2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 3

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 1 — CHANGES TO QUESTION PERIOD
AND DAILY HOUSE BUSINESS

Hon. M. de Jong: Motion 1.

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Fourth Session of the Fortieth Parliament, which commenced on February 10, 2015:

1. Standing Order 25 be deleted and the following substituted:

The daily routine business of the House shall be as follows:

Prayers (morning or afternoon sittings)

Introduction of Bills

Statements (Standing Order 25B) (afternoon sittings: Monday and Wednesday; morning sittings: Tuesday and Thursday)

Oral question period (30 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday and Wednesday; 30 minutes, morning sittings: Tuesday and Thursday)

Presenting Petitions

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Presenting Reports by Committees

Motions on Notice

Written Questions on Notice

Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the Day.

The order of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

MONDAY

10 a.m. to 12 noon

(Private Members’ Time)

Private Members’ Statements (10 a.m.)

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Private Members’ Motions

Private Bills

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

No division, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in Committee of the Whole during Private Members’ Time, but where a division is requested, it will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless otherwise ordered.

MONDAY (AFTERNOON), TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY

(Government Days)

Throne Speech Debate

Budget Debate including Committee of Supply

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

Private Bills

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Adjourned debate on other motions

2. Standing Order 47A be deleted and the following substituted:

There shall be a 30 minute Oral Question Period at the opening of each afternoon sitting on Monday and Wednesday and at the opening of each morning sitting on Tuesday and Thursday, which shall be subject to the following rules:

(a) only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted;

(b) questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion;

(c) supplementary questions may be permitted at the discretion of the Speaker. There shall be no supplementary question to a question taken on notice;

(d) debate shall not be permitted;

(e) points of order arising during Oral Question Period may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be deferred until Question Period has been completed;

(f) Oral Question Period shall not take place on the day of the Speech from the Throne.]

Members will know that the motion, the first motion that stands on the order paper, is a proposed sessional order that replicates sessional orders that we have seen in the past dealing specifically with the daily schedule and the timing at which question period occurs for some number of sessions now. On Tuesdays and Thursdays question period has been shifted from its more traditional time in the afternoon to the mornings. The motion before the House proposes, for the duration of the fourth session that we are presently in, to do the same.

As I’ve said in the past, I recognize that there is disparity of views. I would say, over time, that I have heard some measure of modestly growing enthusiasm for the change. The government, by virtue of this motion, is commending to the House the proposal to continue on a sessional basis, through the fourth session, the shift and proposes the sessional order on that basis.

[1005]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate my colleague the Government House Leader’s comments.

The issue — on the timing of question period — is that there is a diversity of opinion on that. I think that at some point we may probably well arrive at a permanent change. But until such time as there is more coalescing of opinion, I think dealing with it on a sessional basis is the appropriate way, and that if we do deal with it on a permanent basis, that it’s part of perhaps a package or other changes that the House may want to make. But at this particular time the sessional approach is the right approach and, therefore, we look forward to question period Tuesday morning.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker, and to members of the House and the hon. Opposition House Leader.

I call continued debate on the throne speech.
[ Page 5708 ]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

S. Fraser: I’d like to pick up where we left off yesterday evening. The clock ran out suddenly. I was just finishing off a section about a failure of the throne speech in dealing with supported child development funds that are supposed to be designated for children assessed with special needs, with special challenges, autism, that sort of thing, and that those funds were not being made available in many cases because the government simply failed to budget for the needs of those children.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. It’s a systemic problem. I did note that the minister did respond on an individual case, which is much appreciated, but that is not nearly enough.

What follows also is…. I mentioned seniors care in my last round on this yesterday. There’s simply a failure at seniors care. Nothing mentioned in the throne speech — vacuous throne speech anyways. But when it comes to seniors, I’ll just give a stark example of what happened before Christmas.

This government was trying to limit the amount of family members that could visit, for Christmas dinner, their loved ones in residential care facilities. We raised this in question period, and I kid you not. It sounds like an Ebenezer Scrooge story, which it does. But I’ll read directly from the directive from Island Health. “The Island Health resident care sites will limit the amount of family and friends that attend at mealtimes on Christmas dinner. At north Island sites, we allow one invited guest per resident to a maximum of 10 to 12 guests per meal.”

Well, there’s 80 to 100 seniors in these residential care facilities, so 80 to 90 percent of seniors in those facilities were going to be denied Christmas dinner with their family and loved ones. That’s a cost-cutting measure to try to avoid paying overtime and a heartless decision, which was overturned subsequent to us raising this in question period in this House.

Again, there’s nothing in the throne speech that addresses some of the failures, many failures, in dealing with seniors care, and that is a big issue for my constituency. Alberni–Pacific Rim has a high number of seniors, and we need to address it. I’ll be watching closely in the budget to see if the budget speech on Tuesday offers any remedy for this sort of thing.

This throne speech ignores all of this. It offers no solutions to the problems people and families in Alberni–Pacific Rim face every day — indeed, in the entire province are facing every day.

It’s telling that while families are paying more and wages aren’t keeping up and the issues that I have pointed out — failures to provide the funding for kids with special needs, failures to provide funding for seniors — the Premier has chosen to give a $230 million tax break to the top 2 percent of B.C. income earners. This is so out of touch with reality and the needs of the people of this province.

[1010]

I’m honoured to be serving as the spokesperson for the official opposition for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I’ve been doing that for the most part of my time here in the Legislature the last ten years. I didn’t notice in this throne speech any First Nations leaders on the floor here. I could have missed some in the gallery behind me. This is unusual. I have not seen a throne speech delivered where we did not have a strong representation from First Nations leadership.

What did the throne speech say about aboriginal issues, First Nations issues? Well, not much. That might explain the absence in this place of the leadership council, of the summit, of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, of the Assembly of First Nations and of the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres — of any number of groups. There were no new commitments, legislative or budgetary items, in this throne speech dealing with First Nations and aboriginal peoples.

While this week’s throne speech did reference the Supreme Court’s Chilcotin ruling, the majority of the statements contained in the speech have been seen before, and they remain vague, overarching principles — no substance. No mention of how government plans to address the four conditions that were required for future work that was set out in the summit, the September 11 meeting between cabinet, the Premier and First Nations chiefs from all over the province — a good step.

Where was the follow-up? There’s no mention of that, of anything regarding that in this throne speech. It was an opportunity, as the Premier had said after that summit, to open doors and break down barriers. But nothing has happened. The throne speech was an opportunity to address those issues, and they have not been.

As a matter of fact, speaking of aboriginal issues — I’ve raised this a number of times with various Ministers of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — there is the issue of the Acho Dene Koe. This is a First Nation in the northwest of the province. Their traditional territory spans right into the Northwest Territories and Yukon territories, sort of a tripartite area there — four parties when you include the government of Canada.

In 2002 the Acho Dene Koe entered the B.C. treaty process, and they’ve been ignored ever since. This is a First Nation whose territories are right in the gas fields of the northern part of this of province, where the LNG plans that came up prior to the last election, those much-lauded plans, were seen to be held in high esteem by this government. They’re ignoring one of the key First Nations whose traditional territories are affected by any gas exploration and activities that are within their territories.
[ Page 5709 ]

I’ve got a letter here to the Premier — there are many of them — from Chief Harry Deneron, and they’re at their wits’ end. They have been trying for years to get this government to meet with them. It’s not just the Acho Dene Koe trying to get the government to meet with them. Many senators in Ottawa have beseeched this government to do their duty and their diligence and meet with the Acho Dene Koe to address treaty issues through the B.C. treaty process.

This is a good thing for the province. It’s a good thing for the economy of the province. It’s not just senators asking this government to come to the table, but all three parties in Ottawa are saying the same thing. We have unanimity on this issue. The only ones not coming to the table are this government. They’re putting much at risk.

It doesn’t say much for the relationship. You can’t pick and choose relationships with First Nations, as a government. It’s not about creating winners and losers. Government must be part of the solution to deal with First Nations issues. There’s great disparity in wealth and in socioeconomic outcomes. We have to close that gap. We can’t ignore First Nations that legitimately want to enter the treaty process. We should be encouraging that.

[1015]

Another First Nations issue that I’m hoping to get some resolution on — the member for North Coast joins me in this, and she led on this — for the Heiltsuk First Nation is the issue of Namu. It’s an old site. It’s a townsite built mostly on piles on the foreshore of one of the most significant cultural and archaeological sites on the continent. An ancient village site — one of the oldest, if not the oldest, continuous community sites in the whole continent. This fish plant, this community, was abandoned, and it’s falling into the sea. It’s crumbling. There’s an old ship there that was supposed to be removed — an old packing vessel. It’s going to be part of that problem.

I’ve attended, as has the member for North Coast, with the Hereditary Chief, and it was scary doing a walk around that village. It’s falling apart into the sea. It’s full of barrels rusting, full of unknown chemicals and oils, and it’s a disaster waiting to happen, a ticking time bomb. This government has done nothing to address that, despite multiple efforts by the Heiltsuk to try to engage and address this before it becomes a massive ecology-damaging incident on this critical part of the coast.

Again, I would ask this government: don’t pick and choose how to address First Nations. Address First Nations with respect and recognition. It’s not about picking a winner here and ignoring someone here because it’s inconvenient. It’s about respect and recognition. Let’s do that together.

I’m hopeful that the latest meeting that we have arranged, with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the leadership, hereditary and elected, from the Heiltsuk, will happen. It’s been rebooked. This has been several times now. I’m very hopeful that we’ll come to some kind of agreement there, but it should not have taken this long. It’s the Heiltsuk that have to travel a long way to come here. They’ve been willing to do it for a long time. I would put some urgency into that meeting while we’re here today with members from government.

In Alberni–Pacific Rim one of the key issues has always been forestry. We have seen — and it was early on in this government, 2003-04 — that they removed huge amounts of land from the public control of tree farm licence 44, TFL 44.

It became private managed forest lands, which has led to a huge increase in raw log exports. So no control and no say by local government on how this forestry is done, whether it impacts future growth plans for the communities — Port Alberni, the Alberni Valley — whether it affects viewscapes, tourism corridors, wildlife corridors, critical wildlife habitat, recognized conservation areas, recreational areas. A whole bunch of things that could affect the future economic diversification of the Alberni Valley have been removed from the public when the lands were taken out of that tree farm licence.

The key issue here — and in the throne speech it’s actually saying this with some pride — is that product exports have increased 64 percent since the recession ended in 2009. But 96 percent of that increase has been from low-value dimensional lumber, pulp and, mostly, raw logs. We’re not adding any value to one of the key resources of this province.

Exports of value-added wood products haven’t increased since 2009 and are less than half of what they were in the year 2000. That’s such a wrong way to go. It has been harmful to the economy of the Alberni Valley. It has been harmful to the industry in the Alberni Valley. It’s been harmful to the environment and the watershed and, potentially, water protection initiatives in the Alberni Valley.

The tragic thing about that is that the minister of the day, the Minister of Forests of the day, knew this. His senior staff advised against removing those lands from the public control of TFL 44, full well knowing that his staff had apprised him that it could be a detriment to everything that we hold dear in the Alberni Valley. These kinds of decisions — who knows how they’re made? They’re not made in the public interest.

[1020]

When a throne speech starts talking in positive terms about the changes made to the forest industry on the coast in this province…. Indeed, that’s been done on the backs of the workers who have been laid off, on the shifts that have been cancelled and the 80-plus mills that have been shut down in this province. And 30,000 forestry workers and their families were without work because of this government’s callous and unthinking policies in dealing with forestry.

I guess that it was the ombudsperson just last year or
[ Page 5710 ]
the year before — their report, scathing report…. This government doesn’t even know what they have as far as inventory. They’ve let too many people go in the ministry that have the ability to do accurate inventories of wood by species, by age group. We’re getting guesstimates at best. This is not me saying this. It’s the independent report. How do you manage any resource when you don’t know what you have?

It’s akin to what’s happening with the allocation on wildlife for hunters. I mean, the decisions being made there are being made in a vacuum, to some extent. Again, this government has gutted ministry resources — the people, the expertise, that used to be there that, region-by-region, were able to identify populations accurately. Grizzly bear populations — they vary from region to region.

You can’t manage the resources of this province if we don’t from the very beginning know what we have and have adequate capacity to inventory. Whether it’s our wildlife, whether it’s our forests, whether it’s our fisheries, you can’t manage anything as government unless you have that baseline information. This government, in their zeal to downsize government, has done away with some of the crucial programs and resources we need to manage anything.

I would note that the…. It was mentioned that the softwood lumber agreement is going to be up for renegotiation. I’m very concerned about this — the mention in the throne speech. It seemed to me that this was going to be a positive thing. But the softwood lumber agreement has decimated B.C.’s value-added wood processing industry. It seems like, from the throne speech, there’s no move by this government to do anything about that, to be an advocate for the workers that can make this resource add as much value from every tree as possible.

We’re going to continue the same pattern of losing our ability to add value to our products. That’s a disservice to the workers of this province, to the economy of this province, to the forest communities of this province. It’s a disservice to the economy of this province too.

I’d like to just finish this speech. I see that we’re running out of time.

The throne speech talks again about debt management. This irks me to no end, because this is a government that in their 12 years in office have more than doubled the entire debt from the beginning of this place, since the first government in British Columbia. This government has more than doubled that debt, and no Premier in the history of the province has added more to the debt than this one has.

So the gall of having a throne speech written by the Premier talking about debt management, putting this debt, massive debt…. They’re spending money, they’re increasing the debt, as though there was already a windfall from LNG. We’re now hearing that we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. Well, that is exactly what this government has been doing. That’s how they won an election, by making preposterous statements — overstating would be an understatement — about the value of LNG — one commodity in this province that is subject to the whims of international markets.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m pleased to stand and take my place in the debate on the throne speech today for a number of reasons. I’ve had the opportunity to reflect on things in the last 48 hours, because yesterday was my wife’s birthday. Michele and I have been married for over 40 years, and it was her birthday. I actually got to get out of caucus last night to go out for dinner with my wife.

[1025]

As I’m thinking about debates in the House and the people that have been here before us and any one of the individuals that have been in this chamber, whether they’ve been here for four years or in my case almost 19 years, I look back and say: “How has it happened? How has it worked? How has it been?” You sort of reflect a little bit.

I have to start out today…. I don’t usually get back into my constituency office and my constituency staff and stuff when I do a speech, but I thought I would today. First of all, I’m very fortunate. One of my colleagues said to me the other day how fortunate I was that I had a spouse that was not just on the sidelines but is actually there for me whenever I’m in public life. But also at the same time during a thing like a campaign, I happen to have a wife that is probably the best election day manager and runner of an office anywhere in the province. Her organizational skills are really an asset to my entire campaign stuff. My wife is a pretty phenomenal partner in this journey.

Ironically, I don’t have a lot of staff turnover. As a matter of fact, my one constituency assistant has been with me since day one and has actually worked for me for over 26 years — worked for me in the private sector as well. Her name is Sheryl Strongitharm. She’s been a real asset to my success, because you’ve got to have somebody that takes care of that riding when you’re not here.

As Sheryl is changing more into part-time, I have new full-time staff coming in that are reflective of that type of commitment to the community, which I think is really important.

I’ve been really lucky as a minister and as an MLA to have had great staff in this building. There are unbelievable people that work here — my chief of staff and the people that I have working in my office and the people that have come through my office over the last 19 years who worked for me and are now working elsewhere in government. It’s pretty neat to watch, because you actually get an opportunity to see how people’s lives evolve as they start out in careers and then their opportunities come to them and they can grow.

Having said that, hon. Speaker, I think the first thing
[ Page 5711 ]
I want to address today in the throne speech debate is I actually got a kick out of the closing remarks of the member over there. I know for people that don’t want to see British Columbia pursue all opportunities on resources that would actually change the financial future for your children and your grandchildren….

I know it’s easy for you to say: “Well, it’s not happening. The sky is falling.” That’s what you believe you want to have happen. But I’ve got to tell you something, guys — and I’ll talk about the statistics here in a second — I’m here still in this House for one reason only. I have four grandchildren. I didn’t have to run in 2013. I did because I thought there was one more period of time that needed to be done in British Columbia, and I wanted to be part of building the future so those children and other people’s grandchildren will have the opportunities that I think are necessary.

It’s ironic that I got involved in 1996 because I wanted to see my children at the time have careers in British Columbia versus leave the province and move somewhere else. I’m gifted in the fact that both of my children have careers in B.C. — have jobs or businesses in B.C. — and my grandchildren are all within a 20-minute drive of my house. I can see them pretty much any time I want. That’s an unbelievable gift when you know people whose children are on the other side of the world, with grandchildren. They think we’ve got it pretty good, and we do.

When you look at the files that I have to deal with…. I’m going to talk first about…. I’m going to get into LNG in a second, and the members opposite might want to listen to this part because you’re going to be surprised. It’s really not what you’re hoping it is. It’s not going to fail. It is going to be successful.

As we go through this, I think what you have to remember is, first of all, every throne speech doesn’t have to have a whole bunch of grand announcements in it if you’ve already got a plan and you’re working through it and you’re heading in a direction to get things done, which is what we have.

We actually have a plan. We know where we’re going, and the people of British Columbia bought into that plan in 2013 and continue today — from the people that I deal with — to say: “Good for you to stay on track.”

You don’t always have to change the world every time you make a speech. What you can do is set down a plan, work with people and build people that attract you into the economy and come and work or invest in British Columbia so they can create jobs in the future for children and grandchildren. It’s pretty straightforward.

Now in our case, the funny thing I found in some of the commentary coming out of the throne speech was: “Oh, they’re not just talking about LNG. They’re talking about other things in the economy because they want to divert the conversation.” No. You have to remember. When this Premier became Premier, just four years ago, there was a plan for eight new mines and nine expanded mines by the end of 2015. Guess what. We’re actually going to accomplish that by the end of 2015, right?

[1030]

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite…. I said to one of the members the only time I get wound up in a speech is if they heckle me. So bring it on, because I actually have a lot more fun that way.

I’ve been the Minister of Forests in this province, I’ve been the Minister of Energy and Mines, and now I’m the Minister of Natural Gas Development. The member that was just up talked about the softwood lumber deal, which the opposition opposed, by the way, when it was done back in 2006. It’s the most sustaining agreement in that sector in the history of our two countries. For the last nine years we’ve actually had some stability in forests with regards to exports to the United States.

While we did that, the previous Premier and our team as we came through set some goals, ironically, that we followed through on. We said at the time, because 85 percent of our forest products went to one customer in 2004-2005…. Today that customer takes up about 40 to 45 percent of our market, because we’ve diversified our opportunities and diversified our market and where we send the product.

You know, it takes time to accomplish that. We thought in ten years we would be significantly into Asia, with more market and more product. We are, and that’s important for the stability of an industry across the province and the thousands of jobs that it creates and the people who work in the forest sector. The important piece of that was to also get an agreement with our neighbours to the south at that time so we’d have stability as we both pursued markets but also maintained our relationship in the market that we serve the most.

Now, I know that the folks opposite will want to…. I’ve heard some of your speeches, and it’s really about everything’s…. It’s incredible how much they demean forestry, how much they demean mining and how much they demean natural gas — which, by the way, even in the traditional sense, you demean in your speeches. So I want you to understand what this is about.

People talk about LNG, for instance — liquefied natural gas. It’s not a new thing. It’s getting gas, cooling it down, making it a liquid and sending it somewhere you’ve got a customer. We have three communities in the northeast part of our province — Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, particularly. Also, we have Chetwynd and others. But the three that are in sort of the centre of this thing are up there. So 13,000 jobs in that industry — 13,000 jobs today in the natural gas industry. If there isn’t a market to send additional product somewhere else in the world, we will be turning our backs on those 13,000 people.
[ Page 5712 ]

We need to be focused, and we need to get there. We need to drive this agenda so that we can actually shift natural gas. We have enough supply to supply this entire continent for 150 years, and that’s only at 30 percent recovery of our known reserves. It’s incredible. So you have to send it somewhere.

Why would we pursue this opportunity? Well, we did it for forestry because we wanted to make sure we diversified our markets and had a stable export market for forestry. We did it many, many years ago for mining by having customers around the world for the variety of products that we had there. Now we’re pursuing it into natural gas.

Now, I just love it when the opposition decides to underestimate me as a minister, my Premier or our government, because every time you’ve underestimated us, you’ve been wrong. You were actually figuring out what curtains you were going to change in this building for cabinet ministers from the other side of this House in May of 2013. And you know what? You’re still in opposition. The reason for that is because we put a vision in front of the province, the people of the province, and every one of you underestimated us.

Do not, Members of this House, underestimate our resolve, the work and the progress we’re making on liquefied natural gas. Do not, because you’re going to wake up one day and say: “Jeez, I was opposed to that, and now we’ve got 100,000 new jobs in British Columbia. I was opposed to that, because the budget in British Columbia has a surplus that can pay down balloon payments on a debt. I was opposed to that because I didn’t believe in the future of my children and grandchildren.”

[1035]

Let’s talk about LNG for a second. Although most of my colleagues have heard me talk about this, I think it’s beneficial for the public and for the people in this House to know that we started a vision to pursue an industry of liquefied natural gas in British Columbia in 2012. That’s only three years ago. At the time we had three proponents here that were looking at the opportunity for liquefied natural gas in British Columbia.

As of this morning — because, obviously, the members opposite think the world is crashing — the 19th proponent arrived in British Columbia saying they’re interested in pursuing an opportunity in British Columbia. So we’ve gone from three to 19 proponents. In that, we have a collaboration of partnerships of over 30 companies that are in partnerships on individual sites across B.C.

The proponents and people interested in LNG, outside of their capital investment to buy into other companies that they bought into, have already spent in the billions of dollars. Actually, more than twice the amount of money that’s been spent to build an entire new aluminum plant in Kitimat has already been invested on the ground in British Columbia in pursuit of environmental assessment, pipeline routes, geotechnical work, design sites for plants, to get it to where they can take it to final investment decision somewhere before a board.

Now, I have the luxury of having sat across the table in confidential agreements and discussions with people in these companies, who obviously, for competitive reasons, want some confidentiality because they don’t want their competitors to know what’s going on. But I’m going to give you a bit of a summary of where we’re at.

Now we have 18 proposals. In those proposals we have ten companies, organizations or consortiums that have approved export licences from Canada. They have export permits in order to go ahead and do their thing. A number of them have already completed their environmental assessment. Others have come into the assessment process recently, and they’re all going through to get the work done.

One of the things that isn’t known, or often is misunderstood, is that while you’re trying to build something, there are not a whole lot of press releases. There’s a lot of negotiation. There’s a lot of work, and we set out a timeline with industry and ourselves to get to a certain point by certain dates. I’m going to tell you this, hon. Members. We have reached every single milestone before or on time with our partners who want to invest in British Columbia, up to this point, and we’ll continue to do that.

I’ve never seen a more focused group of people than the public service of this province in trying to bring that future to British Columbia. It’s really actually quite impressive.

As we come through that, we will start to see opportunities put before boards of directors in the next 12- and 24-month period, depending on which company it is. I know their schedules. I know when they plan to try and get there. I know what hurdles they have in front of them — the least of which is not the fact that oil prices worldwide have had a significant downturn that has affected some of the capital ability of these companies.

But I have sat down in the last 60 days with every proponent, senior people, and talked to them about where they are, and not one of them — albeit there are projects that have been put on hold in Australia and other places in central Africa — has told me that they’re slowing down their project. They actually have a timeline. They actually have a way they’re going through it.

Ironically, some of them have adjusted some of the things they’re doing, but they’re doing it because there’s an opportunity to actually have some competitive tension in the marketplace, so they can build their plants more economically because there’s more labour available, there’s more manufacturing space available, and they’re actually seizing that opportunity as they go through it.

Now, you’ll be surprised when it happens, because you’re opposed to it, so you don’t want it to happen anyway. But it will happen. I want to try and crystallize for you what it really means for us to be successful as a jurisdiction in the liquefied natural gas business.

Up in Kitimat there’s a new smelter being built by Rio Tinto Alcan, a new aluminum smelter replacing one
[ Page 5713 ]
that’s well over 50 years old in Kitimat, a significant private sector investment in British Columbia of about $3.7 billion. I’ll take one project — the plant, the pipeline and the drilling to back it up — and give you the numbers.

In the upstream right now, which are the areas around the communities of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Fort Nelson and those folks, there is one company alone spending $2 billion in each of the next three to five years as they build up their reserves to supply an LNG plant.

[1040]

They’re working up there. The industry is moving up there, and the drilling and the activity is taking place because they’re anticipating, when they get to the final investment decision, they want the resource to move it — $2 billion a year.

The pipelines are between $6 billion and $7 billion — to build a pipeline across to where they want to take the resource. So now you’re at 6 plus 2, maybe 7 plus 2 — maybe $8 billion, $9 billion. Then you have the plant. The plant for two trains is somewhere in the vicinity of $15 billion. But in addition to that, they look forward to the second, third, fourth and fifth trains, because as they get their sites, most of the major companies involved here are looking long term beyond just two trains. A train, by the way, is one unit that produces liquefied natural gas.

Think about that for a second. One project, $30 billion of capital investment in British Columbia — $30 billion. One company today actually has over 250 engineers worldwide working on the design of their plant — today. They’ll make their final investment decisions probably sometime in the first quarter of 2016, as they go through each one of their boxes and check them off and take it to their board for long-term viability, capital, costs and all of those things.

Our job as a government has been to work with this industry, as we did from the very beginning. Industry would tell you, if you wanted to talk to them, that they’ve never seen a jurisdiction handle this better, they’ve never seen a jurisdiction that was more consistent in working with them and being consistent in how we would negotiate and deal with them, and they’ve never seen a jurisdiction that actually tried to get this right before.

A. Weaver: I have, and they don’t say that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, they do say that, but hon. Member, you’re probably talking to some junior member. I know that the CEOs of some of these companies wouldn’t actually be in a conversation with you. They wouldn’t be discussing confidential information with you because you have none of the confidentiality agreements in place. But you go right ahead.

I love it. I told you: I love the fact that members opposite keep saying…. I love it when they say, “Well, we kind of like LNG, but gosh, we’re happy that they’re having some difficulties worldwide,” or “Gosh, we’re happy the price is down and the sky is going to fall and it’s not going to happen.”

To the members opposite, I hate to break the news to you that you’ll be eating those words in the next few years when LNG goes ahead with final investment decisions. Then you’ll be saying, “Oh, I really don’t support it anyway,” right? But the fact of the matter is that you’re going to have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They’re going to have careers in British Columbia and still be living here because we’re successful on liquefied natural gas. They’ll look at you and say: “Grandpa, why were you opposed to the fact that now I have a career and a trade paying me 150 grand a year?” You’ll go, “Like, whoa,” because they don’t understand it.

The fact of the matter is this. We have in front of us this significant opportunity. I enjoy the stuff that goes on out there, about saying, “They’re not going to be successful; it’s not going to happen,” because of this, this and this. And I love the fact that they say: “Well, prices are down, so nobody is going to make an investment.” I think that’s the most laughable piece of this conversation.

When I’ve sat down with industry, they’re not looking at six-month oil prices. They’re looking at generational opportunity. They’re investing for 30, 40 and 50 years, and they will have customers for 30, 40 and 50 years. Sitting down and looking at the market with these folks and the experts that I get to deal with, I know that we’re in the right place. I know that we did it right.

At the very beginning of our pursuit of this opportunity, we didn’t go say, “We’re going to do this, this and this,” to industry. We actually went and sat with their senior people, presidents and vice-presidents of major corporations worldwide, and said: “What have you learned elsewhere, what have been the mistakes elsewhere, how could a government improve, and would you like to work with us to build this opportunity for British Columbia?” They’ve done that with us.

Today a number of them have already actually signed off on what will become project development agreements when they get to FID. They’ve told us that we’ve got it right. They’ve told us that they accept what we’re doing. They’ve told us that we’re globally competitive and that we can deliver this and their interests in British Columbia because the resource is so strong that they’ll be able to have a sustainable opportunity for the next 30 to 50 years.

As we come through LNG, let’s remember what this is about. It’s about….

Interjections.

[1045]

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I love it, hon. Speaker. I’ll let them go for a minute. It’s fine by me, because it’s rooted in
[ Page 5714 ]
a lack of vision — an opportunity for the province of British Columbia and what’s coming. We know there are areas where it’s slowed down because there is…. As my colleague from the Kootenays says, it’s because we’re stuck in one market, and we’re the furthest away from the market in certain areas of our province. But we have a resource there that people have invested in, and they want to move it to Asia.

The members opposite oppose that, so they could care less about Fort Nelson or Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or Chetwynd. The irony, though, is that they actually care less about Victoria, Nanaimo, the coast, the Fraser Valley, because 57 percent of the jobs that will come through LNG are not going to be in the northeast part of the province. A whole bunch of them are going to be down here — engineering firms, legal, accounting, manufacturers. All of those pieces will go, as a result, to the rest of the province. The spinoff effect is immense, so we should pursue it, and we are.

The reason for that is because it’s a good opportunity for British Columbia, and it’s a significant opportunity for a number of First Nations communities across the north — the northwest and the northeast — and the central part of the province. They actually have an opportunity to be part of the economy. We’ve done pipeline benefit agreements with them so they have long-term stability for investment. They sit down with companies that are giving them jobs and working on how they can build their training up so that they can actually have their folks go to work and have job opportunities and career opportunities, which we should all celebrate, quite frankly.

For too long we’ve had First Nations communities impoverished and too much unemployment and not getting an opportunity into the economy because it’s not near, in some cases, to where they actually live. But this is changing that. A number of them already signed on to pipeline benefit agreements. As a matter of fact, one pipeline has 16 First Nations signed on to actually get together.

We have First Nations in communities across British Columbia that are seeing the economic opportunity. The vision from their leaders is such that they see this opportunity for their communities. They actually share more of our vision than the members opposite do. The members opposite just want to spend the time talking about how it can’t happen — hope it doesn’t happen, want to blame it on somebody when it doesn’t happen. In actual fact, they’re going to be sitting there someday, looking at it and saying: “Hey, B.C. got this investment. B.C. got these jobs.”

LNG, with just a couple of plants, will be a bigger contributor to the gross domestic product of Canada than the oil sands are. That’s how big an opportunity this is for the province and for the country. It’s important for us to realize that.

Now, as we go through that, some of the foundations we get to talk about when we try to talk about investment…. We talk to these companies about stability. They might look at a geopolitical situation in a country and say: “Well, we can get the gas cheaper, but we have an issue where they could come in and nationalize our deal, take away our investment because a government has the whim. They could have a government that actually overspends and overtaxes, and we find out when we get there that we’re going to pay more in taxes without having a stable agreement, or we’re going to have trouble with our employees coming because they’re going to be taxed.” Those sorts of things.

That’s why, not just for LNG but for forestry and mining and other investments in British Columbia, we’re so focused that in a little less than a week from now we’ll bring forward to this House the third consecutive balanced budget for British Columbia. When you sit in the boardroom with these guys, they say: “When we make an investment decision, we look at a number of things, including the jurisdiction.” Our debt-to-GDP, our balanced budget and triple-A credit rating are all factors that allow people, when they’re going to make an investment somewhere in the world, to look at us.

Today we will probably be the only balanced-budget jurisdiction in the country. We have a triple-A credit rating. All of that tells the international investment world that this is a stable place to go. If you don’t take those positions to try and build a fundamental industry, work with industry, and then make sure that you’re true to your word on what you will do and what the costs will be in a stable investment environment, when it goes before the board, they’re going to say: “I’m nervous about this piece, so let’s go to that country.”

[1050]

In our case, we’ve checked off those boxes. We’ve checked off the global competitive side. We’ve checked off the cleanliness of LNG, because it will be the cleanest in the world. On top of that, we’ve checked off the box of a triple-A credit rating and a stable government that will negotiate. In addition to that, we’ve put the fundamentals in place so the industry knows that they can trust the government of British Columbia and that we will put in place the levers to make sure that they’re protected when they make a $30 billion, $40 billion investment in our jurisdiction.

As we come through this, we always have to keep in mind…. It’ll be interesting because, obviously, the members opposite will not like the budget because they always want more spending. They want another something or other in their riding or someplace else, and they’re asking for it all the time with different ministers of the Crown. They won’t want to be fiscally responsible. They’ll be upset because the budget is balanced, and they’ll say: “Well, they should have done this. They should have spent this. They should have spent that.”

When you do that, you send a message worldwide that you’re not going to be disciplined. Balancing your budget, whether it be your household, on a personal level,
[ Page 5715 ]
or in government, is the fundamental start to building a strong economy. Now you can actually have a competitive tax jurisdiction, you can keep your debt-to-GDP down, you can balance your budget, and you can have a triple-A credit rating. When somebody goes to say in which jurisdiction they’d like to invest, they’ll say yes to British Columbia.

That’s important, more important than members opposite would want to believe, but it is. It’s a critical piece when you sit down and you talk to these folks — as a matter of fact, so much so that we’ve actually had people in Asia buying…. You know, we’ve gone into the renminbi market with Asia, and they’re excited about British Columbia, about being able to buy investments here, and bonds. Why? Because we’re stable. We balance our budgets. We say what we’re going to do; then we go do it. We build a plan, and we stick to it. Pretty unusual, by the way, for governments worldwide to do that. Most of them don’t, right?

As we go through all of this, the negotiations I know that I’m uniquely involved in, outside of the companies and outside of the work we’re doing, is the First Nations side. I actually have been really impressed with the vision of a number of the First Nations leaders in this province who have stepped up and want to work with us and with the companies to try and build a future for their communities.

There’s one First Nations community that used to have 70 percent unemployment — 70 percent. Today it’s just about at zero because they went into deals. They’ve had people trained, they’re getting jobs and opportunities for the first time in generations, and they’re going to continue to be part of the economy.

An Hon. Member: Zero percent unemployment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just about, I said. Just about. But imagine even if you cut it in half, hon. Member, to 35 percent from 70 percent. Imagine the economic impact and social impact to the benefit of that community.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, it’s way more than that. I invite you to do your research. However, I know you won’t, so we won’t worry about that.

As we go through to the conclusion of this speech and discussion, I want everybody to remember — mark my words, February 12, 2015: British Columbia is going to get some final investment decisions on LNG. We are going to be successful as a jurisdiction to do it because we had the plan. We stuck to it. We focused ourselves on everything from balanced budget to the fundamentals of an industry to be globally competitive.

As we get those final investment decisions, I’d love to come back into this House at some point and remind the members of today, remind them they’re still in the House heckling and saying: “No, no, no.” It’ll be yes, yes, yes, and British Columbia will be on the path to being a debt-free province with a legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

It’ll be tough, hard work, but we’re prepared to do it because we believe in our families and our children and our grandchildren and their children. We believe in the province’s future. We believe in the people of British Columbia, not like the members opposite. We will actually stick to a plan, build the jobs, build the economy, balance the budget, pay down the debt and build a future for British Columbia, including LNG, whether you like it or not.

N. Simons: It’s my absolute pleasure to be able to stand in this Legislature and speak to the throne speech, and to follow such an eloquent and well-spoken minister gives me added privilege and pleasure.

[1055]

Let me start by thanking the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast for their ongoing support and assistance in ensuring that government hears the concerns that they have. It’s my duty, my responsibility and my honour to represent their views here.

I’d also like at this point to thank my constituency assistants in Powell River and in Sechelt, both of whom are, I would consider, among the best advocates I’ve seen. They do an amazing amount of work for constituents, not just on the Sunshine Coast but even beyond our borders.

I think that in a time when government turns its back on the people who are vulnerable, sometimes our MLA offices have long lists of to-dos — it’s largely because of government action — that allow us to be able to provide the assistance we need to for folks. Whether they’re having issues with our workers compensation regime or with the social assistance system or even with regulatory overregulation in the liquor industry, these are all issues that my office is happy to assist constituents with and to reflect their concerns here in this Legislature.

I thank Maggie Hathaway and Kim Tournat, who have both been working in my offices for almost ten years. In the case of Kim, much like the Minister of Energy and Mines, I worked with her as a social worker prior to that with the Sechelt Nation. I’m fully confident that we’ll continue to be able to represent the views of British Columbians, the various views of the diverse people of this province, in this House.

I’d also like to thank Elizabeth Parkinson, who’s my legislative assistant here. It’s not often that we get to extol the virtues of those who work with us, but this opportunity presents itself, and I thank them very much.

I’d also like to thank the volunteers who believe so much in this province and who are so committed to the future of our province that they donate time. They donate their valuable time to assist in my offices to ensure
[ Page 5716 ]
that people who come looking for information are provided with that information. I think the volunteers in this province, whatever they do, are valued, they’re respected, and they’re appreciated. In my case, none are more appreciated than those who volunteer in my office to assist those who need that help from my office.

The subject of the day is, obviously, the throne speech, which has been characterized by various pundits as lacking in substance, justified by government as: “You don’t always have to have big ideas.”

One article wrote that it was certainly not “I have a dream.” There were no sorts of aspirational dreaming or future-looking statements in this throne speech. But it would have been nice if there were some ideas in it, at least — an idea or two, maybe something aspirational, some hopes for British Columbia, some statements about issues that need to be addressed.

But as colleagues of mine have said, we’ve had three throne speeches in this year, and you can only run an ad a certain number of times before people start to wonder whether the subject of that ad is getting old and tired. I think that in this case, the throne speech seemed to be a bit devoid of substance. That’s troubling because at a time like this in a province such as ours there are many issues that really deserve the attention of government.

I really believe that there’s more to government’s responsibility than simply talking about balancing a budget. I think the fact is that the government seems preoccupied, almost obsessed, with that as a talking point, as if that is the signal, the canary in the coal mine. The balanced budget seems to be the only thing they can talk about.

As I walk past the homeless people, on the way to the Legislature, I think to myself: “Perhaps these folks all have balanced budgets as well.” That is not, in itself, the measuring stick for a good government. I think perhaps it’s time for this government to start looking at where their deficits are, where they have failed the people of this province, because the list is long.

Where they may have balanced a budget on the backs of the people of this province or by selling off our natural resources at basement prices or selling off excess properties that we’ll not get back, I think this balanced-budget mantra deserves a little bit more scrutiny.

[1100]

I think people, looking at their politicians, wonder. You know, they know they’re getting spin. They know they’re getting spin from this government. This government is very good at that, I have to say. I congratulate them. I’m in awe at times at their ability to turn absolutely nothing into something almost exciting.

A bus that you can paint “Debt-free” on. That’s interesting. The fact is, it seems to be sort of devoid of any rooting in reality. Most British Columbians will see and hear that slogan, and they’ll think that slogan is a statement of fact. It may create cynicism, and it may just make people realize that the words really have nothing to do with the reality.

Listening to the Minister of Natural Gas Development today talking, blustering about, almost overdoing it in his defence was almost…. You know, his ideas seem so expansive and bloated, I would say — bloated promises and bloated expectations. If anyone had a pin, it would be great. You’d just pop it.

The fact remains that we do need to have valuable resource extraction in our province. We are a natural resource–based economy, but we are certainly much more than that. You wouldn’t know it, listening to the government’s previous few throne speeches. But now they have found “diversity” is word that they like to throw around.

A diverse economy. This is something that we’ve been saying we needed to ensure that we had, because we are so subject to the boom-and-bust cycles that are sometimes even beyond our control in the larger world economy.

I would like to say that I’m extremely positive. I’m extremely hopeful about this province. I know of the natural resource that is most important to us, and that’s the people. The people of this province have managed to overcome the challenges that have been put before them by this government. That is a sign of resourcefulness, of resilience and of an ability to overcome challenges.

When people look…. This government has been in power for over 12 years — I don’t know, 13 even. They’ve had a lot of time to work on a lot of issues. They may keep talking about this balanced budget. Where have the people of this province seen that benefit? Where have the people who are looking for health care while they’re waiting on a stretcher in a hallway…? How are they going to see the actual benefits of this government’s purported successes?

What about the children who are maybe not being able to participate in the education system quite like their friends because they don’t have the same amount of money as their friends? What about the natural equalizing factor of our public education system? That seems to have been lost. I think there’s a deficit in that respect, with respect to the ability to support our publicly funded education system.

I think that every time they talk about a balanced budget, we have to recognize that there’s a deficit in our support services to families that would ultimately increase our resilience, increase our economic sustainability if we were to address those now.

Their characterization of us is just pretty much just hyperbole. I would like to make it clear that our goals for the province are probably fairly similar. We would like to have prosperity. We would like to have a citizenry that is well educated and informed and part of the global community where we contribute, where we make sacrifices and where we make investments appropriate to the needs of our communities.

The throne speech, to me, doesn’t address many of the issues that constituents in my communities would like
[ Page 5717 ]
the government to address. I’m not talking about spending more money. I’m not talking about saying, “Well, we need to just throw money at it,” as they like to characterize it. I would rather have intelligent investment. I would have rather have smarter ways of spending the resources and the revenue that the government does collect.

[1105]

There are so many examples, in my view, of misprioritization. We could probably accomplish a lot if we were simply more careful with the revenue that the government does collect through tax or through royalties.

If, in fact, things are so great and they’ve been so great for so long, where are the…? How can we have a ferry system that has never been more expensive and has never had, really, fewer sailings?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I don’t understand. There’s a disconnect between the government’s characterization of everything being good and the realities in my community where seniors are suffering because of a lack of access to health care and youth are suffering because of the lack of access to education and recreational programs. You have families that are suffering because of the increase in their cost of living through increased rates imposed by this government. You have all sectors of our communities that are impacted by this government’s failure to address fundamental issues.

The government can talk about how many agreements they’ve signed, but that does not, in itself, reflect a relationship that’s changed. What needs to happen, obviously, is for government to take seriously the issues that are raised in the Tsilhqot’in decision, the William case. I don’t see that happening.

The throne speech. To me, it looked like government was saying: “Well, there’s really nothing to do. All we have to do is just sit tight and maybe get somebody to make a new medal that we can award to people and maybe make them friends with us by giving them medals.”

I really respect the people who contribute to this province with very little thanks and perhaps not even much of an acknowledgment. Maybe the medal is designed to encourage people to continue participating and contributing in British Columbian life. But I think we need to do a better job of just ensuring that they’re looked after. You know, we can give them a medal, but then we can take away….

We had volunteers on the Sunshine Coast who took seniors out for lunch once a month. They were donating their time. They were donating the food for the lunch. They were picking up seniors and bringing them to a place where they could join together. These are isolated folks. The government might be giving them a medal, but at the same time they’re taking away any option to get gas compensated for their driving.

There are little things like that. You’ve got the substance, and then you’ve got the style. You know, they’re pretty good with the style. I have to admit that. I think that they win elections because of their ability to market pretty well ideas that really have no basis in fact but do a good job of convincing people that they’re not as scary as they really are. But when it comes to the substance, I think that this government would, in most books, receive a bit of a failing grade.

I think about the government talking about how they keep taxes low. Everyone wants to make sure that they don’t have to pay too much tax. But if you think about it a little bit longer than that, we have to recognize that our taxes are what make sure that our streets are safe, that we have police officers solving crime, in some cases preventing crime.

We have people who fix our roads so that our cars can stay without…. Potholes are big, and they fill them up, and we have taxes to cover that. Our kids that are going to school are going to school and walking through communities that are safe, and they’re getting to schools that are relatively, in the world scheme of things, supplied with equipment. We have taxes to pay for those kind of things.

I think there’s an agreement among the people of this province that we agree on many fundamental things. Many fundamental services we all support, and we would expect that government prioritize those expenditures when the decision is made on how to reallocate the revenues they collect.

Just think about the government’s preoccupation with one sector. It really doesn’t do much good for the other sectors that have sustained our communities for a long time. We have Howe Sound Pulp and Paper and Catalyst Paper. We’ve got pulp mills in my constituency. Those are a big industry, and they provide a lot of revenue to our communities. They operate within the environmental regulations of our province, and they sustain families with the wages they pay.

[1110]

But in recent years they’ve been really neglected by this government, neglected to the point where we’ve lost jobs. We don’t hear about it so much, but coastal communities that have been impacted by the closure of sawmills are also being impacted by the shutting down of paper machines.

You don’t hear government talking about that. It’s not convenient for them to do so. They’ve got this sort of mantra, this repeated chorus of LNG, balanced budget. Those are the two things. If someone were to ask me, “How would the B.C. Liberals characterize themselves…?” It’s just LNG and a balanced budget.

LNG and a balanced budget — wow. My British Columbia is a place where we have hunters that are able to not have to compete with foreign hunters to feed their families. My British Columbia also is a province where people who live in remote coastal communities aren’t
[ Page 5718 ]
punished for living there through, really, I would say, usurious rates of ferry fares.

I think my British Columbia is a place where there’s actually substance to our discussions about reconciliation with First Nations and not just little deal-making that seems to solve everything. A government measures its success in addressing First Nations issues with how many economic agreements they can sign. That, in itself, is not a measure of our reconciliation or of a new relationship.

My hope is that First Nations will be given the benefit of true negotiation, true communication. When you don’t have that, when you just have the words…. The Premier talks about the entire cabinet going and meeting with all of the First Nations of the province in an historic meeting. I’ve heard it referred to not once but fairly often as sort of an empty-envelope speech. There was nothing on the envelope. There was just a talk.

Maybe that’s the first step. But it’s taken 13 years for a first step after we’ve had a Ministry of Reconciliation for ten years.

It just seems to me that we’re quite a distance into this regime. We have seen most of the indicators of social health remaining rather steady. You’re listening to the minister responsible for child welfare yesterday as if there were something good to say about how the ministry’s responded to the concerns of aboriginal families.

Last year, I think it was, a study indicated $66 million was spent on reorganization and transformation. Nobody could define what that was. Nobody really knew what that meant, yet $66 million spent with nothing to show for it. No increased service to children. No reduction in the number of children in care. No serious increase in the number of successful outcomes from that expenditure of $66 million.

Aboriginal child welfare is not a creation of this government. There were important steps that were made in the late ’90s and early 2000s that were all stopped by this government. A screeching halt came to the evolution of First Nations child welfare in 2002, when they decided to put politics above good policy. It was troubling to me then — remarkable that it hasn’t been addressed — and it’s equally troubling now. First Nations child welfare should be a priority of this government. We didn’t hear anything about either of those issues in the throne speech.

Every year you wait…. A child born now — when are they going to have to wait? A ten-year-old now has been waiting for ten years for something to change in the aboriginal child welfare system. I know of cases where aboriginal children are being adopted out of their communities now, when a little bit of support would allow them to stay. That, to me, is an indication of a government policy that neglects the fundamental reason for its existence.

[1115]

First, why is it that people are scared when child welfare shows up at their house? It should be an agency that assists families through difficult periods of time, not one that is sitting in judgment and waiting for a mess-up. All families go through challenging times. The last thing you need is a government that’s overzealous about removing children and not really concerned about preventing children from being removed in the first place.

Anybody who understands child welfare knows that so many of the problems that families face are rooted in economics, rooted in a lack of access to the support services that they need.

MSP — one of the most regressive taxes that we have, one of the regressive taxes — has cost families a lot. It has cost low- and middle-income families a lot. Obviously, some are taken care of, but the MSP for a family is a significant expense. Are we the only province with MSP? I think we’re the only province with MSP.

Why not, as a government, say in a throne speech: “It’s our goal to someday eliminate the MSP”? Wouldn’t that be a neat goal? We would be complimented for that, I think. I wonder. I think probably members on the other side understand that MSP is a regressive tax because it’s disproportionately impacting the lower-income families.

Hydro rates. Government’s scooping money out of hydro. Where is that money coming from? It’s coming from our rate increases. Some people would even call these taxes. I think it’s fair to say that the government…. They hide behind the words a little bit, but the truth for people out there is the money they have to spend on government is going up. And it’s not a fair way to do it, either.

ICBC rates. Everybody knows these are rates that…. The government takes full advantage of the increased rates and gets their benefit from them. But the ugly little things like camping fees. Is that really necessary? If things are so good and the hope is so high, why are we nickel-and-diming families out of their ability to go camping in our provincial parks?

These are the public’s parks. These are the parks that are owned by the public. The public already owns them, and now the government wants to pretend that it’s about recouping losses.

They tried the parking fees. Wow. This government pretends to be so fiscally responsible. You leave a dollar hanging out of your back pocket…. They’re going to snag it out of that as quick as they can. You just know it. They talk a good line, but when it comes to pickpocketing you, they’ll be right there. I’m not going leave my pocket unzipped. I’ll put it that way.

School fees. Again, I could talk about school fees. Maybe these folks haven’t been exposed to people in this province who aren’t doing as well as they are, but I can’t imagine that to be the case. I can’t imagine that the Liberal government members or the members of the party don’t realize that there are people suffering in this province. They’re suffering because of government policies. They’re succeeding, when they are, despite government policies, not because of government policies.
[ Page 5719 ]

I thought that governing was about making sure of the best outcomes for everyone — not just for the elite, not just for the small percentage of really rich people. The government’s plan is to reduce the taxes on the highest 2 percent of income earners. Is that really necessary? Couldn’t we use that money, and maybe they won’t notice that much? Couldn’t we use that — let’s see now — maybe to make sure that….

A. Weaver: Child poverty?

N. Simons: Child poverty, my friend from Oak Bay–Gordon Head suggests.

Child poverty is an issue close to my heart, having worked in the child welfare system. More than 90 percent of calls to child welfare social workers end up having something to do with neglect or poverty or lack of capacity. Those things can be fixed cheaper than taking kids into care.

I had one case where, it looks to me, a child was kept in care for 2½ years, at a cost of probably $80,000. When you think about the supports that were in place — before they were taken away — those would have cost probably about $8,000. The economy — it’s not hard to figure out.

[1120]

I’m sure that there are members on the Liberal side of this House who agree with me that the child welfare system needs a really, really good look. I’m not the critic for child welfare. My good friend and colleague from…. Where is he from?

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah. I was going to say Stikine. I get it wrong.

He’s advocating strongly for families who are really in a terrible state with the ministry. You know, if the ministry decides to do something, they’re a very, very powerful organization. Having worked there, I kind of know. It’s very difficult to fight them, if you need to. Unfortunately, there are more and more cases where you see families that need to.

It would be my suggestion to government or to the like-minded individuals on the government side that a close look be taken at the ministry and make sure that it’s fulfilling its mandate to ensure children are safe and to help strengthen families that are having struggles or experiencing difficulties.

I can’t talk about a throne speech that doesn’t mention ferries without mentioning ferries. It’s something that, when you talk about the Sunshine Coast…. We’re tens of thousands of people who are reliant on four different ferry routes. As I said, we’ve been the centre of the forest industry for a long time. Pulp and paper — a huge industry on the Sunshine Coast. We’ve got limestone mines. We’ve got aggregate quarries. We’ve got fisheries, aquaculture, IPPs.

We’ve contributed a significant amount of government revenue. We’ve contributed a significant amount to this government’s revenue. Yet it’s almost…. While we’re giving so much to this province, they’re coming up behind us and snatching that dollar out of our back pocket again. It’s like they’re sneaky. That’s what I’d say. They’re sneaky.

You know, the ferry fare increases, as horrible as they are…. The government doesn’t get it. The government doesn’t recognize that that combined with service cuts has an impact on the livability of our communities. People chose to live there, yes indeed. Some people chose to live in Gibsons when there was a ferry every hour going until midnight. Now the last ferry from the Sunshine Coast is at 8:20 in the evening. That impacts businesses, that impacts small businesses, that impacts industry, that impacts families — all of those sectors this government purports to support.

The truth is so clear and obvious for residents of the Sunshine Coast. I mean, the entire structure set up by this government leads to situations where a woman is unable to get onto a ferry because she’s ten cents short of the fare. That’s the kind of attitude this government likes to allow companies they run to use.

Or a 14-year-old. Imagine a 14-year-old being turned away from a ferry despite being able to easily get onto that ferry — turned away because he’s missed the cutoff by one minute, even though the boat is going to sit there for nine more. Imagine a 14-year-old not once but twice being told: “You can’t get on this boat.” That is unconscionable. The response from the minister was just as weak. I mean, showing it to the people of the Sunshine Coast, people just roll their eyes.

They don’t get it. If that was a 14-year-old girl, do you think the minister’s response would have been that dismissive? I don’t think so. If it was two 16-year-olds? I don’t think so. This minister…. There’s a bit of ageism going on. He’s a 14-year-old kid. He should have been allowed onto that boat. It’s an attitude problem. It’s a mean-spiritedness that seems to sweep through all sorts of government agencies and organizations. Unfortunately, that’s the character that is being shown by this government. That is the character and the personality of this government — a government that won’t let a 14-year-old onto a boat because he misses the cutoff by one minute.

That’s what people think of when they think of this government — mean-spirited, hard lined, cold, efficient, balanced budget, LNG. Nothing else. I think British Columbia is far better than that. British Columbia is far more hopeful than this government pretends it is. In my view, government had an opportunity to say some things about the future. They failed to act. It’s too bad.

[1125]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Abbotsford-Mission. [Applause.]
[ Page 5720 ]

S. Gibson: What a resounding welcome. Thank you very much.

It’s an honour for me to stand here, representing the wonderful people of the Abbotsford-Mission riding, often regarded as British Columbia’s finest riding. Why fight it?

I also want to begin by acknowledging the loving support of my wife, Joy, and my two daughters, Shari-Anne and Alisa, and my two grandsons, Sammy and Lars. It’s a privilege just to represent such an amazing area. You may have heard that…. If they were going to make a movie about my riding, it would be called A River Runs Through It.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: Thank you for that response.

My staff. I want to acknowledge them, Jean, Mark and Joyce, for the hard work they do on my behalf. I really appreciate them.

The agriculture, the industry, the enterprise, the beautiful areas really typify the community. If you’re going out the highway, you’ll see Sumas Mountain. It’s a part of the riding. It’s a real privilege for me to represent that area.

Somebody once said that life is lived forward but understood backwards. I think this applies very much to what we’re doing here as a government. A moment ago we heard the Deputy Premier talk about the amazing vision we have for the province, and I think we all share that on the government side of the house.

It’s a privilege for me to just rise and address the Speech from the Throne, and what a privilege it is to do that today. It’s been seven years since the global meltdown, and yet even today the economy is still fragile. We know that, and it empowers what we do as a government — the way we make decisions in the best interests of the residents of our community, our province.

Recovery remains fragile, and market conditions remain unstable. Look at the price of oil. Who would have predicted such a calamitous tumble in such a short period of time? Provinces with oil-based economies — indeed, our federal government — are facing significant revenue challenges. British Columbia is different. We’re in a unique and exciting position. Our provincial economy is diversified and not reliant on a single commodity.

The B.C. jobs plan. We’ve been hearing a lot about that, and it’s good news. The B.C. jobs plan is working. Introduced in 2011 the B.C. jobs plan has created more than 70,000 jobs. I’m reminded of a quote from one of my favourite authors, Robert Louis Stevenson. He says: “Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds you plant.” How profound that is, and how applicable that is to the B.C. jobs plan that’s created more than 70,000 jobs. Unemployment has dropped 1.7 percent since the launch of the plan. It’s spanning eight sectors. I thought I’d just summarize those very briefly here today.

Forestry. New relationships in Asia — and 63 percent now account for over a third of the B.C. exports. Forestry exports are booming.

Mining and energy. Since 2011 five new mines have opened, creating 1,300 new jobs, high-paying jobs. The Red Chris mine will open later this year, employing an additional 300 workers — many First Nations. That’s a really important thing to add.

Transportation. There’s a bustling mood in our province. Transportation is rolling along, and we’re excited to see some of the things that are happening. I benefit, and many of us benefit, from the South Fraser Perimeter Road. That’s one of the many improvements that we’re seeing. So we’re rolling along when it come to transportation.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: Thank you. We’re getting some good support here from the other side of the House, and I appreciate that.

Technology and the green economy. B.C. is very much in the brain game, and technology contributes $23 billion in annual revenue — up $10 billion in just a decade. Tremendously exciting news for all of us in the province. Biofuels, clean tech, entrepreneurship and carbon captures technologies are taking huge strides today.

[1130]

Tourism. Whenever we see those beautiful movies about British Columbia, they are always capturing the beauty and majesty of our province. The interesting thing is…. There’s a film studio in my riding, the Danny Virtue film studio. Many of you will see movies that are set in Washington, Oregon and California, but they’re filmed right here. Tourists are flocking here. They love to see our province. Fifteen thousand new businesses — the number is growing.

The number of international students has increased by 20 percent in just five years and supports more than 25,000 jobs provincewide.

Natural gas. We don’t need to say too much more about that — a generational opportunity and, as was mentioned earlier, already employing 13,000 British Columbians. Global companies have already invested more than $7 billion to pursue their projects.

Agriculture — close to my heart. Abbotsford-Mission riding is really the heartland of agriculture in many ways in our province. Wherever you go you will see beautiful vistas of farms. Agriculture is now worth $2.7 billion in exports provincewide to more than 140 countries. People around the world can hardly wait to enjoy and savour the beautiful agricultural products of our province.

China is recording huge growth and insatiable demand for B.C. products. Our Minister of Agriculture has the privilege of travelling around the world, really, and being an ambassador for these fantastic products.
[ Page 5721 ]

We’ve instituted a Buy Local campaign. This is going well, encouraging people to look around and make sure they’re trying to buy local products. There are over 200 different agricultural commodities grown in our province.

The environment — a huge issue on both sides of the House. This government does not believe that economic development and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. This government will continue to set a world-class example. There’s no need to choose between economic growth and fighting climate change.

With regard to proposed pipelines, there are five conditions. It’s good to summarize those today.

Successful completion of the environmental review process in the case of the northern gateway pipeline. That means a recommendation by the National Energy Board joint review panel that the project can proceed.

World-leading marine oil spill response — very important; we value our fragile coastline, beautiful majestic coastline we have, and I’m sure the member would acknowledge that — and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and cost of heavy oil pipelines and shipments.

Number three, world-leading practice for land oil spill prevention. We’ve got beautiful, majestic areas. Pipelines will go through that, and they have to be protected at all costs.

Legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights need to be addressed with our First Nation friends. Provide the opportunities, information necessary to participate and benefit from the project.

Finally, that British Columbians receive a fair share of the economic benefits of a proposed project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by government, environment and, of course, taxpayers.

The fact is that while our economy has grown and our population has grown, our dependence on oil has declined — very good news.

Fiscal responsibility. I think this is the heart of our government. The way that we govern is based on fiscal responsibility — respect for the taxpayers, respect for the future generations, people coming along. Somebody mentioned earlier: grandchildren. Many of us in this House have children and grandchildren. These are the people who will be inheriting what we will be leaving behind, the decisions that we make today.

As a former owner of a small manufacturing company with 13 employees, I know how hard it is to meet a payroll, to make a satisfactory profit. It’s a challenge.

When you’re going out travelling around the province you’ll see hundreds of thousands of small businesses. This is the heartbeat of our province. People are willing to go out and start a little business, hire a few employees. It’s amazing to see that. Many of these are immigrants that come to our country, often with nothing, and build successful little businesses. So fiscal responsibility.

As we know, we are about to deliver our third consecutive balanced budget. What amazing news when you look across the world today. It’s very inspiring. It’s not easy to exercise fiscal discipline. Some of you will know that, with your family life, things that children want to buy. Maybe you need to buy a new car. It’s not easy to say no, but that’s the way we are as a government. We’re frugal. We value the money that we’re entrusted with.

[1135]

We’re good stewards, and that’s what British Columbians asked for. People want government to respect the taxpayer and keep costs in line.

More than two-thirds of public sector workers have agreed to five-year contracts with modest wage increases, and we have been able to achieve this through fiscal discipline.

A little bit on First Nations. We’re building a new relationship, forging that with First Nations to ensure that all British Columbians benefit from our abundant natural resources. We’re blessed with considerable resources in this province — energy reserves, waterways to produce energy. It’s all very exciting. By working with First Nations, we can prosper and share wealth at the same time.

A little bit on “Violence-free B.C.” On February 6 the government of B.C. launched a new plan to end violence against women and provide communities with the resources they need to put in place facilities to help women rebuild their lives. We know this is a tragic condition in our society today, not just in B.C. The key is prevention, and that is the solid aim of the government to lead the way to end violence against women.

Together, overall, as I conclude, we intend to shape a better province for future generations. We’re doing it with wisdom, much thought and reflection and consultation with our residents. The people have come and talked to me in my office. I’m listening to them.

You know, Wayne Gretzky said something. It’s a quote that I like. He said: “I skate to where the puck is going, not to where it’s been.” That’s the way we’re governing. We’re doing it with vision. We’re trying to anticipate, and I think we’re doing a very good job at it.

I’m excited about the future, and it’s an honour for me to be here today to represent the wonderful people of the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

B. Routley: It is indeed wonderful to again have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the special people who live in the Cowichan Valley. This throne speech and this government’s inaction once again have completely missed the priority issues that are current and critical to the people and communities of the Cowichan Valley.

The water concerns we continue to have in the Cowichan Valley illustrate the colossal failure of this government, which is an ongoing legacy of jiggery-pokery and bafflegab. The continuing lack of action to address
[ Page 5722 ]
the clear public interest and concerns of our communities regarding our fish and our need for clean drinking water have been completely ignored by this government.

The Cowichan River is a heritage river, yet with continuing climate change impacts, we continue to live with uncertainty about the water supply for our community. We continue to have concerns for our First Nations, water for businesses, water for the fish and our ecosystems, and water for the dilution of pollution. In recent years the river water levels have been so low in the fall that the fish have had to be trucked upstream. This is happening almost yearly now.

Last year the Minister of Health issued an advisory in August of 2014. Tubers and swimmers were being told to avoid the Cowichan River on the weekend, if you can imagine that. This is the heritage Cowichan River. Island Health had issued a water quality advisory for the lower sections of the river. Testing that followed rainfall earlier in the week showed bacteria levels exceeding Canadian guidelines for recreational water quality. Island Health was recommending no recreation activity occur downstream from the Allenby Road Bridge.

This is our heritage river with not enough water for the dilution of pollution. Once again, our fish were trucked upriver by volunteers.

We desperately need this government to step up to the plate and commit the resources and develop a plan to deal with climate change impacts that are very real. If you listened to the community, we could be raising the weir in Lake Cowichan and we would not have this problem of water supply in the end of the summer, early fall months. Government needs to take more of a leadership role.

[1140]

As we see in the throne speech, the government has mentioned they are leaders on water and air and land. But what is the reality in the ground right now, however? We have a do-nothing government with a do-nothing plan and a throne speech with lofty-sounding words regarding air, water and land, yet once again, so little action that’s actually seen on the ground in the Cowichan Valley. It is unacceptable. Where is your environmental action plan to help the Cowichan River or Shawnigan Lake?

We have all seen the charts and the continuing climate change impacts. Is this government really going to stand by and wait until the Cowichan River runs completely dry before they’re forced into action?

They have attended meetings. Last year they were talking about pumping the water up to the river. They literally can’t comprehend that this is happening, yet five times in the last ten years we’ve been trucking fish upstream. It’s completely irresponsible.

We have seen the continuing charts on climate change. Just recently there was a report about the lack of snow, not just in Cowichan Valley — all over British Columbia. With a lack of snow, we are going to again have a river that could completely run dry.

What about the beautiful Shawnigan Lake? Is it going to have to be polluted like Mount Polley, like the Mount Polley lake and waterways? It’s simply unbelievable what the government says in the throne speech and what the reality is on the ground.

What we experience in our community is a government that doesn’t listen. The Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil dump issue shows how this government has put one individual company’s interests ahead of the public interest of the entire community. Consultation under this government means nothing. It means nothing about changes. There’s no listening going on and no acting according to the wishes of the community. It’s just a process or a procedural checkoff box.

“Check, we had a meeting. Check, we had consultations, and they’re completed. Check, consultation is now over.” Check, more jiggery-pokery by this government. This government simply gets back to its getting-to-yes rhetoric, doing as this government pleases, not caring for what anybody says. “Too bad, community, we want to dump tons of contaminated soil in your community. Yes, it may be costly to you and your communities, but oh well, it’s all about getting to yes.”

That’s all this government is about: giving permits and getting to yes. It’s sure not about listening to anyone. It’s all about getting to: “All aboard the yes train. Yes, yes, to LNG. Yes, yes, to MSP increases. Yes, yes, to toxic dump.” And so it goes — more of the same.

Just ask First Nations in the Cowichan Valley, which I did. Cowichan Tribes representatives tell me that the government just said that all the lands that were the primary traditional area lands for the Cowichan Tribes are off the table — just off the table. “Check, the government says so, so move on. Consultation over. Next. Consultation over. Check the box. It’s done. Don’t call us; we’ll call you.” Shame. This is what this government calls consultation with First Nations.

The public, through community taxation through the Cowichan Valley Regional District, has had to spend about half a million dollars on a legal defence fund to try and protect our own communities, like Shawnigan Lake. Now they actually have a public debt. The taxpayers in the Cowichan Valley have a public debt because this government just won’t listen.

More than 300 submissions, all opposed to the contaminated soil dump. One company doing the dumping was in favour. The Shawnigan Residents Association was formed and had to collect and spend more than half a million dollars of community money, spent on defending the community from this government’s actions.

Between the CVRD and the SRA, which is the Shawnigan Residents Association, more…. Think about this. Pause for a minute, hon. Speaker.

[1145]

I ask the members on the other side to think about this, if this was happening in their community. More than
[ Page 5723 ]
$1 million has been collected by residents and taxpayers and spent on the defence of the community from this government just signing off a permit and getting to yes without doing their due diligence. And I will show that in my speech — that this government doesn’t do the proper due diligence. That’s the way it is.

They’re fighting this government, trying to get you to listen, and you have ignored them. They are spending $1 million plus, defending themselves from this government to try to protect the community and their water supplies from the incompetent, scandalous, unacceptable actions of a government who chooses not to listen, not to put community interests first.

Oh, but let’s remember this government’s mantra that they’re all so proud about getting to yes. We on this side believe that consultation means actually listening and actually hearing the community. Oh, so you want to dump 50 million tonnes of contaminated soil in the Shawnigan Lake community watershed in the Cowichan Valley? How about we instead send it to a Liberal riding and see how they feel? How would they feel in Parksville? How about Comox? Do you think they’d welcome contaminated soil to Comox? How about sending it to Cranbrook? Oh, I forgot. The…

Deputy Speaker: I’ll ask the….

B. Routley: …MLA from Cranbrook says he doesn’t need the votes anymore, so we don’t have to worry about that. The Ministry of Environment, the minister of permits, says it’s all good. Go ahead. Sign the permit. I doubt that there’s ever been a tour to the Cowichan Valley.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll ask the member to draw his remarks back to the throne speech, if he could, please.

B. Routley: The throne speech talks about the issue of air, water and protection — oh, it’s going to be so wonderful. Here we need to speak the truth in this place about what’s really going on. The statements in the throne speech are one thing, but here is what really happens.

The Minister of Environment gave the permit. The Minister of Health was recently confronted by one of our area directors. He was confronted by CVRD director Sonia Furstenau, who represents area B, Shawnigan Lake. Apparently, she was told: “The process will protect you.” Well, I hope so. We’re going to find out eventually, but they were forced into a process to spend over $1 million trying to defend the community. I say it’s totally unacceptable that a government’s actions would result in that kind of situation.

My question is: what is the process that we’re talking about here? Is it just about a process of getting to yes? Or is it really a process that includes some fairness for the community? By the way, Sonia Furstenau recently got elected. She knocked on close to 1,000 doors in the region and got way more than half of the voters in her electoral area to support her. Why do I mention this? Because based on her position — to continue to fight to stop this contaminated soil dump — she got more than half, close to 60 percent, of the voters in the region to support her in her commitment to carry on the battle.

In this government’s throne speech, government says: “Protecting the environment means setting world-leading standards, but it also means making change when change is needed.” Wow. British Columbia will continue to take the lead, it says. We can only live in hope in the Cowichan Valley that this government would really make it happen for the people of Shawnigan Lake, that this really means something, that it’s not just more jiggery-pokery. Will the government actually step up to the plate and do the right thing for Shawnigan and cancel this permit?

Currently, just over the mountains from here, Shawnigan Lake residents continue to live in uncertainty and fear about the tonnes of contaminated soil this government has permitted to be dumped in the Shawnigan watershed. While we have had an Environmental Appeal Board hearing that ended last July, we have no decision yet. Think about that — living with this whole matter undecided, living with the uncertainty and fear, living with falling real estate values. The uncertainty has resulted in real estate values falling. It’s impacting Shawnigan Lake businesses and investment decisions.

[1150]

According to Bruce Fraser, who I recently talked to, former director for the Shawnigan region, three years ago the people of Shawnigan were informed of this proposed plan on Stebbings Road, at the top end of the Shawnigan watershed, to dump contaminated soil in the site. The proposal would allow South Island Aggregates, a gravel company, to bring 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soil each and every year for 50 years and dump it on their site, while still operating as an active quarry. The contaminants listed, included in the permit, were dioxins, furans, phenols, hydrocarbons, arsenic, lead, chlorides and a myriad of other toxins and chemicals known to be harmful to human health.

The people of Shawnigan were united and vocal in their resistance to this plan, but the opposition has been consistently and steadfastly ignored by this government.

In March 2012 the Ministry of Environment went ahead and issued a draft permit. More than 300 people took the time to send written submissions that highlighted the potentially negative environmental, health, social and economic impacts of this proposed site.

Both I as MLA at the time and, for that matter, all political parties running in the 2013 election — and I mean all parties, including the Liberal candidate — said this was an unacceptable proposal and should not be permitted. It was ridiculous and outrageous. Everyone agreed. We had all the communities, the CVRD, the CRD, Cowichan Tribes, VIHA. The provincial Health Ministry even add-
[ Page 5724 ]
ed their voices to the opposition.

The Ministry of Environment’s designated or statutory decision-maker, a fellow named Mr. Bunce, found none of these concerns to be compelling. In August 2013 the Minister of Environment issued the final permit. We’d been on a draft permit; we now got a legal permit.

The CVRD, the Shawnigan Residents Association and three Shawnigan area residents, John and Lois Hayes and Rick Saunders, immediately filed appeals and took it to the Environmental Appeal Board. In spite of all the overwhelming community opposition, this process went ahead.

I’ve got to tell you: I smell a rat. I don’t know how, or who was connected in behind the scenes, but it is just wrong. It makes no sense whatsoever that the entire community, all of the community mayors, all of the associations, all of the groups were absolutely opposed, yet we’re going to dump upstream of Shawnigan Lake. Uphill and right near streams, right near wells, we’re going to dump contaminated soil.

The hearings were scheduled for March, and a stay was issued, preventing South Island Aggregates from bringing in contaminated soil until after the hearings. In December 2013 the company, SIA, applied for a variance of the stay, and in February the Environmental Appeal Board allowed them to bring in 40 tonnes of contaminated soil before the hearings commenced.

Now hear this, hon. Speaker. During the hearings we all learned that in their sworn affidavit the owners of SIA provided false information. This is now a matter of public record, by the way. I made sure I checked that. They provided false information to the Environmental Appeal Board. They claimed, for example, that their water treatment system was now operational, and it was not. It was not operational.

There were 20 days of hearings scheduled. In the end the hearings lasted 32 days, with additional dates in April, May, June and July added as it became apparent that the volume of evidence required more time.

Again, think about all of this effort and activity. What could we have done with that money to help the community? Instead, what was going on was hurting the community. The SRA and the CVRD brought in numerous expert witnesses. This is the residents association. They brought in geologists, hydrogeologists, engineers and water treatment specialists. All of the experts agreed that the information presented by SIA’s engineers, Active Earth, was inaccurate, insufficient and, at times, wholly misleading.

[1155]

One of the misleading things that they told the entire community…. And this is critical. They said that it was going to be on impervious granite. It was going to be impervious to any leakage. We discovered it was fractured rock, not impervious, and that there was no impervious layer of rock where the soil was going to be dumped at all. So this was totally misleading and incorrect.

One expert on record commented — of the proposed site that was selected — that this is crazy. There were lots of other opportunities for siting that could have been proposed, but this was not a good one.

What’s very interesting, Active Earth — the engineers whose survey and design of the site formed the basis upon which the Ministry of Environment issued the permit — did not even testify at the hearings. Now, isn’t that telling? What does that tell you when the other side doesn’t even produce any evidence? It tells you that they know that they didn’t want to hear what they had to say because they were in real trouble.

Yeah, the Ministry of Environment had lawyers there. They had their lawyers there. There were lawyers there for the company. And the decision was made not to put their so-called experts even on the stand, so I believe that’s very telling.

Indeed, there were no experts testifying on behalf of SIA to defend the site or its plans. In their defence, only one of the co-owners appeared. During his testimony it was revealed that the only public support came from the Malahat First Nation, which was agreed to in a confidential agreement between the two parties.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Block, apparently, in front of the panel did not want to tell the truth, under oath, that such an agreement even existed, until the document itself was entered into evidence by the residents’ lawyers. In exchange for their support, the Malahat band was promised a 330 excavator and qualified operator for up to seven weeks as well as the services of SIA engineers to address drainage issues, road grading issues and compacting services there in Malahat band as well as preferential employment for Malahat members at the SIA site. Again, they had been asked to keep this in a confidential manner.

It was also revealed that SIA owed Active Earth more than half a million dollars — isn’t that interesting? — $540,000 owed to the proponent, who was basically, I suggest, going to get paid if this process succeeded. It’s unacceptable.

I see that we’ve now reached the lunch hour. I adjourn the debate and look forward to holding my place for my next or earliest opportunity.

B. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake 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 11:58 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada