

D. Ashton: First of all, I’d like to apologize to all of my peers on this side of the House. This morning, instead of being at a nine o’clock meeting, I was doing Dolly Domestic chores at home, getting caught up on a very long weekend. I do apologize to everybody.

It is really a privilege to stand in the House today and respond to the statement made by the member opposite on an issue that we all know too well. Many of us know too well the value of local government. I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for speaking, first of all. Many of us in the House were involved in municipal government, sitting on a council, on regional districts or as mayors of great B.C. communities — including my own in Penticton. I was proud to serve for almost five years as mayor, 12 years as chair of the regional district and, during that time at the regional district, also as a councillor.

Now that we represent the interests of our communities at the provincial level, our passion for making the places we live, work and play even better has not wavered. We believe that local government programs and supports for B.C. families are important services, which is why we are providing them with record levels of funding. This funding is incredibly valuable to help local governments meet the infrastructure and job creation needs of their communities.

We continue to work closely with UBCM and the federal government to secure ongoing infrastructure funding for local governments. We are proud of our continued partnership with UBCM and the federal and local governments. Since 2001 our government has provided approximately $3 billion to local governments, over and above previous existing funding levels. Combined with federal dollars, that’s close to $4.5 billion invested.

Including payments made this fiscal year, the province will have returned more than $657 million in traffic fine revenues to communities since 2001. Small community and regional district grants have doubled since 2004. This includes payments made 2014-2015 — another $582 million provided to local governments. The purpose of these grants is to help fund local government programs and services.

Since 2009 the strategic community investment fund has provided $695 million to help support B.C. communities, enabling them to address their service requirements, enhance policing and invest money in projects that have been identified at the local level as a priority. This year alone we distributed almost $74 million in strategic community investment funding to communities throughout B.C.

[1015]

Our infrastructure improvements. The government has provided $176 million through the Building Canada fund and $100 million through the infrastructure stimulus fund for local government priorities alone — significant investments in local water, sewer, community infrastructure including $267 million in the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program and $75 million in the municipal rural infrastructure fund, both matched by federal and local governments, and $80 million in B.C. community water improvement programs. For communities with flooding at risk, we have committed $100 million over
[ Page 4909 ]
ten years to fund flood protection.

Government has invested approximately $60 million — $19 million of which is attributable to the Spirit Squares, and LocalMotion, $40 million in programs to provide new and existing infrastructure for communities; provided close to $70 million in the 2001 Towns for Tomorrow project since, if I remember correctly, 2007; and funded up to 80 percent of the projects in smaller communities and regional districts; a further commitment of $30 million for 98 community recreation projects throughout the province.

We’ve also placed emphasis on increasing funding in regions where communities feel pressure from high economic growth, such as the Peace region. We have committed $43.1 million through the Fair Share agreement to help these affected communities deal with growth and alleviate pressures from a large influx of population.

Since 2005 this program has delivered $337 million to the region, committed to developing legislation to implement changes based on the recommendations of Local Government Elections Task Force and continues to work with UBCM, Elections B.C. and other stakeholders to ensure that reforms related to accountability, transparency, compliance and enforcement, and education were made during this year’s election.

At this time, hon. Speaker, noting the time, I would just like to thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the member’s statement. If you would indulge me for just one minute, I would like to wish the best of luck to everybody running in the municipal elections for municipal office this year, and I would like to thank those who are choosing to retire.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member opposite. I, too, have spent five years in local government and certainly loved every single second of it, recognizing that its value in terms of being able to respond accordingly and almost immediately to the needs of the community is part of what makes local government absolutely fabulous.

But I do want to point out that as part of the Columbia Institute report, the authors do make a number of recommendations that I think we ought to be paying attention to. Based on what they heard from the local government leaders and senior staff, they noted that there are very specific things we can do at our level of government, especially paying attention to the fact that they can officially deliver a whole range of services, and they are willing to take on the expanded role if it makes sense and if they are given the resources to manage them.

More specifically, these authors note:

(1) No transfer of responsibilities should occur without funding or revenue stream opportunities. Expecting local governments to take on more responsibility without the funds or the ability to raise funds is a setup for failure for everyone.

(2) Ensure stable revenue rather than unpredictable and time-consuming short-term grants like the member opposite talked about. Asking local governments to expend funds to complete grant applications as they compete with each other for special project funds means that there will be losers, and as a result, taxpayer money will be wasted.

(3) They suggest establishing a formal review process to examine the impacts of the restructuring of provincial services and funding cuts on local governments. We ought not to ignore local governments. We need to recognize their role in caring for citizens and acknowledge that there are real impacts when we make decisions at this level of government, and the impacts are felt in our communities.

They also suggest that we perform a major review of funding models and revenue streams, especially for cities that are becoming more highly urbanized and where growth is unprecedented. Their ability to keep up with the growth and to generate the kinds of revenue that they need in order to maintain a certain standard of living is becoming more and more difficult over time.

[1020]

Perhaps it’s time for all of us in this House to look at creative ways to properly support local governments so that they can do the best that they can do. They are the ones that create vibrant, well-designed, livable communities — places where all of us, every single person in this House, raise our children, places that we all call home and that millions of British Columbians call home.

On that note I, too, would like to thank all those who put their name forward and wish everyone the very best in the upcoming local elections.

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

S. Hamilton: It’s with a great deal of pride that I stand before you today and talk about the backbone of our economy in our great province. I’m speaking, of course, of small businesses. It’s no secret that our government, unlike a lot of people in this House, is committed to building a strong economy that creates jobs for B.C. families. We believe that small business plays a vital part in that effort.

Some basic facts about small business. It makes up 98 percent of all businesses in the province and employs more than one million British Columbians. That accounts for 55 percent of private sector employment in this province. That’s why our government has proclaimed the month of October as Small Business Month.

In 2008 our government cut the small business corporate tax rate from 4.5 to 2.5 percent, a 44 percent reduction. This remains the second-lowest rate in Canada, and we’re committed to lowering the rate by a further 40 percent under the B.C. jobs plan.
[ Page 4910 ]

One of the key barriers small businesses face is unnecessary red tape, and B.C. continues to be seen as a global leader in regulatory reform. Our attention to the needs of small businesses has been recognized on a national scale. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave B.C. an A for regulatory reform for the third year in a row — the only province in Canada to receive an A.

Let’s talk a little bit about small businesses. There were approximately 382,200 small businesses operating in the province in 2013. British Columbia ranks first in Canada for the number of small businesses per capita, with 83.4 businesses per 1,000 people in this province. The national average is 70.1.

Small business accounts for 31 percent of British Columbia’s GDP, higher than the Canadian average of 29 percent. British Columbia’s share of self-employed workers is the second-highest in the country, accounting for 18.1 percent of total employment. Small businesses in British Columbia shipped about $14.4 billion worth of merchandise to international destinations in 2012. That’s almost 50 percent of the total value of goods exported from the province.

In 2013 small business provided just under 32 percent of all wages paid to workers in British Columbia, well above the national average of 26 percent. To help these entrepreneurs, our government has raised the small business tax threshold from $200,000 to $500,000, making B.C. the highest threshold in Canada and saving small businesses $20 million a year.

Since 2001 B.C. has reduced regulatory requirements by more than 42 percent. The number of regulatory requirements in 2001 was 360,295. The number of regulatory requirements today: 206,566 as of March 31. The province is committed to a net-zero increase in regulations to 2015.

It’s because of forward-thinking initiatives like these that our province has helped world-renowned businesses like Lululemon and Hootsuite grow from small entities to those that are known on the international market. It’s not about growing these power players. It’s about helping our local businesses grow and thrive to their potential and to let them know that this government believes in them and wants to ensure that they have all the tools they need to ensure success.

That’s why we’ve been working closely with the B.C. chambers of commerce and local chamber networks to create an environment in British Columbia for small businesses to thrive. There are more than 125 chambers of commerce and boards of trade in B.C., representing more than 36,000 businesses. Chambers of commerce throughout the province have been supportive of our small business initiatives, such as the mobile business licence and BizPal.

Reducing red tape at all levels of government is key to making it easier for businesses to do business in B.C. The mobile business licence, also referred to as the intermunicipal business licence, reduces red tape by allowing mobile businesses to operate in more than one municipality by purchasing only one licence, rather than by obtaining non-resident permits in each municipality in which they operate. This allows business owners to spend less time doing paperwork and more time making their businesses a success.

The mobile business licence was successfully piloted in 2007 in the Okanagan-Similkameen, and to date, a total of 69 municipalities have established mobile business licences. Working with local governments to expand the MBL program is a key commitment under the B.C. jobs plan, and talks are underway with additional municipalities interested in joining the program.

[1025]

We continue to leverage their network to gain insight on the actions we’re taking to further our efforts on the B.C. small business accord. These actions include implementation of the 12 recommendations in the Small Business: Doing Business with Government report to reduce barriers to small business access to government and to improve procurement opportunities, and development of a small business awareness strategy to help small business owners understand and locate the resource tools and organizations available to assist them, both through our members, the B.C. chamber, as well as our partner organizations.

Our government, in collaboration with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, has provided funding for the Competitiveness B.C. forums taking place throughout the province. Five sessions took place throughout the province in the spring, and three more were held to coincide with Small Business Month. The chamber will also meet with the provincial and federal governments to share findings and to develop a framework to improve B.C.’s productivity and global competitiveness.

These are just a few examples of what this government is doing to show their support for small business. I celebrate the spirit of entrepreneurship, and with that said, I’m very interested in what the member opposite has to say.

N. Simons: Let me start by thanking the member for Delta North for expressing his interest in hearing what I have to say. That’s a first. Let’s let that be the beginning of a new relationship here.

I have to say….

L. Krog: His prayer is working already.

N. Simons: His prayer is working already, the member for Nanaimo has informed us.

I’m happy to be able to stand in this House and also raise my hands and thank the small businesses in our province for doing the amazing work that they do. They
[ Page 4911 ]
do represent over a million workers, as the member has recited from the same website that I perused earlier.

I think it’s clear that we do have an important, strong sector, and small businesses are, in fact, the fuel of our economy. But let’s just think about it for a minute. Who are these small businesses? The vast majority of the small businesses in this province are of five or fewer people, and many are of them self-employed. These are the people who are putting out their effort, their money and their commitment to provide a service or a good to our community to ensure that our economy continues but also that they have employment themselves.

While the member might be selective in referring to certain indicators that are absolutely positive, I should point out that there are some things that we can do better. It’s not all about regulatory reform. It’s not all about taxation levels.

If you think about it, between 2008 and 2013 the number of small businesses in British Columbia went up exactly 0.2 percent. The number of small businesses in our community went up 0.2 percent. That’s not only well below the national average; it’s the lowest in all of the country. The national average was 5.4 percent.

We are not growing the number of small businesses the way other provinces have, and between the same years, ’08 and ’13, the number of self-employed is down 1.5 percent. We’re one of only two provinces to see that reduction.

I don’t mind that the minister, the member…. I keep promoting him, probably because of his kind words toward me, which is how things work. I’m just pointing out that this isn’t always a partisan issue. We’re all interested in ensuring that small businesses continue to be an important part of our community.

We can’t just simply say, “We want to have the lowest tax rate” in order to attract people. Obviously, we want to make sure that our tax rates are competitive, that our regulatory systems do what they need to do — that is, protect the employer as well as protecting the environment, protecting the employees and ensuring that we have the appropriate resources in our community to fund the necessary factors that make those businesses successful.

While we’d like to see this government reverse the negative trend that we see with the number of small business employment down, one of only two provinces between 2008 and 2013…. We’ve seen us drop in the number of people employed by small businesses.

The chest-thumping and the pride that the member seems to take in reciting facts from the website belie the fact that, in truth, we need to do more. It’s not just about regulatory reform. It’s ensuring that we have a safe community where people have the income necessary to purchase goods and services.

I think that that balance is what we as legislators should strive to achieve, not the chest-pumping and the chest-pounding that seems to characterize this government’s approach towards everything.

[1030]

I’d say that small business, just like everyone else, is the backbone, the fuel of our economy. They talk about red tape on one side of their mouths, and they bring in MMBC with the other. It’s an example, I think, of showing that government is more talk than action and more platitudes than reality. I think that’s unfortunate.

I do look forward, actually, to the member’s response. Perhaps he hasn’t got prepared statements, so we’ll see a little bit of an improvisation. I’m looking forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you for the opportunity to respond.

S. Hamilton: I’d like to thank my good friend the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for his comments.

I’ll start off by saying we may look like chest pounders, but I think we’ve got a right to pound our chest because our record speaks for itself. There has never been more confidence in small business in this province, than ever before. The level of confidence in small business is over the top. I know the opposition sees success in our failure, at least an attempt to have us fail, but we’re not going to.

I’m going to go to the bigger businesses here just for a minute. I’m going to talk about LNG and the considerable trickle-down effect that LNG is going to have on small businesses in this province. You know, it is a simpatico relationship. The LNG business wouldn’t exist in this province without small businesses either.

The member opposite spoke about small businesses and their effort and their money and their commitment. There’s another little thing that they do. It’s called risk. People in this province that operate small businesses do so. They go out on a limb, and they take risks. They take considerable risk. Some fail. But thanks to the efforts of this government, many, many more succeed than fail.

In my community we have the Annacis Island industrial district. We have the Tilbury industrial district, and it is vibrant. It’s full of successful small businesses that stand as a testament to how this government supports them going forward in the investments that they make. It’s through the local business community and beyond that they succeed.

Now, I’m tempted, very tempted, to evoke the comments that were made by the member for Cowichan Valley in this House back on October 9. But you know what? I’m not going to do that. No, I’m not going to do that.

I think it’s more important that we deal with what people in small businesses in this province want us to deal with, and that is to help them become more successful and to talk about the issues at hand and the things that matter to them — the stuff that our small business communities need us to talk about.
[ Page 4912 ]

That’s what I’m going to do, and I’m going to continue to do that. That’s how we can better support our communities and the small businesses that they rely upon for their livelihoods. Delta is just one example of many around this province.

Again, I thank the member opposite for his comments. I look forward to continuing this debate and these discussions in the hallways. We don’t necessarily have to be in this chamber. I think if we all work collectively for a common goal, this province could be even better than it is. It’s my intention to continue doing that. Thank you for your time.

INCLUDING FIRST NATIONS
IN BUILDING THE ECONOMY

S. Fraser: I’m going to be speaking on including First Nations in building the economy.

Before I begin with that, I’d just like to comment that yesterday I returned from Quesnel. I had the wonderful privilege and honour of attending an event with the Leader of the Opposition, with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, with a number of other members and hundreds of people there at a ceremony recognizing a huge injustice that happened in this province 150 years ago yesterday.

With the apology and the exoneration of six chiefs who were executed in the most duplicitous way by the state, we’re bringing a closing to that. That spans politics.

I believe that including First Nations in building the economy needs to span politics also. I’ll try not to make this political. I need to speak from this side of the House, so on this side of the House we do believe that First Nations are essential partners in any sustainable economy in this province. I believe that’s more of an imperative than ever with the Tsilhqot’in decision, with the Roger William decision, that came out in June.

[1035]

Prosperity and justice in all of our communities rely on recognition. Recognition is key. Recognition and reconciliation and, above all, respect — respect for First Nations and aboriginal peoples in this province.

The William decision makes it clear that First Nations must be kept involved in issues involving their territories. It’s not an option, and it has much further implications than just with the Tsilhqot’in, although that’s where the decision lay.

It is clear — it should be clear to all of us here — that First Nations…. There are 203 bands in the province. All First Nations in this province predate European contact — thus, the term First Nations. It should just be intuitive that we need to have recognition, not just for the Tsilhqot’in and the court decision that said 1,750 square kilometres are title lands for the Tsilhqot’in. That’s a huge decision — the first time the courts have actually definitively laid out clear title over the lands within the traditional territories.

But that is not exclusive to First Nations, so we need to have recognition and respect. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation should have two more Rs, and those are respect and recognition. The recognition part has not yet happened.

Actually, the Vickers decision seven years ago recognized title to some extent. Justice Vickers clearly said that the government should get out of the courts and should get into negotiating in good faith. Instead, the government went back to court.

I wonder where we’d be, seven years later, if the government had listened to the sage advice of Justice Vickers. We would be so much further ahead. First Nations are moving forward post-Tsilhqot’in. They understand the importance of that court decision and government needs to too. They have to recognize First Nations titles and rights in this province.

I’ll give you an example. I’ve got a letter that was sent to the Premier from the Acho Dene Koe First Nation. I had the wonderful opportunity of visiting their communities. It spans the Northwest Territories, Yukon territories and northern British Columbia. I am going to read the first paragraph of this letter to the Premier.

“The Acho Dene Koe’s traditional lands are in southwest Northwest Territories, southeast Yukon and northern British Columbia. Its traditional lands are equally found in three jurisdictions. Acho Dene Koe is not just a transboundary claim. Its traditional lands are found where B.C.’s prime natural gas fields are.”

Then they cite where those are.

“Your dreams of an economically secure B.C. rest with settling Acho Dene Koe claims on these lands. Failure to do so may cause the closure of LNG activities on our lands.”

This should get the attention of government — of the Premier, certainly, with the commitments that she has made, certainly pre-election commitments, about what benefits LNG would bring.

The next paragraph:

“However, notwithstanding the urgency that Canada and the B.C. Treaty Commission have placed on Acho Dene claims and treaty negotiations, B.C. has nevertheless ignored Acho Dene’s claim. B.C.’s evasion of negotiations has become critical, as Acho Dene Koe is closing negotiations on its final agreement already with the Northwest Territories and starting into a comprehensive claim with Yukon and has attempted without success to engage B.C. since 2002.”

I have tried to urge the government and the minister and the Premier to move forward with taking the Acho Dene’s claim seriously, with respect and with recognition. That has simply not happened.

This is an example of how economic partnership could bring a windfall to the province, could bring benefits to the province — to all people of the province, First Nations and non–First Nations.

The government’s failure to deal with the issue with respect and recognition is problematic. It’s problematic for all of us in British Columbia, I would submit. The September 12 meeting with the Premier and the entire cabinet was a very good start on a relationship — a few years late, I would submit, but I will give credit where credit’s due.
[ Page 4913 ]

[1040]

However, following that meeting, where the leadership council clearly laid out their conditions of foundations for moving forward post-Tsilhqot’in, many First Nations left that meeting feeling less than confident with the government’s responses. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs statement right following the summit said that the B.C. government and First Nations leaders “look to uncertain future of reconciliation” based on what happened at that meeting.

Again, what we need in British Columbia is certainty. Certainty on the land base means certainty with First Nations, and certainty with First Nations means dealing with First Nations with recognition and with respect. That is not happening.

I see the red light is on. I will wait for a response from government and then be happy to respond to that.

J. Tegart: Thank you, to the member opposite. It truly is a pleasure to stand today and speak on this subject that is near and dear to my heart.

I think we all agree in this House that our province is blessed to have such a rich First Nations heritage. It’s our diversity that gives us strength. In my constituency, Fraser-Nicola, First Nations people are an integral part of communities. As the MLA, I’m proud to represent their interests here in the Legislature and to further their goals of building a strong and prosperous future for their communities and their bands.

As economic development continues across British Columbia, I believe, as do members of this assembly, First Nations deserve to benefit equally from this progress. However, to achieve a strong and prosperous future for everyone in B.C., there needs to be cooperation and an open dialogue between industry, government and First Nations on all projects taking place on traditional territories in order to maximize the social benefit for all stakeholders involved.

In summary, this means recognizing that First Nations are full and active partners in any economic development within their traditional territories. First Nations support economic development projects that are socially, environmentally and culturally sustainable. These projects can and will go ahead if all stakeholders work together in partnership based on the key values of respect, recognition and reconciliation of aboriginal title and rights.

British Columbia is blessed to have an abundance of natural resources. That said, a large quantity of these resources are found in First Nations territories, and it is only fair that First Nations and surrounding communities are partners in these projects.

The mining sector is one of the largest employers of First Nations people in Canada and a major economic driver in my constituency, as well as providing many First Nations people highly skilled and high-paying jobs. We are proud to be one of the first provinces to share direct provincial mineral tax revenue generated from new mines or expansions with First Nations.

To date, we have also reached ten economic and community development agreements with First Nations, creating certainty for six new and expanding mines across British Columbia. These agreements underscore the commitment by the government to ensure First Nations meaningfully benefit from resource activity happening on their territories.

Forestry is another major employer in my constituency. Forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements allocate a percentage of provincial forestry revenue from First Nations territories directly back to the community to allow them to invest these funds where they deem necessary.

LNG is the newest resource development opportunity on the horizon, providing greater economic certainty, opportunity and security to First Nations across the province. Already work is underway to initiate engagement with First Nations communities and opening the door for aboriginal students to be the first in line for these jobs through the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint. Spaces for critical trades training have been announced at NVIT and TRU so students can enrol and gain the skills they need to be a part of the incredible opportunities coming.

[1045]

Of course, the province is continuing to work with communities across B.C. to ensure long-lasting benefits are achieved for First Nations over the long term as the LNG industry develops.

Tying this all together, the B.C. jobs plan has made the commitment to improve opportunities and resources for First Nations in all eight key sectors found in B.C., to ensure further job creation and greater inclusion of First Nations in our economy.

The B.C. jobs plan also created the Aboriginal Business and Investment Council to work with First Nations to foster new wealth-creating partnerships. This plan also achieved ten non-treaty agreements in January 2012, two years earlier than planned, to encourage economic development and opening up opportunities for aboriginal communities.

We are committed to continue working in partnership with First Nations to stimulate investment, create jobs and provide economic benefits for First Nations bands and all British Columbians.

S. Fraser: I very much appreciate the comments from the member for Fraser-Nicola across the way, my colleague on the Liberal side. I don’t disagree with many of the words, and I would note that the member did mention recognition and respect, but we need more than words. We actually need actions on the part of the government.

I attended the B.C. Joint Gathering 2014 in Vancouver last week, a three-day conference. I think it was the third
[ Page 4914 ]
annual one. I would note that the mood there was different. We had the leaders from all over the province there — aboriginal leaders, First Nations leaders. All the leadership council representatives were there.

Grand Chief Ed John said: “Following the Tsilhqot’in decision, which is a game changer” — everyone has agreed it’s a game changer — “the position from the B.C. government has been a status quo.” No reaction, no change, no recognition of what that court decision means. No recognition that title exists in British Columbia. That’s a problem. That’s a problem of trust, and that’s a problem of respect.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip at the same conference said that First Nations and aboriginal people seem to be considered a liability, not an asset.

There’s a significant gap here. When there is this kind of gap in understanding of respect and recognition, we have a problem.

We have a government that quietly brought in two orders-in-council last year to amend the reviewable projects regulation, to eliminate environmental assessments for ski resorts, all-season resorts and 99 percent of the natural gas processing plants in the province — something that the member was speaking about. This was done with no consultation with First Nations. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Environment was forced to apologize and withdraw. So again, that complete lack of recognition and respect that First Nations have a role, that they even exist — that is a problem.

The member talked about mining. Well, following the Mount Polley disaster of deregulation, and the aftermath that we’re going to see for years, directly affecting First Nations and non–First Nations in the area…. I’ve received a letter, and raised this in the House already, from five First Nations from the Cariboo, downstream of the Mount Polley disaster. Their attempts to get any communications with the government have failed. They had to rely on the press and have to rely on the press and have got no response to their queries.

I agree with the member for Fraser-Nicola that we in this House need a relationship based on recognition and respect. But that has to be more than recognition and respect in words. It must be in deeds also.

WOMEN AND THE ECONOMY

Michelle Stilwell: Thank you for allowing me to have this opportunity to speak today on a subject that is very important to me and, I believe, to many other people in our province: women and the economy.

As we know, October marks Women’s History Month across Canada. For 2014 the theme is “Canadian businesswomen: a growing economic force.” As a free enterpriser, I can’t think of a better theme for this year. But first, let’s go through a bit of a history lesson.

[1050]

In 1914, 100 years ago, there were no women MLAs in this Legislature. The first, Mary Ellen Smith, was elected four years later, in 1918, one year after women were given the right to vote in British Columbia politics. Three years after that, she was appointed to cabinet, marking the first provincial cabinet minister in Canadian history and the first in the British Empire.

It was also in 1921 that B.C.’s first maternity leave legislation was passed, an entire six weeks’ worth. In 1900 the federal Married Women’s Property Act allowed a wife to own her own property separately from her husband and to also control her own wages and profits.

As you can imagine, without a strong and effective female political representation, women tended not to be looked upon as being serious players in the business world. Of course, there were exceptions to this, but women owning businesses and being leaders was definitely not the norm. I hope we can all agree that how women were treated in the past is not something we should be proud of and that there have been huge strides in women becoming business leaders.

October is also Small Business Month, as we heard earlier today. This is one of the areas in the economy where women do thrive and own their own businesses. According to a recent RBC Economics report, businesses that are majority-controlled by women contributed an estimated $148 billion to the Canadian economy in 2011. Women-owned businesses currently employ over 1.5 million Canadians, according to the BMO Financial Group. Here in B.C. small businesses provide nearly 56 percent of all private sector jobs, and they employ over one million people. It’s a huge economic driver.

We want to inspire women to tap into their entrepreneurial spirit and to make a difference in their communities. A national BMO survey from a couple of years ago indicated that 71 percent of women responded that they want to start their own business. In fact, in my area of British Columbia, in Parksville-Qualicum, women are some of the community’s most recognizable and most successful leaders and entrepreneurs.

For instance, Robynne Shaw is the general manager of Sunrise Ridge Waterfront Resort, and she’s also the president of the Parksville and District Chamber of Commerce. Donna Andres owns Lady’s Mantle boutique, a popular retail accessory boutique. Sue Battle is the owner of Bosley’s pet store franchise in Parksville, a favourite place for animal lovers, including me. Lisa Leger is a natural health consultant at Pharmasave Health Centre in Parksville, but she also owns her own private practice as a fertility awareness facilitator.

Crystal McMillan, who owns Bare Roots Natural Health and Yoga Centre at French Creek Landing, is also with Bear Smart B.C. Consulting, where she works with our province to reduce conflict with bears. Then, of course, there’s Beth Ross, who has established B Digital Video Productions. The list goes on and on.
[ Page 4915 ]

But we’re not just talking about entrepreneurialism. Many of us know that B.C. will need to fill one million jobs by 2022. In addition to these positions opening up due to retirements, many will be created by new opportunities such as liquefied natural gas development, increased resource sector activities and growth in transportation. Many of these jobs will be in the skilled trades, and women are primed to be a huge part of this jobs boom.

Today women make up 47 percent of the Canadian labour force, up from 37 percent in 1976. It’s important that we set strategic priorities based on the needs of employers and industry but, just as importantly, the needs of women. The women can certainly lead this charge. Today the door is open for women in every trades career in British Columbia, and this is something that the Industry Training Authority is emphasizing.

I encourage everyone to see what they are doing to assist women and encourage the employers to seek out tradeswomen. Perhaps we do not generally associate women with trades, but stats show that women report high job satisfaction and good pay in the skilled trades. This is not surprising, because skilled trades pay more than the provincial average.

Over the past few decades society’s view on women in trades has changed rapidly. Women need to continue to inspire each other to seek out these opportunities, as a well-paying job means economic freedom. It means the ability to invest more into children and families.

[1055]

When people are at work, society grows. The more people earn, the more our economy grows.

Over the past century women have achieved so much in business and building the economy. I look forward to what the future holds for our female leaders.

I realize that more needs to be done, but as a free enterpriser I am proud of the success that women have demonstrated in the boardroom, as entrepreneurs and in the skilled trade professions. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in recognizing the success of women becoming a growing economic force and will work together to make sure that there is a level playing field for all budding entrepreneurs and future business leaders.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak on the motion put forward from the member for Parksville-Qualicum on women and the economy. When we mark October as Women’s History Month, I think it can be characterized as one of the most notable features of economic development when we saw over the past centuries the transition and transfer of women’s work in the home to their involvement in commercial employment and full participation in the economy.

I’d like to take us to today and look at what the experience is of women in British Columbia with respect to their economic security, looking at some of the factors around women’s participation and representation in the labour force. We’ve seen that more women are participating in the labour force, but it’s still not equal to men. As well, we see that the unemployment rate is also higher for women.

When we look at the experience of women, it’s not all women who have the same experience. We see additional barriers for immigrant women, women of colour and also indigenous women, who see lower participation in our labour force as well as higher unemployment rates and lower employment rates.

When we look at part-time work, we also see that nearly 70 percent of part-time workers are women.

When we look at the benefits that women are able to gain from the economy, we see that there is, indeed, a gender gap in earnings here in British Columbia — a gender gap on two levels. Women in B.C. actually have fallen behind the Canadian average of earnings for women across the country, and women in British Columbia also suffer wage disadvantages compared across British Columbia.

Over the past ten years we’ve seen that average earnings for women lag behind the Canadian average. That’s a reality for women in the labour force in British Columbia. When we look at the gender gap in earnings as well, we see that the gap between men and women in British Columbia and also that gender gap in wages is worst in British Columbia compared to across Canada. That is the reality of women looking for work and their experience in the labour force.

Compounding that, where does that lead us? That contributes and that explains why British Columbia has the worst poverty rate. Also, women — particularly lone parents heading their households, with children — have the highest poverty rate when you look at their experience and their inability to access full-time, quality, good-paying jobs.

As well, when we look at what the resolves are to support women to participate fully, closing that gap in labour market participation is a real drive for productivity and is a goal to boost not only women’s earnings but also the functioning of the economy. The number one area is women facing that difficulty to balance their work and family life, the need for a commitment to child care so that women can feel secure that their children are looked after and are able to participate fully in the workforce.

The other area is access to jobs. We see that B.C. has the second-worst rate of creating private sector jobs, and hand in hand, we’ve seen just an opening of the door for temporary foreign workers coming into our province — tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia and a lack of opportunity for people in B.C. to find work. As well, we see an outflow of people leaving British Columbia to find jobs.

[1100]

There needs to be, for women to participate fully, ac-
[ Page 4916 ]
cess to quality child care. We need to see jobs in British Columbia.

That means — for my colleagues across the way — let’s have some jobs in British Columbia. Let’s build some ferries in British Columbia and not send those off to Poland. Let’s have the ability for women across this province to find good-paying jobs in British Columbia and give opportunity to women, particularly indigenous women and women from immigrant communities.

Let’s not forget that this government — the B.C. Liberal government — has the distinction of the worst record of women losing their jobs, with the privatization of health care workers in 2002.

Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to thank my hon. colleague from across the aisle for her remarks. While I agree that women do face obstacles, I’d like to point out that all business leaders and entrepreneurs face obstacles, regardless of their gender. As legislators we need to ensure that the doors are open for everyone.

All parents need to take care of their children. All students and workers deserve an education and opportunities. No worker should face barriers because of their gender or their race, religion, creed or physical ability.

I’d like to actually quote Janet Yellen, the chair of the United States Federal Reserve. She said: “Every woman I have appointed is here because they have the skills and the capabilities to lead.” I echo her thoughts. People should be and must be promoted based on merit. I hope that my hon. colleague would not think differently.

You know, women now earn over half of all Canadian university degrees. Over one-third of MBAs granted in Canada are to women. In fact, it’s estimated that nearly half of the students in business and management programs at the master’s level are now females.

As a parent, I’m proud that we have measures in our province that are being made to implement a meaningful early learning approach while reducing child care pressures on families. I know that the B.C. early-years strategy is a long-term plan to improve access, affordability and the quality of early-years programs and services for families with young children aged zero to six.

That’s not to mention that we have now implemented all-day kindergarten through the Ministry of Education’s two-year implementation completed in September 2011. It will benefit $327 million to the program, helping approximately 38,000 kindergarten students across B.C., which is a current number. This is, of course, improving the early learning while reducing the child care pressure that we have on families.

There’s also the recently formed Premier’s Women’s Economic Council that was created to offer advice to women on tapping into economic opportunities. Along with bringing into focus the barriers that are facing women in business, they will provide advice on how to eliminate those barriers.

Let’s not forget that women have had an opportunity to seize a career in the trades, realizing a well-paying career that may mean independence, job satisfaction and, most importantly, the ability to support their family.

Right now the barriers are tumbling down, and the opportunities are on the rise for women of all backgrounds who want to pursue careers as welders, carpenters, heavy operators and plumbers, just to name a few. It’s fitting, I think, now that we have women as a growing economic force.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent is required in order to proceed with Motion 7 and not disturb the previous motions on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 7 — ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

S. Chandra Herbert: I am moving a motion:

[Be it resolved that the government rebuild confidence in our economy by introducing stronger protections for our province’s land, water, and air, and ensure stronger enforcement of those protections.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m bringing this motion today because, of course, this summer — August 4, to be specific — provided a wake-up call.

[1105]

I think it certainly sent a shock wave through the mining sector, any natural resource companies and environmentally concerned British Columbians — indeed, all British Columbians.

What happened on August 4? Well, it was the collapse of the Mount Polley tailings dam. Some call it a breach. I visited the site. Very clearly the whole side of the dam has scoured away, sending 25 million cubic metres of mine tailings into Quesnel Lake, scouring Hazeltine Creek and leaving a moonscape of tailings in the dam site itself. Of course, many are aware of the potential harm that this has brought to what was once a pristine lake — to the fish, to the people that rely on that and to the tourism businesses associated with it as well.

What does that mean? Well, it has meant, in many other resource operations and in many other proposed resource operations, a great deal of concern — British Columbians saying: “Who is managing the economy? Who is managing to protect our ecology? And how can we have these good-paying jobs in resource sectors while also protecting the ecology and the environment?”

The government’s response has largely been to suggest: “Well, you’re either for jobs and the economy, or you’re
[ Page 4917 ]
against them if you’re in favour of the ecology and protecting the environment.” It doesn’t have to be both ways. For those that look at the etymology of words, as I like to, we look at ecology and economy, and they’re very much the same thing. Economy — oikos nemein, in the Greek — is about managing the household. Ecology, of course, is about managing the interaction of organisms in that household. Really, you cannot have one without the other.

Unfortunately, under the B.C. Liberal government we’ve had management of the household, so to speak, where you focus on just one thing. You let the roof burn. You let somebody cut down the trees right outside of the window or somebody potentially poison the fish that you’ve been keeping in your dugout in the backyard, as my grandparents had when I was a kid, and look the other way.

We’ve had example after example after example of big multinational companies polluting the environment, and either the public pays to clean it up, or we just leave the damage as it is. Now, British Columbia — as we look at this building, as we look at our history — was built on natural resources. We’ve an incredible forestry sector, mines, the fisheries, and on and on you go. But that was an interaction with nature. There were many bad decisions made in the past, which have cost us to this day. I point, of course, to the former Britannia mine and the ongoing pollution problems that it has to this day because things were managed poorly.

We seem to think that we could go on and on forever and that there would never be an impact. Well, they’re wrong. They’re wrong. To this day the B.C. Liberal government continues to seem to believe if you just look the other way, if you pretend that you are going to deal with it by claiming you have world-class standards, that somehow makes it true. Well, it doesn’t.

I have in front of me an e-mail from the emergency management department of the Ministry of Environment talking about oil spill preparedness and toxic spill preparedness. Are we ready? What does it say here? It says: “We could point to hundreds of spills on an annual basis where gaps occurred or improvements are needed. Compiling such a report, however, would involve significant staff resources that we currently do not have.”

To put that in terms anyone can understand, there are so many problems out there across B.C. where we do not have policy and we do not have enforcement and we do not know what’s going on, but we don’t even have enough staff to know what we don’t know. We don’t even have enough staff to know the extent of the problems. There are so many.

Has the government decided this is a priority now, all of a sudden? No, in fact, they haven’t. Instead, what the government has done — in managing the household and managing the economy, in shredding confidence in the economy and in our ability to balance environmental needs and economic needs — is…. Instead, what they’ve done is they’ve moved to a model of laying off staff — 35 percent cut to our natural resource officers, 25 percent of the foresters gone, 23 percent of agrologists gone, around a quarter of natural resource officers gone. It’s time for change. We need to balance in a better fashion.

[1110]

L. Larson: In response to my colleague, B.C. is a North American leader in climate action and has gained international recognition for being a leader on the green economy. In 2010 B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to become carbon-neutral across its public sectors and remains the only carbon-neutral province or state on the continent.

Water is our most precious resource, and the proposed Water Sustainability Act will help ensure that our supply of clean, fresh water is sustainable to meet our needs today and for generations to come.

We are the first government in B.C.’s history to implement a comprehensive drinking water protection plan, which included investing more than $300 million in municipal projects, including drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Modernizing the Water Act was a key commitment in our government’s election platform, and it will better protect our water resources and help keep our environment, economy and community strong.

The new Water Sustainability Act responds to current and future pressures on water, including groundwater, and positions B.C. as a leader in water stewardship. The Water Sustainability Act regulates and protects groundwater use in B.C.; collects information to better understand B.C.’s aquifers and to make informed water use decisions in the future; ensures that environmental flows needs are considered in allocation decisions to protect our streams; secures rights for water users, communities and industries, especially for groundwater; secures water for agricultural production and agriculture water reserves; allows for wider participation in decisions and water governance, the water sustainability plans and water objectives; and entrenches household use and aquatic ecosystem priorities in times of drought and scarcity.

While primary legislation governing drinking water in B.C. is the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Water Sustainability Act will complement that in ensuring safe and secure supplies of drinking water. Specific provisions of the Water Sustainability Act that help protect drinking water and associated watersheds are the protection of environmental flows; the protection of water, both surface and ground, from the introduction of foreign matter; the establishment of water objectives; and the ability to undertake water sustainability plans.

Water is the lifeblood of my community of Oliver. The domestic and the irrigation water systems are the envy of other rural communities. The water twinning project has provided potable water to all rural properties while
[ Page 4918 ]
maintaining separately the irrigation system. The canal project, borne out of the First World War, turned desert into farmland and created jobs for returning soldiers. Out of that system has come our modern water distribution system of today.

The recently completed twinning project of $11 million was a partnership with all levels of government but only happened on the condition that metering would be part of the project. Consequently, all water use is now metered, with different base rates for different uses. Water consumption has dropped dramatically. This government has protected our water through policies like this by controlling the volume of usage and eliminating waste. Other communities are now also upgrading their water systems and saving water through a metering process, in partnership with the province.

There has been provincewide support for the act, as per this quote from Lorne Hunter, chair of the Water Committee of British Columbia: “B.C. farmers and ranchers support updating the Water Act and hope that it will protect our food-producing capacity for future generations. We appreciate that the Ministry of Environment has sought our input on this issue and look forward to ongoing discussion as the new act is finalized.”

B.C. continues to lead the way in North America with water protection to ensure good, clean and plentiful water for future generations.

C. Trevena: We’re all clearly taking different approaches to understanding the links between the environment and the economy. My colleague from Vancouver–West End has tabled the motion: “Be it resolved that the government rebuild confidence in our economy by introducing stronger protections for our province’s land, water, and air, and ensure stronger enforcement of those protections.”

We have recently seen the devastation of what’s happened with Mount Polley and the tailings pond. We heard my friend from Boundary-Similkameen talking about the necessity to protect water. I’d like to talk a little bit about the necessity to protect our land base.

[1115]

We are talking very much that there is no dichotomy between protecting our environment and investing in our environment and investing in our economy. I represent North Island and have been very proud to do so for almost ten years now. We are a resource-based economy. We have mines. We have a forest resource. We have fishing. We have aquaculture with finfish and shellfish. Everybody knows that you’ve got to protect the land base in order to make sure that it continues producing for you and for your economy but also for future generations.

We have gone, I would hope, beyond the approach of previous generations where you’d just go down, haul out the trees and forget to replant. We have gone, I would have hoped, beyond the stage where you go right by a salmon-bearing stream, you haul out the trees right by it, and it doesn’t matter because they’re high value. I’d have hoped that we had learned that. Emotionally, a lot of people have learned that, but we also have the fact that we have very few people on the land base monitoring just what is happening. I think this is where some of the problems come.

If we are wanting to use our environment for our economy — which we all accept, I believe, as B.C.’ers that we are going to do…. Whether it is for the logging industry or even for the tourism industry — which relies equally on a well-maintained, healthy, protected environment — we’ve got to invest in that. We’ve got to invest in continuing — whether it’s the replanting, the nourishment, whatever it is — to reinvest back into the land base.

We’ve also got to make sure that we are not going too far, that those companies out there that are working are doing it in a sustainable way and that they are not breaking the rules. Now, we all hope that this is the case, but we’ve seen time and time again that there’ve been inspections and reports and so on and so on, and nobody has acted. One of the reasons nobody has acted is because of this government cutting back on inspection. Particularly, I’ve been talking about forestry here. It’s been still vital to my community.

Back in March of this year, the Professional Employees Association issued a report which pointed out a decline of 15 percent of licensed science officers in the province over five years. Now, for foresters, they were the worst hit; 25 percent of foresters were hit. Professional forestry was hit. These are the people who are doing enforcement and compliance. These are the people who are on the land base, making sure that what is happening there is happening in a way that is both within the law and also ensuring that we are not overstepping our mark and making sure that we continue to invest in and protect our land base.

The cuts have meant that we are seeing not just that, but you see a reduction in revenue because you lose the oversight. Nobody knows what’s happening. The government isn’t getting their returns on it. The companies aren’t necessarily getting the returns on it. You’re seeing a degradation of the forestry base because of this, right across the province — not just in my constituency, but right across the province. Once you take away the eyes and the ears of the people on the ground to what’s happening, you are going to have an impact.

There is no way that you can separate the environment and the economy. They do go hand in hand. We have to make sure of that, whether it is for forestry or whether it’s for tourism. I have a number of companies in my constituency where you see that they have made a shift from a forest economy to a tourism economy. Likewise, they are looking for protection of the land base for their businesses to continue in a well-ordered way. We all talk about tourism as a new sector of the economy, but that
[ Page 4919 ]
also does involve some environmental regulations. It does ensure that we have the protection of what are called visual-quality objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this debate.

J. Thornthwaite: The government of British Columbia believes that resource development should not come at the expense of the environment. That is why we have a vigorous, robust and independent environmental assessment process. However, we also know that industry requires certainty. That is why, unlike the opposition, we respect the process and don’t pick winners and losers.

[1120]

We have a principled approach to heavy-oil pipelines in the province — one that requires a world-class marine and land response plan, that ensures that First Nations are included and that B.C. gets its fair share of the profits generated by our resources before we approve any projects.

In July 2012 our government released a heavy oil policy paper outlining five requirements that must be met for B.C. to consider any heavy-oil pipelines. All heavy-oil pipeline proposals are subject to these five conditions, which include the northern gateway pipeline, the proposed twinning of the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline and the proposed Kitimat refinery.

In the case of Enbridge, they have only met the first condition: successful completion of the environmental review process. There are four other conditions that still must be met. In the province’s final submission to the joint review panel we stated we could not support the project because Enbridge has been unable to address B.C.’s environmental concerns. B.C.’s position on the northern gateway is unchanged. All proposals will be judged on their merits, and the province’s five conditions will still apply.

Our government understands the economic benefits of responsible resource development, but it will not be at the cost of the environment. Our five requirements provide certainty, predictability and transparency about our government’s position on any heavy-oil pipeline project proposal. We have taken a fair and reasonable approach which reflects and defends the interests of British Columbians and our environment.

Meeting the five conditions will be a challenge. We set the bar very high for a reason: to ensure that British Columbians’ concerns around the environment, First Nations participation, and overall economic benefit are taken seriously. The responsibility for meeting the five conditions is complex and will take a great deal of effort from both industry and government.

To date we are not in a position to consider support for any heavy-oil pipeline in B.C. Our government is committed to protecting B.C.’s coast from marine spills, and while this is primarily a federal jurisdiction, we must ensure that provincial interests are protected.

Tankers have been delivering and exporting petroleum and refined products in the Lower Mainland for 100 years. In the event of a spill, the ministry’s highly trained response professionals will immediately begin implementing the province’s spill response plan and protocols. The ministry’s response would be integrated with the responsible party and participating federal agencies, local governments, First Nations and other stakeholders. The Canadian Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for ship-sourced oil spills in marine waters.

We stand by the conditions. This is why we contracted Nuka Research, an international expert in the field, to deliver a three-volume report which lays the foundation for building a world-class marine spill response and preparedness system. We also have a land-based, world-class spill response preparedness plan, in partnership with industry, which we are developing. In April 2014 we released our second land-based spills intention paper, and I would encourage the House to check that out.

In summary, I think it is absolutely evident — I’m sure you can see from my remarks today — that our government has indeed worked to build confidence in our economy and at the same time provided world-class protections for our land, our water and our air.

N. Macdonald: Well, mining needs strong, fair, predictable regulation. They need it applied in a timely way, but they need to avoid poor mining practice in order to succeed. Mining employs thousands of people here in British Columbia. Billions in economic activity flow from it. Done properly — and that’s the key — we can maximize economic benefit and minimize environmental damages.

In B.C. the government is responsible for setting the rules to achieve this and for enforcing those rules. Mount Polley was a failure to protect the land, a dramatic failure, and 25 million cubic metres of tailings flowed into pristine Quesnel Lake. It was a failure of the B.C. Liberal government to do their job, and industry, workers and local residents are paying the price for B.C. Liberal failure.

Mining is done on public land, and here in B.C. much of that land is still under First Nations title. The industry needs public confidence, and while individual companies can work to maintain their own standards, the fact is that there have to be strong standards applied to all companies if this is going to work.

[1125]

Right now the reality is that regardless of what is said by this government, people do not trust the B.C. Liberals with mining safety or with standards. Continued cover-up of Mount Polley by the government does not make that any better. That’s a problem.

Environmental assessment, let’s be clear, is a farce in this province. Everything here is approved in B.C., and Mount Polley is a disaster because a lake was used as a
[ Page 4920 ]
tailings pond, presumably by accident. Remember that at Fish Lake the B.C. Liberals actually approved using the lake as a tailings pond. They skipped that part of it. They went straight to dumping it in the lake — approved by B.C. Liberals. When Stephen Harper is the voice of reason on an environmental issue, it’s a pretty obvious indictment of B.C. environmental assessment processes. That’s the reality of it.

I just want to talk about a local issue for a minute: Jumbo. The minister and the environmental assessment director were in Jumbo Valley over Thanksgiving to determine if, after ten years, the laying of a concrete pad in Jumbo Valley represents a substantial start to a $1 billion resort. Now, it’s a $1 billion resort without the $1 billion, but that’s another factor. It’s still a $1 billion resort concrete pad. Is that a substantial start?

Well, exactly 30 years ago my wife, Karen, and I, along with Peter Olive, went to a small cabin up in Jumbo Pass. That cabin, 30 years ago, is more than the proponent for Jumbo Glacier Resort has built in Jumbo Valley now. That’s the reality of it. And those three people spending a night, 30 years ago, is more than have spent a night in Jumbo resort municipality, which these Liberals created as another element of their farcical environmental assessment process.

So when the B.C. Liberals talk about doing the job properly and all the wonderful things that the Premier’s office have handed these members to read out, the reality on the ground for anyone who is out there on the land base is completely different.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening to the members opposite speaking in metaphors and using other adjectives to express how they feel about this particular motion. The member for North Island was talking about the number of forestry workers that have been laid off that are no longer out on the land and monitoring what’s going on. But we don’t need government workers to be monitoring what’s out on the land. We have the association of professional foresters that have some strict standards for their people when they’re out there.

All registered professional foresters in the province have a duty to abide by that charter to make sure that the work is being done properly out there and to make sure that the environment is being logged in a sustainable fashion. It doesn’t necessarily fall on government to ensure that’s done.

In addition to that, we have countless other tenure holders across the province here that are the eyes and ears for people. I talk about trappers, guide-outfitters, resident hunters, fisher-people. Whoever is out there on the land, they have a vested interest to make sure that everything is operating according to the standards that have been set. They are the first ones to come in to let us know what’s going on out there, and I speak from experience as a trapper. I speak from experience as a hunter.

If there have been any issues out there that have caught our attention, then we’re the first ones to go into the local office to talk about that.

I also had an experience years ago. I was able to go in and apply for a license of occupation for an adventure tourism business that I had, and I personally experienced the rigorous regulations and process that this province has in place to ensure that the environmental standards are upheld.

The process that I had to follow to get a license of occupation was not only the consultation with the other tenure holders within the specified geographical area, but I also had to consult with First Nations to make sure that my plans were compatible with their use of the land as well.

[1130]

I also had to hire a biologist to go out. There was some notion that there was some historic piece of grass somewhere in the area that I had laid out in my plans that I had to ensure was protected. I had no idea what this looked like, so I had to go and get a biologist to come in and point it out to me, to make sure that I wasn’t going to jeopardize that particular piece of grass.

I also had to look for nests of the northern goshawk, which is another endangered species or species on the list of animals to watch. I had to hire the biologist to come out there with me to make sure that we weren’t jeopardizing the future of that particular species as well.

Also, with the 30-odd lakes and ponds and creeks and whatnot that were in this area, I had to go in and do fish counts. We had to go in and make sure that we weren’t jeopardizing any of the fish that were in the area and the riparian areas. It’s a very, extremely, rigorous process. It took me about two years to go through that environmental review, to submit it to the proper authorities to make sure that I’d hit all the standards before they even considered issuing me a permit for my licence of occupation to go and take people out into the wilderness and show them the beautiful flora and fauna that this province has to offer.

The process I went through is no different than the process that the mining companies have to go through, that oil and gas has to go through, that the pipeline proponents and LNG proponents have to go through in order to put their facilities on the ground as well. I’m pretty comfortable that we have a very rigorous process and that it’s followed to the letter and that our environment is in a safe and sustainable manner.

K. Conroy: I, too, am very pleased to rise and speak to my colleague from Vancouver–West End’s motion today.

This government has been downsizing the public sector workers in the various ministries since it came into office in 2001. It has been particularly hard on the resource ministries, making significant cuts to the people who hold positions that actually do the work in the field
[ Page 4921 ]
— the boots on the ground, so to speak: the folks who get out and ensure due diligence is being carried out by companies involved in forestry and mining. There has been almost a 30 percent cut in staffing levels of dirt ministries since 2001.

These are the very people who are proactive, who prevent situations from occurring, proactive instead of having to be reactive at a great cost to the environment, communities and the economy.

A perfect case in point is what happened at Mount Polley on August 4, when a catastrophic breach of the tailings pond allowed 20 million cubic metres of tailings and debris into pristine creeks and lakes in the area. There were warnings, and the cuts to staff have resulted in concerns being expressed as far back as 2010. In 2010 senior department engineer Glen Davidson, who is the comptroller of water rights for the B.C.’s Ministry of Environment, wrote to the then deputy minister, Doug Konkin, warning that the province’s dam safety program continued to be understaffed and would lead to negative results. The letter specifically named tailings ponds as a risk.

The number of natural resource officers in the ministry has shrunk from 292 in 2009 to 169 officers today. There were other warnings about Mount Polley, specifically — warnings in 2011, continual warnings throughout, and in 2012 — continuing to warn the ministry, the government, that there were issues that were going to happen with this mine. So the government had fair warning that there were concerns about Mount Polley.

Did they have the appropriate regulations in place, the adequate resourcing from the ministries to deal with it? Well, obviously not.

The aftermath has been devastating for the businesses that were affected by the spill. The people of Likely met with the Premier and her entourage when she finally made it to the community, and she, in fact, told Peggy Zorn: “If there’s anything I can do for you, let me know.”

Four of the businesses, including the Zorns, who operate Ecotours-B.C., wrote to the Premier in September. “As the reality of this disastrous event sinks in and we look toward the coming business years, we are realizing the losses and business disruptions we are facing and that immediate damage control is a necessity to ensure our businesses survive, and that takes money and all other resources we can access.”

Premier, we are calling on you to fulfil your personal commitment to these members of the community of Likely. They asked for $50,000 each to help mitigate the issues affecting their businesses caused by the breach. They heard back, eventually — not from the Premier — from the Minister of Environment, who basically said, “We hear you but can’t help you. We gave money to the local chamber of commerce,” and referred to a tourism recovery plan that was underway.

I want to quote and enter into the record parts of a letter that was sent in response to that letter from the businesses in Likely.

“Your response does not address the issues we have. We are responding to a direct statement Premier Clark made to Peggy Zorn: ‘If there’s anything at all I can do for you, let me know.’

[1135]

“So far, nothing has been done for the businesses or community of Likely by your government to provide assurance of business for the coming year. Providing $50,000 to hire someone to find out what the community needs is not a solution. We already know what went wrong and what we as community members and businesses need.

“Besides, the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association has already had a study done for both Likely and Horsefly, and the report has been submitted. It is my understanding that it went beyond just tourism needs. It contained the needs of the communities.

“We as businesses need to manage our own destinies, not to have someone who doesn’t understand our businesses or unique positions telling us what to do.”

The letter goes on, saying they’re not getting the help from the government that they want.

I also talked to Sharon and Terry Borkowski, or Skeed, as everyone calls him. He is also saying that they’re not getting the support they need. He says there needs to be legislation in place to have licensees or corporations that cause a situation, like this one they are in, to be immediately responsible for loss of revenue based on the victim’s financial statements.

He goes on to say: why should they have to borrow money? Why should their company have to borrow money to keep themselves solvent, to keep their business going, because of a situation that was brought about by this government’s lack of regulations, this government’s lack of due diligence, and this situation has happened? Now they’re told to go to Community Futures and borrow money to keep their organization afloat.

How is that working for people up there? It’s not. It’s obvious that they need help now. The situation they’re in is through no fault of their own. Again, if the government could only learn from their past mistakes and follow through on this motion by ensuring that we do have some confidence in our economy, by ensuring that there are regulations in place.

M. Dalton: It’s a privilege to be able to speak to this motion. It addresses two important priorities for our government. One is the economy. This talks about rebuilding confidence in our economy, which is interesting coming from the opposition. Two is the environment. These are important priorities for our government. They are important priorities for our government because they’re important priorities for the people of British Columbia.

The health of our economy directly impacts, positively or negatively, individuals, families, communities, whether they’re persons working, whether they’re retired or going to school. The economy impacts each and every one of us, because a stronger economy provides more opportunities, better-paying jobs, increased prosperity.
[ Page 4922 ]

It also leads to increased revenue streams for government to provide services such as health care, education, parks, transportation infrastructure. Governments make a difference that directly impacts the economy and prosperity of their countries and jurisdictions.

Last week I heard a speaker from Uganda, actually the head of the revenue agency, and she surprised me by saying that Uganda is a rich country. She was speaking about natural resources. She was speaking about opportunities and the transformation that they are seeing in that nation.

They have looked at the regulations. The Ugandan revenue agency was known for its corruption about a decade ago, and they addressed this. They have transformation, and they’ve seen the amount of income increase by about 300 percent. So governments make a big difference.

We notice even here, when the NDP was last in government, that their practices, their taxation levels, their bureaucracy smothered the B.C. economy. It was the first time that we became a have-not province.

The B.C. government recognizes the importance of a strong economy, and we make every effort to…. In the area of regulation, we have to have regulations that are needed and necessary, whether it be in environment or in other areas. But we have cut down regulations and taxation. We want to encourage businesses to set up shop here.

Also, we’ve focused on expanding markets. Mining is a good example. Investment had dried up during the tenure of the opposition. They weren’t in opposition then; they were in government. In 2001 there was $29 million in exploration. In 2012 there was $680 million in exploration. There are 30,000 people now employed in the mining industry, directly or indirectly. At that time, in 2001, there were 14,700.

[1140]

The resource sector jobs are not just in the hinterlands. They are in the Lower Mainland also. I toured a site last week. It was AdvanTec. They recently set up shop — actually, about three years ago. They have 70 employees. They are expanding by another 20 employees. They specialize in making mobile homes for the oil and gas sector and also building pipes. It’s needed for the resource sector, and it’s right in the Lower Mainland.

We all agree that protecting our environment is of utmost importance. This can and is being done without kneecapping our economy.

Water is our most important natural resource. Without it, there would be no life on earth. British Columbians consistently rank water as one of the province’s most valuable natural resources. British Columbia is one of the most beautiful places on earth, and it has a lot to do with water — the rain, streams, lakes, rivers.

In the last session, on May 29, 2014, we introduced Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act, which received royal assent and will be coming into force next year. This new Water Sustainability Act delivers on the government’s commitment to modernize B.C.’s water laws. It’s the first time in 100 years, since 1909, that it’s been updated. At that time the population was 350,000; now we’re at 4.6 million.

There’s been population growth and urban development, and they’ve all put pressures on our water resources. We’ve gone through a consultation process, where there’s been thousands of responses from all different stakeholders, including First Nations, the agricultural sector, local governments and ordinary citizens.

G. Heyman: It’s an honour to stand to support this motion. It’s a motion that I would have hoped that members opposite, on the government side of the House, would embrace, because it speaks to what we need to do to create some economic certainty and meet the expectations of British Columbians for environmental responsibility in the development of our natural resources.

I’ve been listening carefully to statements from members opposite. Some talk about the world-class standards that we have in environmental regulation and environmental enforcement. Others talk about how successful we can be in relying on proponents and people exploiting our resources to self-regulate, to be responsible and to report.

I’d be stirred by these statements if they bore any relation to reality, but unfortunately, members opposite say what they think British Columbians want to hear, and then they do whatever they want.

The fact remains that in August we had a catastrophic failure, not just of the tailings dam at Mount Polley, which spilled incredible amounts of toxic tailings and debris into Hazeltine Creek, Polley Lake and Quesnel Lake, but it was also a failure of a decade of government policies on both environmental regulation and boots-on-the-ground enforcement.

British Columbians want jobs and development, deserve jobs and development, but they also want and deserve environmental responsibility. These are important concepts. They’re important actions. They’re important responsibilities, because for resource companies, they cannot proceed or attract investment or understand what the rules are or what they should do without social licence and without support from First Nations.

Unless the government ensures that citizens’ expectations of environmental and public health are assured as much as possible, there is no certainty for these companies. There is no social licence. There is continued conflict with First Nations, who worry about the land, the air and the water that has sustained their people for generations. When there’s a lack of social licence, as we saw during the Mount Polley tailings disaster, it means investor uncertainty.

[1145]

After the tailings dam breach, Imperial’s share value dropped by close to 50 percent, and other mining com-
[ Page 4923 ]
panies, who had nothing whatsoever to do with that particular disaster, saw their share prices suffer as well.

If what the members opposite said were true, then the Auditor General, in a 2011-12 report entitled An Audit of the Environmental Assessment Office’s Oversight of Certified Projects, would not have said, as they did say, the following.

“When major projects such as mines, dams or tourist destination resorts are undertaken in the province, British Columbians expect that any potentially significant adverse effects, whether environmental, economic, social, heritage and/or health related, will be avoided or mitigated. The environmental assessment office is expected to provide sound oversight of such projects. However, this has not been happening.

“We also found that information currently being provided to the public is not sufficient to ensure accountability.”

These are the facts. These are the facts on the ground in British Columbia. After they took office, the B.C. Liberal government undid the environmental regulations to a great degree in their hurry to, as they said, remove red tape and open B.C. for business. And then they laid off huge numbers of people in the resource ministries who would get out and see if the minimal regulations that were in place were still being enforced and lived up to.

If only the government would actually listen to the words in this motion and take to heart that resource investors need certainty, they need consistency, and they need to know what the rules are — and that’s what British Columbians expect — then we could truly move forward and build a resource extraction industry with certainty in this province.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to stand today on behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin to speak to the following motion. “Be it resolved that the government rebuild confidence in our economy by introducing stronger protections for our province’s land, water and air, and ensure stronger enforcement of these protections.”

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We truly do have some of the strongest regulations, policies, legislation, that there is for our resource industries.

This motion was interesting. I was going to speak differently until I heard some of my colleagues from across the floor, from Kootenay Westand Vancouver-Fairview, bring a topic up — a catastrophic disaster at Mount Polley on August 4, 2014. It appalls me that members from across the floor seem to get — I’m not sure what it is — satisfaction out of continuously putting blame where no one knows what the cause is. There is an investigation going on. When the facts are here, we will see what caused it, and it will make mining even stronger than it is today.

We have no idea, and neither do they, but instead of thinking about families, feeding children, families moving forward and, hopefully, creating jobs, we have to have sensationalism and make our communities look like there’s something devastating when they are the best communities in the world.

I have spent so much time in my community. I have spent so much time up there. I work with the people. We’ve got the chamber of commerce. The government is working with them. It’s not to do another study; it’s to promote the Cariboo, to promote our resource industries, to promote Likely, to take care of the businesses in Williams Lake and surrounding that support our families.

We should be working together on positive messages to the world. “Come see what we have. See what a great, beautiful, pristine place we still are.” But no, not the opposition. We’ve got to tell the world we’re in bad shape.

[1150]

I go back to 1996, with the pine beetle. I was involved in local politics then. We begged the opposition to let us mitigate the pine beetle in our parks. What did we do? We forgot to tell the beetle they couldn’t leave the parks. What catastrophic disaster have we got from there?

Look at what Alberta did. They learned from here. They learned: mitigate.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: I’m sorry, sir. I live with it. I know the topic. Yeah. You can defend yourself all you want.

Let’s go back to what we have in this province. We have good government. We have good policies. We work with our First Nations. We work with our communities. We work with the private sector. We need to continue on with the good regulations, the good policies, the good legislation and always remembering families first — taking care of families, the environment, jobs and resource industries.

With jobs, we not only have a healthy environment; we take care of it. We do it responsibly. We do it sensibly. It takes care of our families, because they have good jobs that put food on the table, roofs over their heads and education and health care.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston.

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

[Interruption.]

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston, please continue.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker. Unfortunately, we had a little technological mishap.

I rise to speak to this motion. I think it’s incumbent upon any government to do its due diligence in identifying the best way to protect our natural environment and to make sure that there are sufficient boots on the ground to enforce those protections. That’s not what is happening in British Columbia today.
[ Page 4924 ]

I heard the previous speaker talk about how their approach is all delivered through the lens of families first. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We need not look any further than the policy on clawbacks to know that this government is only about talk when it comes to families first. And they’re only about talk when it comes to environmental protection and enforcement of those protections.

For example, the member opposite was talking about how, as a hunter, if he sees anything happening in the woods, he can report that. Well, my goodness. Coming from a hunting family, I would like it to be well known in this House that we don’t appreciate the government downloading responsibility for environmental protection and regulation on to us for the few months of the year that we are actually in session. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe that’s why other members assert that all is well and that, in fact, their protections and enforcement are enough. I get it. It’s tough to admit that Stephen Harper is the voice of reason on the environment, that regulations are so low and enforcement so sparse that we make Stephen Harper look good. I get that members opposite have a duty to uphold the Premier’s “say one thing and do another” MO. I get that they have to do that.

Here’s what’s really going on. If we look at July 2011, the Auditor General did a report. Some other members have already discussed it. This is what they say. In their executive summary, page 6 for the members opposite if they would like to take a look at this…. Maybe they haven’t seen this report. It’s an important report. It’s an independent eye on what they are doing. This is the truth of the matter.

On page 6 the report says:

“The environmental assessment office’s oversight of certified projects is not sufficient to ensure that potential significant adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.”

They go on to say:

“Specifically, the EAO is not ensuring that certificate commitments are measurable and enforceable, monitoring responsibilities are clearly defined, and compliance and enforcement actions are effective. The EAO is not evaluating the effectiveness of environment assessment mitigation measures to ensure that projects are achieving the desired outcomes. The EAO is not making appropriate monitoring, compliance and outcome information available to the public to ensure accountability.”

That was 2011.

[1155]

Three years later, in 2014, I need look no further than my own backyard, with Jumbo Glacier Resort, to see that this is still true. This government has made absolutely no changes based on this report. They’re just humming along like they always have, not bothering to do the work to protect our environment and make sure enough boots are on the ground.

Another report, more recently, by the Forest Practices Board. They released a report which reviews the ten-year record of the Forest and Range Practices Act. That act was the sweeping reform of forest practices that the B.C. Liberals passed in 2003.

What did that report have to say? Weak standards. Weak standards when it comes to managing our forests and range practices. The objectives and values in the law and regulations are vague or not defined. The board can say that licensees are generally meeting the bare minimum standards but can’t tell if they’re meeting higher environmental objectives, which remained poorly defined in law and regulation. Again, I need look no further than my own backyard in Meadow Creek, with Meadow Creek Cedar, to see that this is absolutely true.

There’s another report — the Professional Employees Association report.

Noting the hour, I’d like to adjourn debate.

M. Mungall moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.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