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)

Monday, February 16, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 5

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

ACCESS TO B.C. RESOURCES
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIANS

K. Conroy: As British Columbians, we are all very proud of our natural resources and treasure our ability to access them. The amazing scenery from our land base, the mountains, trees, water and wildlife all provide so many incredible opportunities across our province.

Of real concern to British Columbians is when we see our natural resources being sold to the highest bidder, and usually the highest foreign bidder, with little return to the average British Columbian. Raw logs are a prime example of that.

However, today I want to talk about another resource that British Columbians are losing access to, and that would be our wildlife.

Hunting is a way of life for over 100,000 residents in B.C., and their families. Resident hunters have increased by over 20 percent in the past ten years. Interestingly enough, the fastest-growing demographic is the amount of women who are now hunting. From 1995 to 2013 the number of female hunters rose by 88 percent. Many are getting their conservation and outdoor recreation education certification and acquiring their firearm acquisition permit.

Hunting has also become a family event, as moms and dads and their kids enjoy time together in our great outdoors with the added benefit of providing for the family by ensuring that there is meat in the freezer.

Hunters were actually ahead of their time, as wild meat provides the ultimate 100-mile diet and good-quality organic meat without any hormones or additives. Hunters in this province are also strong conservationists and advocates for the sustainability of our wildlife. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, the largest and oldest provincewide voluntary conservation organization, represents all British Columbians whose aims are to protect, enhance and promote the wise use of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.

[1005]

The federation has over 46,000 members, with clubs from ten different regions in the province. Members dedicate more than 300,000 hours annually on fish, wildlife and habitat conservation projects across the province.

Members also fundraise. I think most of us have been to the wildlife banquets in our communities. Those funds raised are invested right back in our communities through numerous wildlife conservation projects. One only has to look at the federation’s website to get a sense of the pride these groups have in the work they do.

For instance, the Oceola Fish and Game Club from throughout the Okanagan, like many other fish and game clubs, primarily started as a hunting and fishing club but quickly took on the mantle of conservation over the years.

One project was returning kokanee to Middle Vernon Creek in the arid countryside of the Okanagan. In 1983 nine lonely kokanee swam up the creek. Today some 8,000 fish can be counted.

A quote from the club says: “Water is a huge issue. All the water in the Okanagan Valley is managed, primarily for domestic use and agriculture needs. We’ve been a voice to keep water for fish too. One of our largest allies have been the First Nations.”

Grand Forks Wildlife Association president Brian Hancock speaks about how his club is restoring ungulate winter range in the Grand Forks area. Don Trethewey from the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association says: “We are a fish and game club, but first and foremost we are a conservation club. This means we support wise use.”

Many fish and game clubs naturally focus conservation efforts on projects related to those species they use, such as coho salmon or whitetail deer. But the Kamloops District Fish and Game Association has expanded to encompass other species as well. For several years they have been involved in burrowing owl restoration with the Burrowing Owl Conservation Society of B.C. This endangered species is especially rare in the Kamloops region, as it is the northern end of its western range.

The Lake Windermere District Rod and Gun Club’s motto is: “We shall not destroy what we have not the power to replace.” This club also has a history of members involved in conservation projects in the East Kootenays going back over 50 years.

Also, B.C. resident hunters spend over $230 million a year in local communities on hunting-related activities and contribute $9 million a year towards conservation work through licence fees.

Since 2003 the government of B.C. has been involved in discussions with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. and the B.C. Trappers Association to determine appropriate hunting allocation of our wildlife. By 2007 there was an agreement reached. Although it didn’t make everyone happy, it was agreed the new wildlife policy was an attempt to fairly determine the number of hunting permits allocated between the competing groups.

However, there was a division between resident hunt-
[ Page 5766 ]
ers and the Guide Outfitters Association that brings the non-resident hunters to hunt in B.C. The government chose to introduce a new wildlife allocation policy this past December, right before Christmas, when most families were getting ready for holidays.

The resident hunters of the province spoke out, though, and expressed their concerns on the proposed allocation, which gave a greater percentage of allocation to foreign hunters over resident hunters.

After many meetings of resident hunters and letters to MLAs, cabinet ministers and the Premier, the government heard the concerns and decided to revise the allocation. Unfortunately, it was too little too late. Resident hunters are incredibly disappointed that the allocations were not returned to the agreed-upon percentages of 2007.

The new allocations allow foreign hunters a higher percentage of access to wild game across the province, some species higher than others. It is one of the highest allocations to foreign hunters in surrounding jurisdictions. In most other provinces and U.S. states, foreign hunters are limited to 5 to 10 percent of the allocation.

The new allocations mean B.C. hunters will have fewer opportunities to get a limited-entry tag to harvest a specific species such as a moose or elk, while foreign visitors will have expanded access to wildlife.

Take moose, for example. Moose are one of the most sought-after species by B.C. resident hunters. In many areas demand exceeds supply, and hunters are placed on a limited-entry hunt lottery to ensure sustainability. About 70,000 B.C. hunters apply for 13,000 limited-entry hunters permits each year, meaning only one in five hunters gets to hunt moose annually.

Foreign hunters do not need to apply for a limited-entry permit, taking moose from about 3,000 B.C. hunters each year. The proposed changes would see even more British Columbians go without an opportunity to hunt a moose.

To summarize, once again the Liberals are privatizing a public resource, going against decades of previous conservation policy. The new allocations are out of line with all other hunting jurisdictions in regards to resident hunters. And finally, the Liberals are putting the rights of wealthy foreign hunters ahead of B.C. resident hunters.

S. Hamilton: It gives me great pleasure to stand up today and talk to this issue.

[1010]

I want to first of all thank the member for Kootenay West for showering me personally with all kinds of compliments at the beginning of her speech, because I did represent one of those 100,000 hunters in this province. It’s a matter of time management now. I don’t have the opportunity to participate like I used to.

But I certainly have many family and friends, particularly friends in my community, that I’ve spoken to on this issue that have expressed their concerns, especially with the new revised allocation, but once it’s been explained to them, they tend to have all their concerns allayed. They seem to be quite happy once they realize that a lot of this has been blown out of proportion by the opposition in order to pit one user group against another. It’s as simple as that.

The facts speak for themselves. Let me start by saying that even as a former hunter myself…. We have the member for Prince George–Mackenzie with us, who’s probably much better versed in this field than I am, probably best to stand up and talk about it. We had a discussion while we were in Prince George a few weeks ago. He said something very poignant, and I have to give him credit for this.

We manage this resource on behalf of not just the 100,000 hunters in the province; we manage this resource on behalf of 4.5 million people who live in this province. The resource belongs to all people in this province, and we have an obligation to manage it on everyone’s behalf, not just the hunters’. It’s important.

We acknowledge, we recognize the contributions that the hunting community makes to the environment in this province, to sustainability of the food source. But we’re talking about different types of hunts here as well. We’re not just talking the argument when it comes to meat in the freezer, which has been brought up, and rightfully so, in conversations with the minister as he’s gone forward to revise the plan. The meat in the freezer, that issue, virtually remains unchanged.

Nothing, literally, has changed with the exception of a few…. Gosh, my notes. I’m all over the place here. But nevertheless….

D. Donaldson: Monday morning. It’s okay.

S. Hamilton: Yeah, I know. Thank you.

Out of the 45,700 animals harvested by resident hunters each year in British Columbia, 60 or so represent just 0.13 percent of an allocation shift. We’re talking less than five dozen animals, yet the NDP are out there spreading false information. Again, it’s just like them to adopt their mantra of negativism, defeatism, pessimism and, again, trying to use division to pit one user group against the next, and I don’t think it serves us very well.

Let me say a few words about the guide-outfitters. They’re British Columbians who employ other British Columbians. Every non-resident who hunts big game in our province has to be accompanied by either a licensed B.C. guide or a resident who holds a permit to accompany. This means jobs for British Columbians.

Right now there are about 245 licensed guide-outfitters in B.C., who employ over 2,000 people. They generate an estimated $116 million annually in economic activity, providing services to 5,000 non-resident hunters or about one-third of the estimated $350 million hunting contributes to our economy. That helps to pay for services for
[ Page 5767 ]
British Columbians, such as health care and public education. It’s all one big pot.

Given the NDP’s historical opposition to hunting in the past, people might surmise that they just might be being opportunistic and trolling for cheap attention. Remember the grizzly bear hunt in 2001, when the opposition at the time, when they were in government, wanted to stop it, put a three-year moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt. The hunting community, the guide-outfitters, were outraged. There was really no science behind that decision.

A registry. Let’s talk about the gun registry. In B.C. I don’t see the NDP crying foul on what’s being proposed and put forward by the….

Point of Order

B. Ralston: Point of order. These statements are meant to be non-partisan, I understood the rules to say. This member has repeatedly violated that. I hope the Speaker will take note of that.

Madame Speaker: I thank you for your comment, and I would actually caution both speakers.

Please continue.

Debate Continued

S. Hamilton: Well, I’ll just conclude by saying this is a very, very important resource. The people of this province deserve to have it managed properly, and that’s what this government has set out to do.

We have listened. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has listened to the resident hunters in this community through their representation to the B.C. Wildlife Federation. We have tweaked the plan. I think it’s a plan that’s going to work for this province. I think it’s a plan that’s going to work for the resident hunters in all of our communities, and they’re going to benefit greatly by it.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.

[1015]

Madame Speaker: Perhaps as a reminder to all members, remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members do not fall into the spirit of non-partisanship under Standing Order 25B.

K. Conroy: Well, the member for Delta North has some issues, obviously. But the reality is that the recent changes were supposed to resolve a number of key issues facing hunters and British Columbians. Unfortunately, they do exactly the opposite, and B.C. hunters will suffer for it.

We know that the percentage that the government is bringing in is not a 90-10 percentage that the hunters had been asking for and what was agreed on in 2007. In fact, the percentage is a 60-40 split, which gives considerably more opportunities to foreign hunters than it does for B.C. hunters.

We also know that there have been considerable cuts in the ministry over the last few years. The allocation policy has made it difficult to implement for many hunters and many of the people that work in the ministry.

B.C. hunters engaged with the government in what they thought was a genuine discussion about the best ways to improve hunting opportunities for resident hunters, guide-outfitters and their clients. They really thought that they would be listened to, that B.C. hunters would have the opportunity to provide…. Thousands of them provided information and input, and they thought their decisions would be listened to. But actually, their decisions had little or no consequences on the final decision.

As New Democrats, we do believe that resources should be for the use and benefit of British Columbians first, understanding that the guide-outfitter sector does have a place in our province. We also believe it is wrong to hand over a larger percentage allocation to foreign hunters while reducing hunting opportunities for British Columbians.

We agree that resident hunters do make a significant contribution to B.C.’s rural economy and way of life. They support many businesses that make a living by supporting outdoor recreation and hunting. Resident hunters feed their families with B.C. game and often contribute — in fact, do considerable contribution — to wildlife conservation activities which benefit everyone in British Columbia, not just hunters. Hunters are some of the best advocates I know when it comes to conservation.

If you’re not a hunter or not related to a hunter, you may not believe this issue matters. But what if tomorrow it was announced that there will be fewer B.C. park campsites available to British Columbians because they are going to out-of-province visitors? What if locals got bumped so people from Alberta or the U.S. could snap up more fishing licences? Or will we find one day that the rights to a lake will only be given to those who pay for the right to fish in it? Or if you suddenly can’t go hiking on trails you always used because now it is a tenured piece of land only for a wealthy, privileged few?

B.C. resources should be for British Columbians first and foremost, but once again, we see our resources being given away. And at what cost? Will our children and grandchildren have the ability to hunt, fish and enjoy our beautiful outdoors? Or will they find gates and locks preventing them from accessing the very land we all love and own? A question that many are asking and, hopefully, one that will be answered — will the conservation of our resources for many generations to come be the primary focus and not the single-minded obsession of making a few bucks for a few, but losing so much for so many British Columbians?
[ Page 5768 ]

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

S. Sullivan: I am holding with me a resolution that was passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 20th of April, 1865.

“Resolved that this House, taking into consideration the great calamity which has befallen the United States of America and the rest of the civilized world in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, be adjourned till tomorrow as a mark of respect to the memory of the great departed, the chief of a nation connected by the nearest ties with our own, glorying in the same origin, the same traditions and the same freedom.”

Signed by the Clerk of the House. This letter was sent to the United States, to the office of the President.

We are now coming up to the 150th anniversary of the death of Abraham Lincoln. Premier Clark received a request from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum asking her to prepare a letter that would reflect on the meaning of Abraham Lincoln and his legacy to British Columbians. The letter will be paired with the previous letter of condolences, the one that I just read. It was sent following the assassination.

[1020]

The Premier asked me as MLA for Vancouver–False Creek to collaborate with British Columbians on her behalf. During the month of February, which also coincides with Black History Month, I am collecting comments and stories from British Columbians, especially those whose heritage is connected to Lincoln and the legacy he created. We’re accepting submissions right now. We’ll be accepting them until the end of February 28, 2015. All comments and submissions will be reviewed prior, and some may accompany the final letter that will be sent to the museum in April.

We’ve set up a website, and we have been getting quite a bit of traffic. In the first few days we had over 800 visits. It’s interesting that the average visit duration is 13 minutes. That’s quite remarkable. We’ve got a number of comments. I’ve put out a number of blog posts that were based on interviews with British Columbians that have a keen interest in this.

We know that Lincoln made a significant contribution to ending slavery and advancing civil rights. As such, he is part of B.C.’s historical and multicultural heritage. Significant communities of English-American and African-American colonists in what would become B.C. strongly supported the U.S. Union government and Lincoln as a part of the struggle against slavery and for human rights. Reflecting those sentiments, that is why the Legislature and the governor of the time sent these condolences, too, on the death of President Lincoln.

There’s been a history thesis completed at the University of Victoria in 2012 that documents that there was much stronger support in B.C. compared to other colonies of British North America. In conjunction with Black History Month, we have this project ongoing, and I’d like to encourage all British Columbians who have an interest to contribute to the letter that we’re sending.

Now, I received a number of comments. One is from Dr. Jonathan Swainger of the history department at the University of Northern British Columbia. He writes about his knowledge of the 1920s when an African-American barber in Prince George took issue with the report published in a local newspaper in which the challenges of maintaining order in the community were in part attributable to the influence of the black members of the community.

The barber, a gentleman named Charles S. Sager, wrote a brilliant letter rebutting both the allegations aimed at the local black community and, in particular, deploring the use of the kind of language and the words that he used in the newspaper article in a society where people had reason to expect fairness and equity. Sager, it turns out, was an early leader in black American theatre in Chicago and had been in Prince George in northern British Columbia since 1910. He and his wife were active members of the local community as well as the local Knox United Church.

He writes to me: “The link with Lincoln is admittedly fleeting, but Sager made it clear that, in his mind, northern British Columbia was a place where people could aspire for something better, and in that we do hear a resonance of Lincoln.”

We’ve received a number of other comments that were equally interesting, which I encourage people to go onto the website to read about.

We have in British Columbia quite a connection to the issue of civil rights and especially for African Canadians, African Americans. In fact, our first governor — what some people consider our first governor — James Douglas, was born in 1803 in Demerara, Guyana. His mother was Martha Telfer, who was listed as a “free coloured” from Barbados. That was on her documentation. She was a member of the black community in the Caribbean. James Douglas was part black and descended from slaves.

[1025]

It was interesting that around 1862 he invited a number of blacks from San Francisco who were experiencing discrimination up to Vancouver Island where they could be free of the threat of slavery and discrimination. I’m just going to quote from a book written about him.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Ralston: It’s interesting to learn of the project that the member is engaged in, relating to the Abraham Lincoln Library. I do want to talk a little bit more about the black history here in British Columbia.

When one reflects back to the 19th century, certainly there was a very unusual mass migration of over 600 blacks north from San Francisco to British Columbia. They were spurred by fears of attempts of the California
[ Page 5769 ]
Legislature and judiciary to further limit freedom of those citizens in California. They were also incented to come by the gold rush of 1858. In British Columbia they did not find the equality they sought, though, although discrimination was social probably more than legal and private rather than official. Typical of these immigrants was John Sullivan Deas, who Deas Island and Deas Island Tunnel are named after.

My late father was a historian at the University of British Columbia. He did the historical research that brought his life to the pages of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. He started as a tinsmith in Charleston, South Carolina, moved to San Francisco and then joined the migration north and moved to Victoria in 1861 or 1862. He is notable because he was a tinsmith. He started in the salmon-canning industry because, obviously, to export salmon, they were exported in tins. That was an essential part of commerce of the salmon business.

In 1873 he pre-empted land on what is now Deas Island, and for several years he was the largest canner on the Fraser. Competition was fierce. Ultimately, in seven years he sold his interest to others and left the industry. He is certainly remembered as one of the founders of the salmon canning industry of British Columbia.

Here in British Columbia, particularly in the British Columbia Legislature, we have a very proud tradition and history of black participation. Emery Barnes, who came to British Columbia in 1957 as a professional football player, got a second degree. He had a bachelor of science from the University of Oregon. He got a degree in social work from UBC and ultimately ran and was elected in 1972 and re-elected in 1975, 1979, 1983, 1986 and 1991. In 1994 he crowned his parliamentary career by being elected Speaker and then retired in 1998.

Rosemary Brown, born originally in Jamaica, came to Canada to attend university at McGill and moved to British Columbia with her family. She ran first in 1972 and was re-elected a number of times and retired in 1986. In 1975 she was the first Canadian woman to seek the leadership of a federal political party. In 1999 Canada celebrated her achievements with a commemorative stamp. She was a symbol, as was Emery Barnes, of the struggle and opened doors for many — an inspirational model for female politicians and, I would dare say, male politicians as well. She was a formidable politician and a great participant in the debates of this Legislature.

Black history here in British Columbia is rich. Not only is there political leadership; community leadership; leadership in arts, culture, business…. That’s one of the many reasons why British Columbia is a great place to live and participate in all of the things that British Columbia has to offer.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek continues.

[1030]

S. Sullivan: I wanted to quote from a book by John Adams, a local historian here in Victoria, Old Square Toes and His Lady. That refers to James Douglas, who was part black, and also Amelia, his wife, who was part aboriginal. It is interesting to see the multicultural founding of the province going right back to the first leaders.

During the 1850s, racial tension was also rife in California between whites and blacks. Capt. Jeremiah Nagle of the SS Commodore had discussed the plight of blacks in California with James Douglas during the early spring of 1858 when discrimination there was at a peak.

A mass meeting to discuss the situation and to consider a proposal to found a refuge for blacks in Panama; Sonora, Mexico; or on Vancouver Island was held in San Francisco on the 14th of April. Captain Nagle, whose ships plied regularly between San Francisco and Puget Sound ports, attended, and at an appropriate moment he introduced a letter from Governor Douglas inviting the blacks to settle under the freedom of the British flag.

On the 20th of April the first contingent of 35 blacks fled persecution as they boarded the Commodore bound for Victoria. Over the next two years up to 800 more would follow.

I’ll just go on.

Under Douglas’s governorship, members of the black community were able to purchase land, start businesses and vote if they were British subjects. The Rev. Edward Cridge welcomed blacks into his congregation, and the Douglas family supported his stand by continuing to attend the Victoria District Church.

Douglas officially countered discrimination by appointing blacks to Victoria’s first police force and offering rifles to the all-black Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps, commonly known as the African Rifles. He had celebrated Emancipation Day in the British Empire, which is August 1, as early as 1855, when he gave a ball for the crews of the British and American naval vessels at Esquimalt. During the early part of the American Civil War he marked the anniversary again with a fete to which the elite of Victoria were invited.

It’s interesting to see that our province has been engaged in a multicultural project right from the very beginning.

DOGWOODS FOR KIDS IN CARE

D. Donaldson: “There is strong evidence that completing high school is conducive to general well-being throughout life.” That’s a quote from the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s own performance management report released just last month. So let’s cut to the chase. How is this government doing? How are kids in care, under their watch, doing in light of that statement?

Children in care in this province who graduate high school with a Dogwood diploma, 27 percent; average
[ Page 5770 ]
graduation rate for kids overall for the province, 84 percent. That’s a more than 200 percent difference — only 27 percent graduating.

The ministry says there is strong evidence that “completing high school is conducive to general well-being throughout life.” Under this minister, this Premier and this government, kids in care are graduating at less than a third the rate of the provincial average. Most would call that a colossal failure — not just a failure by this government but a terrible failure when it comes to lost human potential.

As the Conference Board of Canada said in their April 2014 report Success for All: the Economic Case for Investing in the Future of Canadian Children in Care, addressing the well-being of these children is not just the right thing to do, it is the strategic part of public policy.

The Conference Board found that foster kids leaving the system at age 19 will earn $326,000 less in their lifetime compared to the Canadian average, and ignoring the issues of why this is can cost $7.5 billion over the next ten years due to the high cost of social assistance payments, lower tax revenues and associated costs.

Not graduating high school is a big factor in this lost potential. We know that in B.C. more than half those kids aging out of government care at 19 end up on some form of income assistance within six months.

[1035]

These findings are not specific to B.C. or even Canada. A study released in August by the New Zealand’s Office of the Children’s Commissioner called Choose Kids: Why Investing in Children Benefits All New Zealanders pointed out the negative implications of not investing in the context of labour market challenges when faced with an aging labour force demographic and the need for a healthy, younger population to provide sustainability for communities in an aging society.

This should sound familiar, as the situation is similar in B.C. But although the supposed B.C. jobs plan was mentioned several times in the government’s throne speech, there was not one mention in the speech of the need to improve the well-being — such as graduation rates — for kids in care. I wouldn’t call this an oversight. I’d call it a lack of vision.

You’ll likely hear, in response to my comments, from the government member who follows about how much this government has been doing lately to address the issue, such as the youth education assistance fund, the agreements with young adults, the B.C. training and education savings grant or a new trust fund. I congratulate the few kids in care who are able to access these funding programs. But they are aimed at continuing education for young adults once they are past high school age and do not address the terrible graduation rate that is the issue.

It is not as if this issue is something the government is unaware of. In 2007 the independent Representative for Children and Youth published a joint special report with the provincial health officer on the health and well-being of children in care in B.C. In 2007 the high school graduation rate for kids in care was 21 percent, compared to 78 percent as the provincial average. Today, as I’ve said, it is 27 percent and 84 percent — not an appreciable difference. If you look at the ratios, things have actually gotten worse. Eight years under this government and the actual graduation rate for kids in care, which is abysmal, has gotten worse.

A further analysis of the data points to an issue ignored. A decade under this government, 2003-04 to 2013-14, children in care meeting or exceeding expectations at grade 7 in numeracy: 38 percent in ’03-04, 24 percent in ’13-14. Worse. Reading: 40 percent at the beginning of that ten-year period and 31 percent a decade later. Worse.

Writing: meeting or exceeding expectations in ’03-04, 48 percent. Ten years later, 38 percent. Worse. Who was in charge in those ten years? This government. Two complete high school rotations of children under this government and the gap between children in care and the provincial average on these indicators is the same or worse.

I want to know who is going to take responsibility for this travesty. Who is going to be accountable? The minister, where surely the buck stops? The Premier, who ultimately sets the priorities? The entire government caucus, who are obviously not raising their voices in unison on this issue? Ten years — no change or things even worse.

In her report in 2007 the children’s representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, said: “A child who is taken into care at any point in his or her life will probably not graduate from high school. This is a tragedy that calls out for immediate and systemic action.” Immediate action — eight years all under this government and we still have a 27 percent graduation rate for kids in care. About three-quarters of the kids in their care don’t finish high school with a Dogwood certificate.

What was the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s and, in effect, the minister’s response to their performance management report that showed this failure? They’re working on guidelines and plans to support these children and monitor their progress. Guidelines and plans — after more than ten years of knowing about this failure, what an insult to their kids and their families. What a lost opportunity.

In other jurisdictions they’re actually setting firm goals, not just working on guidelines. In Ontario the minister responsible has publicly committed to close the gap and bring high school graduation rates for children in care to the same level as the provincial average in five years.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Again allow me to caution all members. Remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members do not fall into the spirit of non-partisanship under Standing Order 25B. I believe the member who
[ Page 5771 ]
just spoke was in the House when I first made that comment. I would ask all members to take that advice.

[1040]

J. Thornthwaite: I am pleased to respond to the response regarding the Dogwoods for kids in care.

Thankfully, the vast majority of young people in British Columbia will never face the extreme challenges experienced by children and youth who come into government care.

These young people, before coming into care, have often suffered a double trauma — the reason for them needing to be safe — such as suffering from abuse or neglect and then having to be removed from their families, their homes and their environments.

Sometimes these children have complex special needs. By the time these young people in care are in school, their educational attainment sometimes is impacted by their experiences.

That is why this government has done a very good job to try to encourage more people to adopt kids in care.

I will say that graduation rates, although significantly lower, have improved in this province over the years. The proportion of children and youth in care turning 19 with a Dogwood diploma has risen from 22 to 27 percent. The proportion of male aboriginal children and youth in care showed the largest increase over that time, from 11 to 21 percent.

There is a strong upward trend in the proportion of children and youth in care who were in an age-appropriate grade at school — now 83.5 percent. Those who graduated to the next grade level over the period of one year is now 88 percent.

Our government is also working to ensure youth who will be aging out of care have the educational opportunities available to them.

In 2013 government introduced the B.C. training and education savings program to provide grants of $1,200 into registered education savings plans for British Columbian six-year-olds born on or after January 1, 2007. To ensure kids in care also benefit from this program, the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Education developed the learning fund for young adults charitable trust to provide flexible options. As an alternative to a registered education savings plan for kids in care, it gives former kids in care greater access to education and training.

The ministry provided $1.4 million to a bursary fund that helps B.C. youth formerly in government care pursue education and vocational studies. The money will help B.C.’s youth education assistance fund, which is available to young people between the ages of 19 and 24 who were in permanent care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development or a delegated aboriginal agency before they reached adulthood.

Eligible students can receive bursaries of up to $5,500 for tuition, books, fees or living expenses while studying at designated post-secondary and vocational institutes.

In addition, Vancouver Island University has taken a leadership role and waived tuition for children in care. That pilot project began in 2013 for kids that demonstrated a financial need and were recommended by a child and family services agency.

This is important because there are more than 8,000 children and youth in care. Studies have shown that even with some tuition money available to youth in care, they are 50 percent more likely to attend post-secondary education.

I’m happy to report that there are now nine universities that have adopted this project for tuition-free university training. Vancouver Island University and, in addition, the University of British Columbia, the University of British Columbia in the Okanagan, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, the B.C. Institute of Technology, Langara College, the University of Victoria, the University of Northern British Columbia and Simon Fraser University.

I agree kids in care need government help, and these programs that I just mentioned are one of the solutions to give them the best opportunities they can to become successful citizens in British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: I think the member opposite missed the point. If you have 75 percent of kids in care not graduating high school with a Dogwood diploma, then it doesn’t matter how many programs you have in place for them to get some benefits to attend post-secondary education. They’re just going to not be able to apply to those universities and get in.

[1045]

The member opposite talks about nine universities in B.C. now offering tuition waivers for kids in care. That was an initiative of the Representative for Children and Youth, not of this government. In fact, in Ontario every university offers a tuition waiver. That’s called leadership.

To conclude, picture this. In your neighbourhood you know most of the houses, and in those houses 84 percent of the kids graduate high school. Then there’s that house down the street, the one where the kids only have a 27 percent chance of graduating. It would give you pause to consider what is going on in that house.

Here’s the problem. The legal guardians — in effect, the parents in that home — are this government, this minister, this Premier. If the Ministry of Children and Family Development itself were investigating, front-line workers might use the words “poor parenting” to describe what was going on by the government.

I’ll quote from the children’s representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, from her 2007 report, the one that called for immediate action on this issue. “When a child is taken into care, the government assumes the role of parent to ensure the safety and well-being of this child.”
[ Page 5772 ]

She points out that Justice Hughes said in 2006: “Well-being is about a child’s social, educational and developmental progress. The government as a parent, then, should also be concerned with ensuring that children in its care achieve their maximum potential.” Their maximum potential — when 75 percent of kids in care aren’t graduating from high school with a Dogwood diploma.

I’m asking the Minister of Children and Family Development to do honour to the position she holds and commit today to raise the graduation rate of kids in care to the provincial average before another generation is lost.

ADDRESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Morris: I am going to speak this morning about violence against women. I’m going to start with a story from my early career in the RCMP as a police officer. I started in 1973, and the world is not entirely different today than it was in 1973 with respect to that.

In the small community I was policing there was a young girl I came across one night walking down the street. I didn’t recognize her from that community. She was about 14 years old, a beautiful young First Nations girl. I stopped and asked her where she was from and where she was going. She said she lived a couple of miles down the road. I gave her a ride home and knocked on the door and turned her over to what ended up being her guardians, a couple that lived there. I spoke casually with them for a bit and didn’t notice anything unusual at the time.

A couple of days later I was on shift again, and I came across that same young girl, wandering by herself. I picked her up again and took her home and tried to look in the house a little bit and make some inquiries as to what was going on. I went to her school and spoke to her teachers, found out that she was a bright young lady, and she was attending school. But she was a loner. She hung out by herself all the time.

This carried on for some months. This was in the fall of the year, in September of the year. It was in late September that I noticed a shadow outside my residence in this small community in the bush. As a police officer, you have to be concerned about things like that. I went out, and I snuck up on this individual.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It ended up it was this young 14-year-old girl that was hiding out across from my house. It was a very chilly night. She was sitting in the bush looking at my house longingly.

I brought her in the house. My wife was there. She pleaded with my wife and me to adopt her. She didn’t want to go back to the residence where she was staying, but she wouldn’t tell me why. She didn’t give me any details. She didn’t want to share any information from her previous life or where she had lived before. As a police investigator, that hampered my ability to deal with that situation.

I turned her over. We had good relationships with social services at the time, and I took this young lady to social services. She was placed in a different home for a few days while we could try to get our bearings on what was going on.

I found out that this young girl had been sexually and physically abused by her father, her brother and her uncles in another community several miles away. She’d been relocated to live with extended family in the community that I was policing in.

[1050]

Nothing untoward had occurred within this community that we were aware of. It was only until I responded about two or three days later to a suicide…. I attended the suicide, and it was this young girl that had taken her life. In the investigation of that suicide I found out that the people that were looking after her had been physically and mentally and sexually abusing her during the period of time that she was there.

That turned a bunch of triggers on for me, and it made me a much better investigator in investigating domestic situations throughout the rest of my career. It also highlighted one of the significant problems that police officers have right across our great country in investigating these matters, which is the lack of information. People are very unwilling to share the fact that they have been sexually or physically abused by others — within their family, in particular, or by whoever is looking after them in a guardianship role. It’s very difficult for police to respond appropriately to those levels.

It’s always been my protocol, I suppose, to try and include as many people in the process of helping these types of individuals to try to find some kind of a resolution. But time and time again…. You know, I hate to think I probably investigated thousands of domestic abuse situations during my career as a police officer, many of them resulting in death, many of them resulting in people who were psychologically affected for the rest of their lives.

Police officers have been, traditionally, relied upon to be the lead agency in dealing with these issues when, in fact, it’s probably more a health and education combined approach from the community. That’s what we’re seeing today with the commitment that this government has made for a “Violence-free B.C.” and the strategy with our road map, going forward.

Back in my days as a police officer I can remember, as a police manager, dealing with situations where there’d be a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific incident that occurred somewhere in the province where somebody’s life or several lives were taken in a single situation. Policies would come out saying that in every situation the police must arrest and must put these people in jail. That was more reason for these people not to speak to us, because they
[ Page 5773 ]
were afraid of repercussions from that.

Now we’re looking at a new way to deal with this stuff, preventing violence by changing behaviours and ensuring services are responsive, innovative and coordinated. We’re going to support women to rebuild their lives by addressing violence. We’re going to address violence against aboriginal women, and we’re going to foster strong relationships and new partnerships.

When I was a child, I grew up in a very abusive home, which ended up with my parents separating when I was a young teenager. I didn’t know I lived in an abusive home until I got out into the wide world and I saw how other people lived. I think that’s the case for a lot of the people living, particularly, in the more remote communities where they don’t have access to a lot of other things there.

If we can bring that educational component into our schools, if we can involve the psychologists, if we can involve the social workers and we can involve the community as a whole, when that police officer goes up and knocks on the door to respond to a call of domestic violence, he has the entire community behind him or her to help him resolve any issues with that community and to provide a safe environment for the victim of that domestic violence to go and start a new life. Look after the children. Look after the woman.

Most times it’s the woman in the partnership that’s affected the most, although I have attended many cases where the men have also been subjected to domestic violence. But women, for the most part, have been the subject of that.

M. Karagianis: I’d like to stand today and respond to the comments made by the previous speaker. I think it was an interesting story that the speaker talked about, his personal experience.

The reality is that women are in danger in this province and are suffering at the hands of domestic abusers. The whole idea of saying we are going to have a violence-free B.C. has to be more than a slogan. It has to have depth and substance to it.

[1055]

I want to talk about a report that was put out here, B.C. Domestic and Sexual Violence Fatality List for 2014 — so last year. I’m not going to read all of the list because it’s pages and pages and pages. But I do want to just highlight the experience that many women are having in British Columbia.

February in Campbell River — Caroline Doreen Surrett, 72, found dead in her home. Her 84-year-old common-law husband was charged with second-degree murder. He was out on bail and was later found dead in his home, as a result of suicide.

In March, in Saanich, just close to the Legislature, a 77-year-old woman was murdered by a firearm, along with her dog. A 71-year-old man was charged and arrested for that domestic murder.

In Langley in April, Sonia Cella and her two children were attacked and their home set on fire. All managed to escape, but Sonia and her daughter were injured. Andre Richard, 44, was charged with attempted murder and arson. Police say Richard had violated a no-contact order. That’s a theme that runs throughout these stories as well. Often, many times the violators have no-contact orders and have breached those.

In Kelowna Amy Parkes was murdered. Her fiancé, Ryan Quigley, has been charged with second-degree murder. In Abbotsford a woman was stabbed and seriously injured and her 18-month-old baby abducted. The father of the child was charged with attempted murder, assault and abduction and breach of a no-contact order.

In Clearwater, Angela Wilson, 33, a woman and mother of three, murdered in her home following a seven-hour standoff with police. The former common-law spouse was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.

It goes on and on. This is all over British Columbia. These are statistics for only one year here. As recent as November, just a couple of months ago, Jaswant Pandher, a 64-year-old woman, was found murdered in her home. Her husband was charged with second-degree murder.

Sadly, the list of women goes on and on. I want to refer here to a report that came out from West Coast LEAF, which has been very objective and independent in their observations. I want to talk about a report card that they put out, which measures the reality for women in this province and women’s rights.

On the subject of women and access to justice, the West Coast LEAF gives government an F. Crisis shortfalls and chronic underfunding continue to plague the legal aid budget, leading to serious injustices for thousands of unrepresented litigants, mostly women.

Social assistance and poverty — again, a failing grade. B.C. maintains its position as a province with the highest poverty rate in the country. This most directly affects women.

Murdered and missing indigenous women. More than a year and a half after the final report of the Missing Women Inquiry the government has made little progress in implementing some of the most serious recommendations.

Women and housing. Homelessness and housing continue to be huge insecurity risks for women. The number of street homeless in Vancouver increased significantly, and we are seeing more women and more families who are homeless, often as a result of domestic violence.

We have also raised the issue over and over again here of the women who are at risk along Highway 16, who to this day, in this moment, if they need to go get a loaf of bread or take their child to the doctor or go into their local community to do any kind of business or common day-to-day activities, have to hitchhike because there is no shuttle bus service.

Women are endangered still today along this road.
[ Page 5774 ]
I know that the government has put out admonitions about ways that women can get around and people in remote communities can access their local community. They’ve talked about using limousine service or the Greyhound bus — things are unrealistic, impractical and simply do not work.

If we truly want a “Violence-free B.C.”, it cannot be an empty slogan. It has got to have real resources put in it. As long as we continue to fail over and over again in subjective reports on what’s happening to women in their homes, then we have not achieved any kind of violence-free province.

M. Morris: Just one comment in respect to the member opposite’s presentation here and transportation of vulnerable women along Highway 16. I can’t think, from my experience living up there in the last 40-odd-years….

[1100]

It’s my experience that most of those communities have access to or own five-, ten-, 15-passenger vans that they transport their people from community to community on and whatnot. So there is some opportunity there for the First Nations communities to provide those services for their own people.

Going back to domestic violence, domestic violence is something that has been around for centuries. The statistics that the member opposite has so adequately produced are nothing new. We know that those statistics are there, and we have been doing everything that we can, as police officers, as social workers, as governments, to try and address those things. I think that we now have something that we can use that will start addressing those: challenging the beliefs and behaviours of people involved in domestic situations.

Like I said, I lived at home and was probably a young teenager before I realized that the atmosphere around my house wasn’t normal — that people didn’t live in a situation like that. I think we’ve got to bring that into the communities and into the schools to ensure that people are aware of that.

Targeting new investment in school-based preventative programming to shift the attitudes — if we do it at a young age, we’re going to see some significant gains, two, three, four, five, 10, 15 years down the road here. Continue to enhance the K-to-12 curriculum by including learning objectives that support core competencies around healthy and safe relationships.

Ensuring the services are responsive. It’s not just somebody going and knocking on a door and documenting all the information and trying to plug all the holes and ticking off all the boxes. We have to make sure that the responses are innovative, they’re coordinated amongst all the agencies in the communities that can help. If those agencies aren’t in the community, then it’s our objective to make sure that we get them there.

We also have to support women to rebuild their lives. Once they get out of that horrific environment that they’re in, we get them healthy again and we find ways with our jobs plan and with other systems that we have to integrate them back into the community again in a healthy and productive manner.

We’re also going to address violence against aboriginal women. In all of the remote First Nations communities that we have in the province here, that’s one of the key objectives, I know, of most of the provincial police force with the RCMP. I know that’s something that this government supports as well.

We also want to foster strong relationships and new partnerships with everybody. Like I said earlier when I was speaking, it’s not just the lonely police officer going and knocking on the door. It’s everybody.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 3 — REVIEW OF
KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to move a motion.

[Be it resolved that this House call on the B.C. government to immediately withdraw from the National Energy Board’s review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project, and establish a rigorous made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process so that British Columbians, municipalities, and First Nations can fully participate, and finally get the fulsome answers on oil spill response, emergency planning, financial implications, climate change and other areas that they deserve.]

I’ve moved this motion because it’s time. It’s well past time, indeed, for us to finally assert our right as a province, assert our power as a province and get the answers that we deserve for a project like Kinder Morgan is proposing. It’s a project that proposes to increase the number of oil tankers passing through our coast by four times, and it wants to triple the number of barrels of diluted bitumen to 900,000 barrels a day through a new pipeline through the province. Well, British Columbians are concerned about it.

Why would they be concerned? Why would they think that we should have our own environmental assessment process? I’ll tell you why. Kinder Morgan, for one, has already said that they think we’ll get more benefits from this pipeline project through oil spill response and cleanup as it “creates business and jobs.”

A company trying to convince you to have an oil pipeline tanker project in your community by saying: “Well, maybe it’ll help you get jobs through oil spill response cleanup.” Not so wise, but alas, that is what Kinder Morgan put forward.

Why would citizens be concerned? In fact, many of the citizens so concerned asked to be part of the process and were rejected outright by the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board’s scope of practice has shrunk so far that they felt that 25 percent of the people who had evidence, who had information to share, didn’t deserve a
[ Page 5775 ]
seat at the table. So if public participation is not enough of a problem for the National Energy Board process, let’s actually look at the process itself.

[1105]

Even had everybody who wanted to be part of the process been given a chance, what would they have actually been able to do? Well, what we found is that the National Energy Board process is broken. The questions you ask don’t get answered. Indeed, unlike the court of law — and this is a quasi-judicial process — you don’t actually have to get cross-examined. In fact, you can’t.

Just imagine that in a murder trial, where you can’t actually ask questions directly of the person who is accused of murder. You might be able to send a written question. Maybe they’ll respond. Maybe they won’t. You won’t be able to test the evidence. In fact, that’s the process that we have under this National Energy Board process.

You can write a letter to Kinder Morgan saying: “We want to know your emergency spill response plan.” Indeed, the province of B.C. did just that. They asked Kinder Morgan: “Tell us how you would respond to an oil spill. Tell us how you would respond to a fire. Tell us how you would respond should there be an avalanche.”

You know what? Kinder Morgan responded, “Not really. We don’t really need to tell you that,” and the NEB, the National Energy Board, rolled over and said: “You’re right. You don’t need to tell the province that. Just trust them. Just trust Kinder Morgan.”

No, British Columbians can’t just trust Kinder Morgan for this information. They can’t trust Kinder Morgan to provide it because they won’t. Geohazard inventory. A full record of all of the spills from Kinder Morgan pipelines. It’s like going on a date with somebody and them refusing to tell you about who they are, their background, what they’ve done — anything. They won’t tell you. “Oh no, we can’t tell you how many oil spills we’ve created, because we don’t have to.”

The National Energy Board rolls over: “Okay. We don’t need to know that either.” Well, that’s your record. If Kinder Morgan won’t share that information with the people they want to convince to allow a pipeline through in their province, what will they share?

“Just trust us” isn’t good enough. Emergency spill response plan: "Tell us what equipment you have, tell us you are ready to respond, give us your strategy for submerged oil response plans, and so on and so forth." Over 2,000 questions asked. The NEB said: "You don’t have to answer 95 percent of them."

For the province of B.C., the pages stretch on and on of questions asked but not answered by Kinder Morgan. The time to answer these questions has passed. No longer can we ask questions. The final round of questions has already passed and, alas, Kinder Morgan still refuses to share any information with British Columbia, with municipalities, with First Nations and so forth.

I’ll leave you with what the province has said to Kinder Morgan in filing for a request for them to actually produce this information. The province's and other interveners' access to the information required "to fully understand Trans Mountain's ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the project…denies the parties a meaningful opportunity to test and clarify the evidence" filed by the province. "If the review process established by the board is to be honoured, then Trans Mountain's failure must be corrected by an order compelling the filing of the required information."

The NEB rolled over and said: “You don’t have to tell us pretty much anything.” That’s clearly unacceptable. B.C. must withdraw and launch its own environmental assessment process now.

J. Thornthwaite: We believe that resource development should not come at the expense of the environment. We also know that industry requires certainty. That is why this government respects the process.

We have a principled approach to heavy-oil pipelines in British Columbia. Any heavy-oil pipeline project must satisfy five conditions before the government will consider supporting it.

The five conditions are: (1) successful completion of an environmental assessment; (2) establishment of world-leading marine oil spill response prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastlines and ocean; (3) establishment of world-leading land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems; (4) legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources to participate and benefit from the project; and (5) B.C. receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits.

The Kinder Morgan project is under the review of the National Energy Board. Our government has intervener status and is actively representing the interests of the people of British Columbia. However, we will not prejudge the project.

[1110]

Kinder Morgan, should it proceed, must meet the highest standards of environmental protection and protect the people of British Columbia from both financial and environmental risks.

The province has submitted two rounds of information requests to Kinder Morgan to fill some of our information requirements. It must meet the highest standards of environmental protection and protect the people of British Columbia from financial and environmental risks. Kinder Morgan has committed to engage with the province in full and complete consultation about the emergency management program for Trans Mountain as part of a larger consultation effort to support the development of those plans.

The province will seek information from all appropriate channels — this includes the DFO, the Ministry
[ Page 5776 ]
of Transport federally, Coast Guard, different levels of government and other agencies — to determine if the five conditions are met. This includes participating in Kinder Morgan’s emergency management program consultation process.

The five requirements provide certainty, predictability and transparency about our government’s position on any heavy-oil pipeline project proposal. We have taken a fair and reasonable approach which reflects and demands the interests of all British Columbians and our environment.

Meeting those five conditions is going to be a challenge. We set the bar very high for a reason. The responsibility for meeting the five conditions is complex and will take a great deal of effort from both industry and government.

A significant amount of work has already been done about establishing the five conditions, but we are not yet in a position to consider support for any outstanding heavy-oil pipeline in British Columbia. In fact, our system is getting recognition in other parts of Canada. In October, Quebec followed the example set by our government in creating their own seven conditions on heavy-oil pipelines, which mirror our own five. Ontario has followed British Columbia’s example by agreeing to be partners with Quebec on the seven conditions following a joint cabinet ministers meeting in November.

In summary, our government is committed to strengthening the polluter-pay principles that are already in place. This is an issue that has been raised by First Nations and environmental stakeholders and is a key component of the spill intention papers on both the marine as well as the land spill work that’s been going on.

I think that we should abide by the process, watch what’s occurring and stay firm to our five conditions before any decisions are being made.

L. Popham: “‘You’re gorgeous, baby. You’re sophisticated. You live well.’ Vancouver is Manhattan with mountains. It’s a liquid city. It’s a tomorrow city, equal parts India, China, England, France and the Pacific Northwest. It’s the cool North American sibling.” The New York Times wrote this.

People from all around the world talk about the beauty of our province, the breathtaking mountains and the incomparable harbour. It’s a great thing when other regions are doing our marketing for us with such enthusiasm as they do, but we know how good we are. We know what we have to offer.

Beauty and substance. It’s a perfect formula for economic success. Yet we don’t let our reputation do all the work. We have spent many years and a lot of money securing our brand, making sure that everybody knows we are “Super, natural British Columbia” and telling other countries we are the best place on earth.

Let it be known that Vancouver is one of the few places in the world where it’s possible to ski in the morning and sail in the afternoon. Tourism is an incredibly important part of our provincial economy. The dollars that we earn because of our incredible geographic good fortunes are in the billions. But what if, in an instant, it changed?

What if, in an instant, we heard a distress call like the one that came in from the Exxon Valdez on March 24, 1989: 270,000 barrels of crude oil were spilled into Prince William Sound. What if we got an emergency call like the one that came in from the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, when a spill started that led to 4.9 million barrels of oil leaking into the ocean? These are questions that deserve respect, and they certainly deserve an answer. We currently have oil tankers in our port, and we live with that risk today. Eight oil tankers come in and out per month.

[1115]

Kinder Morgan wishes to change the Port of Vancouver into a major oil export port, tripling the capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline to 890,000 barrels a day. This would change the number of oil tankers coming into Burrard Inlet from eight to 34 per month.

By increasing the number of tankers, we increase the risk substantially. For this reason, we need to assess the risk and decide if it’s worth it. The National Energy Board review refused to compel Kinder Morgan to answer questions about emergency management and oil spill response. Kinder Morgan does not want to disclose any of that information publicly.

This isn’t good enough for the people of B.C. It’s not even close. B.C. needs to know what we’re up against if a spill were to happen.

I’ve read that the cost estimates of a major spill in Vancouver harbour are as high as $80 billion. This is direct cost and ongoing environmental costs combined. Just ask Alaska what happens when, instead of a pristine coastline as a marketing image, the oil-soaked carcass of a sea otter is the face of tourism.

The Alaska tourism industry lost 26,000 jobs and $2.4 billion immediately after Exxon Valdez and another $2.8 billion over the next decade. The total loss for tourism alone was $5.2 billion. In the gulf the oil bitumen has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. The devastation that it continues to cause for sea life is a nightmare. Scientists are seeing rates of disease and death in sea creatures increase even though the oil is out of sight.

What does Kinder Morgan have to say about that? They don’t have much to say because the process the Kinder Morgan application is undergoing is completely flawed. It’s an undemocratic process that is as clear as a tide pool full of bitumen. The National Energy Board compelled Kinder Morgan to answer only 5 percent of questions asked, and public participation was not valued.

The people of B.C. have serious concerns that stem from watching horrendous oil spills take place around us. The people of B.C. have questions because they know that after 35 years Prince William Sound is still leaching
[ Page 5777 ]
oil. The people of B.C. have questions because they know that money can’t fix everything and that in most cases there’s no such thing as cleaning up an oil spill since only 10 percent of the oil gets recovered.

As New Democrats, we call on the province of British Columbia to immediately give 30 days notice and withdraw from the NEB process. What we need is a strong, made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process. We need an environmental assessment plan that is worthy of something “Super, natural.” We need a plan that reflects the value of “The best place on earth.” The environment and the economy are connected, and nowhere is it more clear than when it comes to tourism. It seems that oil spill tourism is a really hard sell.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to be here this morning to speak to this topic. I’m a little bit amazed after listening to my colleague from across the floor, from Saanich South, talk about Vancouver. This is a province. This is a huge province. It entails more than just Vancouver. It entails all of British Columbia, and this is a very important issue to all the people in British Columbia.

Our government believes in sound resource environmental management. We believe that the process is in place. Our government has put five very strong subjects on the table that must be met before the Kinder Morgan could ever become a reality. We also believe in working with our partners the federal government. To have two different environmental processes in British Columbia would chase all the investors away, believe you me.

There isn’t another province in Canada or anywhere else that has such stringent regulations and rules about environmental projects as British Columbia does. If you look closely at the five conditions — look closely, understand them — you would not be taking the position that the opposition is to slow down progress and discourage investment in British Columbia.

Interjections.

D. Barnett: Yes, go ahead.

[1120]

You know, other provinces are following our strong environmental regulatory regime and our strong wish to see that the environment is well taken care of in all aspects. So I’m quite shocked that anybody would want to slow down processes and not have faith and confidence in our federal government process, which we certainly believe in.

We used to have two processes, one federal and one provincial, and we decided to change it so there’s one process but we participate. The provincial government is registered as an intervener and has asked many questions at the hearings through their legal…. The opposition, I understand, is not an intervener but a commentator, which is totally different than an intervener.

S. Chandra Herbert: We don’t get answers either.

D. Barnett: A commentator does not get the opportunity to get answers, but an intervener does.

I believe our government is taking the right steps. We will continue to protect the environment, protect the economy and protect this great, beautiful province of British Columbia.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to speak to this motion brought forward by my colleague urging the B.C. government to withdraw from this broken process and to establish a made-in-B.C. process that will have some credibility.

I know all the members of this chamber understand the crucial importance of the review process for this project, which represents a huge risk to the economy and the environment of British Columbia but with relatively little benefit. British Columbians deserve an independent and thorough public inquiry in which those who wish to participate can do so and in which all of the important questions raised by this project receive fulsome answers. Unfortunately, this isn’t what’s happening.

As we all know, the Kinder Morgan heavy-oil pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby will triple the throughput on the existing pipeline, which will significantly increase the risk to the terrestrial environment.

The risk is even more significant to our marine environment. The number of oil tankers coming into Burrard Inlet, from eight to 34 per month, puts at risk our largest salmon river and tens of thousands of jobs that depend on this environmental treasure and a clean marine environment. I’ve raised the issue in the House of the grave situation facing our endangered resident orca. This project will significantly increase that risk to a species which we are legally obliged to protect.

What about the benefits? The oil from the new pipeline won’t be refined in British Columbia. It won’t be sold to local consumers or used to meet Canada’s energy needs but instead will be shipped by tanker to foreign markets. Kinder Morgan itself estimates that the pipeline will create 50 full-time jobs compared to the tens of thousands that may be put at risk by a marine spill.

Is the NEB process living up to the job? Unfortunately not. The NEB, essentially, has corrupted the integrity of the review — I know that’s strong language, but that’s really what’s happening — resulting in many British Columbians and organizations being unfairly prevented from sharing their concerns. The NEB has even refused oral cross-examination of Trans Mountain’s submission. If you’re talking about shocking, that, to me, is shocking.

Even more disturbing is that Kinder Morgan is simply refusing to answer many of the questions being posed by the interveners, and the NEB is doing nothing about it. It’s been stated before that out of 2,000 questions submitted and not answered by Trans Mountain, the review
[ Page 5778 ]
has allowed 95 percent of those questions to be rejected.

The members opposite talk about the five conditions, the environmental conditions. How can the provincial government expect to determine whether those conditions are being met if its own questions — 80 in all — are not being answered by the process?

[1125]

A couple of examples of the questions. “Please provide a full record of oil spills from Kinder Morgan pipelines.” “Please provide a copy of Trans Mountain’s emergency response plan and any other plan that describes what the company does in the event of a spill.” They seem to me pretty relevant questions. If you don’t get the answers to those questions, then how can the province determine whether its so-called five conditions are going to be met?

Another question: “Is Trans Mountain prepared to ensure automatic funding is available up front to municipalities to participate in incident management immediately once the need arises?” All of these questions are being ignored by Trans Mountain, by Kinder Morgan. The NEB is doing nothing about it to ensure that they’re answered.

Another very serious concern with the process is the limited scope of the review. For example, it excludes climate change, the most pressing environmental problem British Columbia faces. It’s been completely precluded from the review by the NEB.

Another critical question — and this is quite amazing — an issue that’s been omitted from the process, is the critical question of the liability for the costs for cleaning up the spill — although, as my colleague has pointed out, only 80 to 90 percent of the spill gets cleaned up anyway — and the damages arising from that spill. That issue has been precluded from review by the NEB.

A major oil spill on the southern coast of British Columbia would likely cost billions of dollars in cleanup costs, although most of the bitumen would not be cleaned up.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Holman: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I summarize: please withdraw from this process and start a valid, made-in-B.C. review.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak on the issue of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and in support of the current National Energy Board process.

My constituents, I would point out, have a very direct interest in the pipeline, 95 kilometres of which run right through the centre of my riding. The pipeline is 1,150 kilometres long, from Edmonton through to Port Moody, and 8 percent of it runs through my riding. So this is important to my constituents.

I want, first, to affirm some things. Our economy depends on oil, and I’m not opposed to that. We have achieved an unparalleled lifestyle in our present era. We live better lives than any generation at any point in history, in part due to the presence of abundant, cheap energy.

I don’t understand the current opposition to oil in principle. Our economy runs on oil. Those who oppose oil still fly around in airplanes. They still drive cars. They eat food that’s been transported by oil-burning vehicles. Everything we use every day, from engines to finished lumber, uses oil in the manufacturing process. We all use all sorts of plastic and wear clothing that was made through our petrochemical industry.

I don’t believe that environmentalists who oppose oil on principle are willing to stop using it. I don’t believe that they want to take a serious hit to their own lifestyle — and certainly not the broader electorate. If we were to try to run our economy on solar or wind power, the cost would be prohibitive and we would all be very poor indeed.

I think it would be great if we had another abundant, cheap and clean source of energy that could maintain our lifestyle. In that regard I certainly support the Site C dam and the development of our hydro resources, but until some kind of new technology comes along or current technologies are much refined, we should not reject that which is the lifeblood of every industrial economy in the world.

Second, I want to affirm pipelines. I support pipelines to carry oil over every other alternative. Kinder Morgan’s pipeline has run through the Chilliwack area since the mid-’50s without any major incident. In fact, most people who live in the Chilliwack area did not even know there was a pipeline — running through even their backyards — until the current application by Kinder Morgan.

It’s been very safe and, I would submit, is a much safer way to transport oil than train or tanker truck. We all know that there’s been a story yesterday. In northern Ontario a derailment has caused a fire. A train was carrying oil.

I want to commend Kinder Morgan for reaching out to myself and my constituents. The company has been very responsive. It’s been very accessible. It’s provided lots of information. They’ve even held seminars in my riding, reaching out to local businesses. They’re willing to hire locally and supply benefits to my community.

[1130]

I want to affirm, also, the five principles that the Premier has set for the approval of any oil pipeline in B.C. First is a full environmental assessment. That involves exhaustive hearings at the National Energy Board level. I think it would be silly to withdraw from them. World-class oil spill response on land or on sea are the second and third principles. Benefits for and approval of First Nations is the fourth, and B.C.’s fair share is the fifth.

These are not arbitrary principles. They’re not pulled out of the air. They’re natural principles, they’re logical principles, and I support them fully. I think, also, that
[ Page 5779 ]
Kinder Morgan agrees with them. They support them as well, and I hope that we can get to yes on the Kinder Morgan pipeline using the current regulatory process.

I want to remind Kinder Morgan of one thing in closing. It’s something that I said directly to them. Senior officials came to my riding about a year ago, and I said directly to them that there must never be a spill in my riding. It’s my duty as an MLA to make sure that there won’t be, and that means cutting down the risk of a spill to as close to zero as we possibly can.

This is necessary for social licence. Social licence is becoming increasingly important for projects like this. Kinder Morgan needs to continue to demonstrate its concern for public safety. It ought to be eagerly rushing to meet our five conditions and publicly describing how it’s doing so, which would help Kinder Morgan earn that social licence, which is key to the success of the entire industry, not just Kinder Morgan. It would help us to get to yes, and that’s what I want for the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

J. Shin: I’m very eager to rise on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed today to speak on this critical motion calling on our government to immediately withdraw from the National Energy Board’s review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the tanker project and, really, to establish a rigorous, made-in-B.C. environmental assessment so that British Columbians, municipalities, First Nations and, most importantly for myself as a representative, my constituents of Burnaby-Lougheed, whose homes, whose schools and parks this project is planning to ram right through…. They need to be able to fully participate and finally get the answers they deserve on oil spill response, emergency planning, financial implications as well as climate change.

I actually don’t believe that anyone with sound logic and unadulterated intentions can come to anything other than to oppose the current NEB review when considering the key facts on this Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion and its application process to date. As we know, Kinder Morgan is a foreign multinational corporation based out of Texas proposing to build this new heavy oil pipeline carrying diluted bitumen from Alberta to Burnaby, unrefined and for non-local use, tripling the current capacity to 890,000 barrels per day.

What’s in it for us? What’s in it for us in Burnaby, where this new route will drill through the Simon Fraser mountain to the Burrard Inlet, the northern border of my constituency? When we look at the economics of it, this project, at its peak construction, will likely be built by foreign temporary workers and, in its long term, only end up creating about 50 full-time jobs — 50 full-time jobs. To put that in perspective, let’s compare that with the film industry, which can bring in 2,000 jobs and $350 million worth of revenue from spinoffs and indirect benefits that our city can get.

Over the course of construction and the first 20 years of operation, Trans Mountain’s annual tax bill for Burnaby specifically will go from $7 million a year to a mere $13.2 million a year at best, which will account for just about a 3 percent increase in a city with an annual operating budget of $230 million. Even our local board of trade sees this as an example of how economic benefits of a project of this type do not flow to those jurisdictions like Burnaby that are assuming the most risk.

Burnaby is not the small town that it was decades ago, when the existing pipelines were placed. It is now the third-largest city in British Columbia, with nearly a quarter million residents, and this newly proposed pipeline will pass through some of our most urban, densely populated cores without fully disclosing its plans for spill or emergency response, if it even has any that are credible.

[1135]

Burnaby has already seen 40,000 barrels of oil leaked from existing Kinder Morgan pipeline, including two major spills since 2007. So I’m lost for words that our provincial government is still taking a back seat and letting the NEB and the Harper federal government deal with a company whose idea of a response on an oil spill is that oil spills can create cleanup jobs.

My constituents, many of whom have called Burnaby their home for decades, take real pride in the fact that we have urban amenities while being able to protect over a quarter of our land as parks with open waterways. They have every and all the right to be fully consulted and answered for a project like this that they’re planning to ram through our community, but, unfortunately and rather outrageously, the National Energy Board review of this project has been disturbingly undemocratic.

Out of 2,000 questions that are submitted and not answered by Trans Mountain, the review allowed 95 percent to be rejected and only held the company responsible to answer 5 percent. So 5 percent of the questions were answered.

The review refused to answer even the provincial government’s questions and refused oral cross-examination of Trans Mountain’s submissions. Not only are the municipalities across B.C. calling on the provincial government to restore a full public hearing process to the NEB’s review of the Kinder Morgan application, but my constituents — young to old, Italians to Chinese, academia to businesses — are voicing their concerns at great lengths. Hundreds of them are going as far as protesting on drill sites, many of them even getting arrested in the process, and some are sued in multi-million lawsuits by the company.

This government has the responsibility to respond to people’s calls, and it is about time that the Premier does stand up and take back control and let British Columbia decide.

R. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this motion.
[ Page 5780 ]

We all know this is an issue of utmost importance to all British Columbians. British Columbians themselves have differing and often strong opinions on this issue. To that point, about having a strong opinion, our government, from the beginning, has been crystal clear. Before British Columbia supports any new heavy-oil pipeline project, it must meet our five conditions.

One of these five conditions is that “legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed and our First Nations are provided with the opportunity, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project.”

I represent a constituency where Kinder Morgan’s current and proposed pipelines for exporting heavy oils do not go through but are very close by. Some residents of Burnaby North are concerned about an increase of oil tanker traffic in and out of Burrard Inlet.

The proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion also goes through many aboriginal communities — more than 50, in fact. The Coast Salish people and particularly the Tsleil-Waututh First Nations traditional territory cover this riding of Burnaby North. I know the expectation of the local First Nations.

Now I want to be perfectly clear here. Our government is not speaking on behalf of this or any other First Nations. It’s simply the fact that we have laid out our position that as a condition for British Columbia’s support, aboriginal and treaty rights must be addressed, and First Nations must be able to benefit from heavy-oil pipeline projects.

This is a clear reflection of our ongoing commitment to economic development in partnership with First Nations. We do not find it at all appropriate that First Nations must shoulder risk from the proposed pipelines or other natural resource development projects. Rather, First Nations must be willing partners that have a stake in economic growth and environmental protection.

[1140]

Associated with our condition regarding First Nations expectations that proponents need to meet…. There are 11 of these expectations. They include: recognizing the nature of First Nations' connection to the land or traditional territories; providing opportunities for First Nations' involvement in the planning of any project; offering greater opportunities to address cultural issues, economic priorities and environmental values; establishing a commitment to provide employment, training and education opportunities to First Nation community members; modifying development plans to mitigate potential impacts on aboriginal rights.

As an example of this expectation, should consultation reveal that the project may need to be modified to protect a culturally sensitive area, the proponent would be expected to modify plans accordingly.

Another expectation to the proponent is to provide an opportunity for First Nations to participate in equity-, profit- or benefit-sharing in the project and the offering of financial support for an environmental assessment or traditional use studies by First Nations. Of course, the proponent must also seek First Nations' input into and involvement in environmental protection measures, potential remediation measures and environmental monitoring.

Our government has always pursued a principled approach to any proposed heavy-oil pipeline projects in B.C. We are not going to prejudge any application, but we will be firm that proponents must meet the five conditions, the five principles, including one to distinctly address the rights of First Nations before B.C. would even consider supporting it.

British Columbia has intervener status at the review, and we will continue to stand up for all British Columbians on Kinder Morgan’s application, including our First Nations. It makes absolutely no sense for B.C. to withdraw from the review, lose our ability to question the company and not be a full-fledged participant.

K. Corrigan: The B.C. government has handed control of the Kinder Morgan review process to the federal government. It has proven so inadequate and so flawed that it is time for B.C. to withdraw and undertake its own environmental assessment.

I find it interesting that many of the members opposite have talked about having faith in the process and the fact that there are five conditions which must be in place. These are the same five conditions that were in place with the northern gateway project — the same five conditions that caused the provincial government ultimately to reject it. But the project was approved anyway by the very people that we have been asked to have faith in. I don’t understand that argument at all.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the economic concerns around Kinder Morgan and the review process being conducted by the National Energy Board, including some of the economic risks to my community of Burnaby.

Kinder Morgan has already had two leaks in Burnaby, including one spill which had significant environmental and economic impact. That spill was relatively minor — it only lasted for 20 minutes or so — but it ruined several properties, cost millions of dollars and was the subject of lawsuits.

So the question is: why should my — or any other — city be obliged to take on the risk of providing, for example, police and fire protection for a project of this magnitude with these great risks, particularly when the risks have not even been evaluated?

Recently the Minister of Justice sent a letter to the city of Burnaby saying that it had no responsibility for policing the protesters who were up in Burnaby Mountain. So we have a precedent of exactly how much this province is going to do and how much they’re going to back up municipalities in the case of future spills or disasters.

[ Page 5781 ]
I’m concerned that my community and other communities along the route are going to take on all of the risks and all of the impact. We have no idea, nor does the province, of the economic risks associated with the Kinder Morgan proposal. That’s a significant concern in my community and across the country, where support for the oil industry is falling.

My colleague mentioned that the board of trade has also expressed significant concerns. They’re not satisfied with the process. Right across the community — whether it’s citizens groups, boards of trade — everyone is concerned about the potential impact on our community. And for what? For 50 permanent jobs, according to Kinder Morgan’s own submission.

[1145]

This shocking response, or I should say non-response, from Kinder Morgan to the questions asked by interveners, and the arrogance and disdain it reflects, are reason enough alone to reject the process and to demand that we bring back environmental evaluation. It is proof to me that this never should have happened. The province should not have abdicated that responsibility.

I am not comforted, as I said earlier, that while the province ultimately rejected the northern gateway project, it was nevertheless approved by those that this Liberal government has abdicated its responsibility to.

It concerns me that the province not only handed over assessment to the federal government, but for this project — as opposed to the northern gateway project — it did not even ask questions about the economics of the project, including revenue estimates, financial risks to the province, insurance costs and coverage. No requests for a risk assessment of the potential effects on key resources at risk, including financial risk.

If there is a major spill in our harbour or on our waterways, the financial and environmental implications will be multigenerational. Imagine no cruise ships, no tourists, conventions cancelled for years. Imagine the risk to our port. Imagine the risk to the very economic foundations of this province.

In this process, Kinder Morgan has said that these concerns are irrelevant to their application because their responsibility stops where the pipe meets the tanker. Kinder Morgan has been given about $140 million tax-free to finance their application, to finance their advertising campaigns, at no risk to their shareholders by being allowed a surcharge by the federal government, and tax-free in addition. So they’re getting their way paid while taxpayers are asked to absorb the costs of questioning this.

I would support this motion. I think it’s a very important motion. We need to withdraw from this process. We need to withdraw from the NEB process in order to protect the future of our province.

J. Martin: I would like to thank the member for this opportunity to clarify the NDP’s position on pipelines in general and the Kinder Morgan pipeline in particular.

For our part, the government has been very clear from the outset on heavy-oil pipelines in British Columbia. Any heavy-oil pipeline project must satisfy our five conditions — these are clearly laid out — before this government will even consider supporting it.

The five conditions set out by the government call for world-leading safety standards, strict prevention measures, the inclusion of First Nations, proper environmental assessments and an insistence that B.C. receives a fair share of any economic benefit. Any pipeline proponent is well aware they must satisfy all of these conditions before the government will allow a pipeline to be built.

The question is where does the NDP stand on all of this? On the subject of resource development in particular, the current leader of the NDP said: “If we’re going to be a governing party, we have to demonstrate that we’re prepared to grow the economy.”

I get a lot of grief from various quarters within the NDP and outside the NDP, and I’m okay with that. I’m going to continue to work for the next 2½ years to demonstrate to the broader population that New Democrats do understand that job creation requires — in B.C., the north — resource development.

Fair enough. You might want to hold that thought for a few moments though. Now the leader of the NDP is getting some grief both inside and outside his own party. This suggests to me that the party is still deeply divided on this subject matter. It sounds to me that the leader intends to drag his party — kicking and screaming, no doubt — into a particular direction regardless of where the party may want to go.

For example, just prior to the last election the former leader of the NDP insisted he was neutral on Kinder Morgan, saying that as a matter of principle, he would wait until the company came out with a final proposal on the project before making up his mind. And then we heard the boom from one end of the province to the other. Eleven days later on Earth Day, the leader of the NDP dropped the bombshell of his own party right in the middle of an election, unilaterally declaring that he opposed the Kinder Morgan….

Deputy Speaker: I’d remind the member that this is Monday morning and private members’ time. We were doing so well up to now.

[1150]

J. Martin: I do apologize for bringing up the last election. I know it’s a touchy matter, but I’ve always been a sucker for happy endings. You have to cut me a little bit of slack here.

Okay. So where does the NDP actually stand on Kinder Morgan? Well, speaking to radio station CHNL about the Kinder Morgan proposed pipeline, the current leader said: “I think we need to be more flexible.” The current leader
[ Page 5782 ]
is later quoted as saying: “It’s their job to demonstrate to the public to get to the social licence, and I believe they should have every opportunity to make that case.”

But my friend the member from Vancouver–West End, who moved this motion, by the way, has said repeatedly — repeatedly — that he opposes the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline. So perhaps the members of the opposition would do us all a favour and clearly state once and for all for British Columbians, for this House and for everybody else: what exactly is the NDP position on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline?

G. Heyman: In response to the member for Chilliwack, let me clearly state that the New Democratic Party stands for protecting B.C.’s environment, for rigorous, scientifically based environmental assessment, for protecting the interests of British Columbians with a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process and for protecting British Columbians’ jobs — something that I have not heard from any speaker on the other side this morning.

I’ve listened somewhat incredulously to the talking points from speakers on the other side of the House, talking about protecting the environment with five conditions, talking about economic certainty, talking about supporting development for jobs in B.C. Well, what about the jobs in tourism, in recreation and in fisheries that would be placed at risk by an oil spill from this pipeline or the tankers at the end of the pipeline? Those are the things we’re talking about.

If this government really believed in the five conditions it put forward, it would not place the imposition of those five conditions in the hands of a federal government that clearly has no interest in them whatsoever.

We’re talking about a project that will triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline to 890,000 barrels per day or — put another way, by estimates that are credibly produced — ship over 36,000 jobs out of this country — 36,000 jobs from the shipping of 890,000 barrels of crude diluted bitumen. Is that the fair share of benefits that this government wants us to believe in? I would say it is not.

Others have spoken about Kinder Morgan arguing before the National Energy Board that oil spills can have positive effects, positive effects, because spill response and cleanup create business and employment opportunities. Perhaps that’s the fair share to which members opposite are referring.

This process is flawed. It’s not open, it’s not democratic, and it’s not scientifically based. Out of 2,000 questions that were submitted, 95 percent were rejected and only 5 percent were allowed by the NEB. The review refused to compel Kinder Morgan to answer questions about emergency management and oil spill response.

Even the provincial government found that unsatisfactory. In response, the government said: “Trans Mountain’s failure to file the evidence requested by the province in information request No. 1 denies the board, the province and other interveners access to the information required to fully understand the risk posed by the project.”

How can we have faith in an environmental assessment review process that has those kinds of limitations, which even the government itself rejects? Why will this government not withdraw from the equivalency agreement and institute a made-in-B.C., rigorous, science-based environmental assessment process so that we can assure British Columbians that our interests will be protected?

In the absence of that, that’s why so many citizens in Burnaby took to the mountain in peaceful protest, in civil disobedience, and risked arrest in order to have their voices heard — because this government would not stand up for them.

[1155]

Because of the scope and impact of this project, people have a right to expect that the review process will hear them, that their questions will be answered, and that they’ll be answered publicly.

Unfortunately, the Premier and her government have given away that right of British Columbians with the equivalency agreement. That’s why we’re calling on this government to withdraw today, with 30 days’ notice, and allow a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process.

We’ve heard about the five conditions. They are five empty conditions. The provincial government is saying what it believes the people of B.C. want to hear with these five conditions, but it’s hiding behind the federal government and the National Energy Board. That’s not good enough.

British Columbians deserve better. This government could give them better if it meant what it said. It could withdraw. Withdraw today and institute a made-in-B.C. process.

G. Heyman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 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