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, October 26, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 1

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

MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

SMALL BUSINESSES IN PORT MOODY

L. Reimer: You may have noticed that government is placing a special focus on our small businesses all through the month of October. October is Small Business Month.

[1005]

Now, this is more than just a month-long celebration of the 380,000 small businesses that currently operate in British Columbia. It is more than just simple recognition that small business accounts for one-third of our provincial economy, and it isn’t just about the fact that small businesses employ over one million British Columbians.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

No, Small Business Month is about people — people who work hard every day to make their dream a success. We’re talking about small enterprises consisting of 50 people or less. We are also talking about the self-employed, people who are confident of themselves and are not afraid of the ups and downs of that that come along with owning your own small business. It is because of these people that our government believes their contribution to British Columbia should be recognized, and we’re doing that in a very substantial way.

The following is a top-ten list of how we are helping the small business sector. We’ve implemented the B.C. small business accord to guide government interactions with small business. Announced in 2012 with the goal of making British Columbia the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada, the B.C. small business accord was created after extensive consultation with the private sector.

It is comprised of three main principles. First, foster a regulatory environment that small business can access, navigate and influence effectively and efficiently. Second, consider the needs of all business in policy and program decisions to enhance business certainty. And third, foster collaboration among all levels of government, including First Nations, so that all our public resources are properly aligned and working in the interest of the small business community.

Continuing on with our top-ten list, two, we ensure that small businesses have access to the information, tools and resources they need to thrive through B.C.’s premier resource centre, Small Business B.C. Small Business B.C. is British Columbia’s premier resource centre for business information and services related to starting, growing or exiting a small business.

Third, we continue to streamline and simplify government processes to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. For the business community, one of the greatest overhead costs is excessive regulation and red tape. It is more than just a burden on the private sector. Excessive regulation and red tape can be a job-killer, especially when many of these rules date back to a bygone era and no longer have any relevance in our current context.

Fourth, we are committed to continuing to reduce taxes for small business. To that end, we’ve reduced the small business corporate tax rate to 2.5 percent from 4.5 percent since 2001, and we’ve increased the threshold at which the small business rate applies. It’s $500,000, up from $300,000. In addition, we are giving small business owners a further 40 percent tax cut by lowering the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to 1.5 percent no later than the 2017-18 fiscal year, with at least a 0.5 reduction by 2015-2016.

Fifth, we are encouraging individuals and companies to invest in small business through increased access to venture capital. As part of the B.C. jobs plan, the small business venture capital program’s value was increased in 2012 by $3 million to $33 million and enables equity investment up to $110 million yearly.

Sixth, we will continue to improve on-line access to permit and licensing information from three levels of government through an enhanced BizPaL service. BizPaL is a web-based service that makes it easier and faster for businesses to identify federal, provincial and local government permit and licence requirements to start a business.

Seventh, we will continue to work with our local government partners to expand the mobile business licence program. This program is an intermunicipal licence that reduces red tape by allowing mobile businesses — such as contractors and caterers, for example — to operate in more than one municipality by purchasing one add-on licence rather than obtaining non-resident licences in each municipality in which they operate.

Eighth, we provide small businesses with a voice to government through the Small Business Roundtable. The Small Business Roundtable brings together small business owners and industry association leaders to provide advice and recommendations to government and to improve the small business environment in British Columbia.

Ninth, we are streamlining government procurement processes that will generate more bid activity for small businesses. A simplified RFP process to two pages for
[ Page 9716 ]
contracts worth less than $250,000 was launched in April 2014 to improve small business access to selling their goods and services to government.

[1010]

Tenth, we will manage and track government activities supporting small businesses in the province. The government will track key action items that support the B.C. small business accord and make sure they are consistent with the B.C. jobs plan, support B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint and reflect government’s responses to recommendations by the Small Business Roundtable.

All of these initiatives will support the small business community in Port Moody.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and respond to the statement from the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam and to speak on Small Business Month and recognize the importance of Small Business Month in October — not only to recognize the contributions of small businesses in B.C. in October but, certainly, the value and benefits that they bring British Columbians year-round.

We know that there are over 382,000 small businesses employing many British Columbians across our province and that small business owners are some of the hardest-working people in the province. Their work makes an essential contribution to both community life and our province’s economy. This October we’re celebrating these businesses during Small Business Month.

I’d also like to add my comments that the opposition, continuing our commitment to stand up for fairness…. We, the NDP, have a track record of supporting and recognizing the importance of small business in B.C.

Hearing some of the comments from the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, I’d also like to mention that with respect to the small business accord, it’s important that we ensure that the government is accountable.

While we’ve heard that there were promises for procurement — up to 20 percent for local procurement — it still remains to be seen, in terms of a commitment towards that, with difficulties around the government not being able to outline how they can measure that number. Certainly, beyond the claim and those promises, we need to ensure that we have results delivered to the small business community and it’s not just platitudes.

Having the ability to measure those numbers and to ensure that we can track that is important, and that’s missing. It’s something that the government needs to really implement to back up that claim.

As well, with respect to ensuring that regulations are addressed, one of the areas we’ve heard that has been raised, which has actually resulted in a record number of new regulations coming in, is around the new recycling regulations. We’ve just heard from many small businesses about the reams of new red tape that are being created that are really having a negative impact on small businesses with Multi-Material B.C.

These are areas that need to be addressed and need to be taken seriously by the government when we hear about the commitment to reducing red tape and recognizing the impact on small business.

As well, we have heard that there was a commitment to create a small business mentoring initiative. So far, we haven’t heard an update on that. So that’s an important area to support that process.

I really want to highlight the one area where we can have a great impact on our community and on our economy in supporting small business, and that’s with regards to our procurement process. On the one hand, we’ve heard there are steps taking place. We need to measure that and ensure that that’s being brought in for procurement under $250,000. But also, there are opportunities for procurement over $200,000. Those are opportunities that B.C. businesses can benefit from, and we have to ensure that that’s delivered.

In terms of the broader context around supporting not only small business but…. The success of small business also results from British Columbians having more money in their pocket.

[1015]

This is also in terms of ensuring that the issues of inequality are addressed in our province — this undermines the strength and vibrancy of our local economies, particularly impacting small businesses — not only reducing the regulatory burden and minimizing the cost of living but also ensuring that the cost of doing business is affordable.

One of those big inputs around costs is ensuring, for example, that B.C. Hydro costs and hydro rates are kept as low as possible. We’ve seen, really, rising costs on hydro raising the tax burden on British Columbians through the shift in hidden taxes — increasing tuition fees, increasing medical service premiums and as informal taxes.

The opposition remains committed to small businesses in B.C. and very pleased to speak of the importance of October as Small Business Month.

L. Reimer: I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her response.

Naturally, I would be remiss if I did not name some of the best-run small businesses in my riding of Port Moody–Coquitlam. Askara Goldsmithing is home to stunning jewelry in Port Moody. The St. James Well serves some of the most delicious food in Port Moody. The new Brew Street Craft and Kitchen is a highly popular spot in my riding, and the Saint Street Grill in Port Moody always serves it up right with fabulous dinners.

The Current Scientific Corp. in Port Moody is the manufacturer of the Night Navigator series of day- and night-vision camera systems installed on boats worldwide. Moody Ales brewery in Port Moody promotes fellow brewers and even has a very popular guest tap.
[ Page 9717 ]

The Oh Pharmacy takes very good care of people in the Coquitlam portion of my riding. Hanna Reality in Coquitlam can compete with the best of real estate services.

All of these small enterprises are flourishing in my community because of their hard work and dedication to excellence. That’s why we owe it to the small business community to support them by making their interaction with government easier.

It is a fact that the private sector is the main source of jobs in the province. If you look even closer, you will discover that small businesses make up 98 percent of all business in the province and small business employs over one million people. We owe it to them to create the best environment for them to flourish rather than hinder them with outdated and unnecessary regulation.

In conclusion, the provincial government will continue to engage small business owners and operators to ensure that we are the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada and in the world.

KEEPING LOCAL ECONOMIES AFLOAT

C. Trevena: Our province has a complex geography — communities nestled in valleys in the Kootenays, communities separated from their nearest neighbour by hundreds of kilometres in the north, communities on islands in the Pacific. To ensure that B.C. society and economy functions, we rely on a complex infrastructure: highways cutting through mountain passes, ferries crossing rivers and lakes, empty roads which unfold for those hundreds upon hundreds of empty kilometres and yet more ferries crossing from Canada’s mainland to the islands and between those islands.

No one questions we need these links. Otherwise, people couldn’t get to work, goods couldn’t get to market, and children couldn’t get to school. Our transportation infrastructure is essential for contemporary society. What is surprising, however, is that while most of this infrastructure is paid for by the government with public funds, those endless kilometres of highways where no one lives, those mountain passes, the four- or six-lane highways and even the ferries on rivers and lakes….

There is no question there will be an investment of public dollars to keep them open, to keep the connection at no charge or cost for the user. After all, people pay their taxes, and they know their taxes pay for roads, for inland ferries, for highways, for passes and for the majority of our bridges. They know it’s important to ensure that our economy keeps working.

Nobody questions that across the province every year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on snow clearance, on maintenance, on line-painting, on brushing, on patching, on rebuilding and on reinforcing.

Nobody questions public dollars being used to build new ferries for the lakes and the rivers and the ease of their use, driving on and off without paying a dime because everyone knows this is important for our economy — not just the economy of the communities or regions served but the economy of the whole province.

We want to make sure those communities are connected. We acknowledge it’s important for our society and for economy and for all of us.

[1020]

The unfortunate anomaly is the coastal ferry system, our marine highway. On this vital connection for our province, the users pay. Individuals, families, seniors and businesses all pay. While most people actually do expect to pay something for using the marine highways, although they will look enviously and longingly at those free inland ferries, they don’t expect to be penalized for working and living along the marine highway rather than an empty stretch of, let’s say, Highway 37, Highway 97 or Highway 93. But penalized they are.

Since the failed attempt to privatize B.C. Ferries by the B.C. Liberal government, ferry users have been faced with fares that have become completely unsupportable. On some routes, they’ve risen by more than 140 percent. Even when they’re allegedly reigned in, they’re still rising at a rate higher than inflation.

This isn’t a minor irritant. It’s critical for families, and life and death for many businesses. When we pay more than $30 for one person with their car on a ten-minute crossing, you can see there’s a serious problem. When property values sink in communities, you know there are more problems. When you see businesses struggle and, in some instances, collapse because of costs imposed on their highway system, there is something seriously wrong.

Ferries simply cannot be allowed to operate on the cost recovery model for operating capital costs, as happens now. We’ve already seen the results. Economies are suffering.

B.C. is a maritime province. Our communities are linked by an ocean. You just have to look out the front door of this Legislature to see that. Why can we not accommodate that reality in our transportation infrastructure?

Two years ago the B.C. Liberals cut services around the coast in what they said was an attempt to make B.C. Ferries sustainable. I have to question the use of that most hackneyed word in the contemporary lexicon. These changes impacted communities across B.C. Sandspit lost any service during the evening. Imagine rolling up the road to Burns Lake at six at night.

Schedules were changed around the system, directly impacting business in cities such as Campbell River or Nanaimo and communities, whether they be Powell River or Bowen Island. The northern links were decimated. Major cuts were made in the Port Hardy–Prince Rupert–Skidegate service. This damaged local businesses, from furniture sales through to grocery stores. Goods were held up and connections severed.

Tourism in Port Hardy, Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert all suffered a major blow. The link between Bella Bella
[ Page 9718 ]
and Bella Coola was cut. The vessel disappeared. The direct route became a 16-hour milk run. A growing tourism economy from Bella Coola through to Williams Lake in the Interior has been devastated. Lodges have closed. Businesses have folded. This is not just a coastal problem. These cuts were made with no economic impact analysis. Two years on, you can see the impact — disastrous, in any economic terms.

Now there are planned schedule changes for the southern Gulf Islands, changes that will drastically alter the connections that have developed between those communities and will damage the already tenuous economies. Those changes are being made for the convenience of a quasi-private corporation, B.C. Ferries, despite loud protestations from the communities impacted.

One has to ask how a corporation has the right to decide the future development of any community. But that’s the case when the government allowed B.C. Ferries to change schedules and increase fares, which have a direct impact on these communities.

To keep our economies afloat, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that the ferry system works for those communities — the families, the businesses who work and live on the coast, those who contribute to our economy and make our society — as it makes sure there are highways to Vanderhoof and Fort St. James.

It’s not just the schedules, but as I mentioned earlier, the cost of using the system has become prohibitive — prohibitive for the highway to your home or business. It’s inconceivable to see how that’s happened, but it has.

B.C. Ferries has recently introduced a promotion, the latest — a 50 percent cut in ticket prices for certain sailings. It shows that they know that if you cut the cost of travel, more people will use the service. There’s no question that if there was a permanent rollback, ridership would increase, which would be good for B.C. Ferries, the coastal communities and for B.C.’s economy as a whole. But a promotion isn’t a long-term solution.

[1025]

The Islands Trust has issued an economic report which recommends rolling back fares by 25 percent across the board. When you see that, on average, fares have increased by more than 100 percent and there’s going to be a 2 percent increase each year for the next four years, this seems quite a modest proposal. But it would be a start. It would give families and businesses a bit of a break — rolling back the fares permanently.

I’ll take my place and hear what the government side has to say.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I remind the members that private members’ statements are non-partisan.

D. McRae: Hon. Speaker, I am going to take your words to heart and try to avoid the partisanship. In part of my speech, I was going to talk about how, when the NDP were in power, they would only put $5 million a year into the B.C. Ferries system, not the $180 million that we happened to put into it this year alone or the fact that they raised ferry fares by 72 percent during their time in power or that B.C. Ferries’ debt increased by 1,800 percent.

Instead I’m going to actually celebrate the positive. First of all, I want to recognize the men and women who work in the B.C. ferry system, whether it be far south in the Tsawwassen–Swartz Bay run or up into northern British Columbia, if we use the Haida Gwaii runs. They work in all sorts of weather. Yes, we see them on a beautiful sunny day and think maybe this is the best workplace in British Columbia. But also they work in rough February weather as well, under trying times.

It might surprise you that the B.C. Ferries fleet is very large. It has 36 vessels. In fact, it actually has more vessels, believe it or not, than the Canadian navy has warships. The Canadian navy has 29 warships; B.C. Ferries has 36, in fact making it the largest passenger service in North America and, by some accounts, the second-largest passenger ferry service in the world. They do a great job. For example, when it comes to making their runs, 99.5 percent of the time B.C. Ferries makes it from destination to destination.

Now, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes weather causes a cancellation, and sometimes they’re called for a marine rescue. Did you know that last year alone, B.C. Ferries came to the aid of 28 marine rescues in British Columbia, helping tourists and residents alike? That’s because the men and women and the vehicles they drive are there to serve all British Columbians. If you do a Google search, you’ll see rescue after rescue where B.C. Ferries has been there.

Also, if you’ve been a resident of British Columbia for a long period of time, you may remember the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. I was a child in some of those decades, but I also remember that B.C. Ferries often had a fair amount of economic strife as they went through some of the machinations of negotiations. It was tough. But I must say that one of the things I’m proud of in this government is that in the last 15 years — it hasn’t been perfect — there have been five days of job action. There has been, on the vast majority of days, absolute certainty.

I think B.C. Ferries should be applauded, both the executive team and the workers, because they’ve been able to come up with two things that I think are very, very important for British Columbia. They have fair contracts that work for both sides — long-term contracts which provide that stability for people living on large islands like Vancouver Island, and on small islands like Cortes. They’ve done a really good job.

The members opposite often concentrate on some of the challenges. But often they never remind the residents who are watching at home about some of the great opportunities through B.C. Ferries. I don’t think I’ve heard members opposite ever once talk about the B.C. Ferries Experience Card.
[ Page 9719 ]

Now, it doesn’t work for the Swartz-Bay-to-Vancouver run; it doesn’t work for the Nanaimo-to-Horseshoe-Bay run. But if you live on one of the smaller islands you actually have the ability to go out and buy an experience card. You fill it up, if you’re a passenger, with $65 worth of usage. If you’re using your car, you’d take $115 and load it. Depending on the run and the time of day, it could save you anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of fares going back and forth, especially if you’re a regular user, perhaps like a resident or someone who actually visits one of the islands on a regular basis.

You don’t hear the members opposite bring up those experience cards, but I wanted to make sure that residents of British Columbia are well aware of them. They often don’t talk about the B.C. resident assistance programs. If you’re a student aged between five and 18 years old, and you’re travelling for a school event, sometimes your fares are reduced, and believe it or not, on many, many runs, like in my community, they’re free. Students can travel on and off the islands. Whether it is getting to school or going to a sports team or even going to a school dance, they can take it.

There are challenges. Living on an island…. Vancouver Island is one island, but if you live on a small one like Cortes Island, or if you live on Hornby or Denman islands, there are incredible challenges and sacrifices you make by making that decision. But here’s more good news.

This year we see a buck, maybe, in the trend. People are coming to Vancouver Island and using the ferries. In fact, this year the actual ferry usage is up 4 percent. Yes, the Canadian dollar is low. People are staying home, and Americans are coming to visit us. Yes, we had one of the best summer weather opportunities we’ve ever had, and people were locked in British Columbia. People were staying home. They were visiting this province.

[1030]

If you look at it, how often do we compare some of those major runs for people coming on and off the islands? For example, if I use my family travelling on and off Vancouver Island, it costs us about $105 to get on and off. By comparison, if you want to take the Washington State Ferries, Sidney to Anacortes, factoring in the exchange rate, it’s about 125 bucks for my family to leave this Island.

If you want to take the ferry that leaves our harbour here, the Coho ferry going all the way to Port Angeles — again, about $125. If you want to travel from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia — a bit of a longer trip, I get it, and you could take the bridge, I suppose, if you wanted — $215.

British Columbia Ferries is doing a great job for the residents of Vancouver Island. We continue to evolve it and make sure it serves all residents.

C. Trevena: I thank the member for the Comox Valley for his response. He represents both an area which — obviously, on Vancouver Island — is a very ferry-dependent community and represents a couple of ferry routes. But he failed to mention the Little River to Powell River run, which is one of those ones that’s being cut by the cuts in services. He also failed to mention the controversy about the cable ferry over to Denman Island that is in his constituency — again, something that this private ferry operation has set up.

He also really didn’t acknowledge the true problem with B.C. Ferries, which is the fact that we have a private corporation effectively making changes that are going to seriously impact communities, businesses and the whole of B.C.

I’d just like to pick up on one point he made on the Experience Card that I have and many other people who actually live on islands have — very useful, but you’ve got to put $115 up front on it. Ask the people who live on Penelakut or in Alert Bay or people on welfare how they’re going to find $115 just to pay for this up front.

One of the ongoing problems with ferries is that users are being asked to pay operating costs, but we’re also asked to pay capital costs. We pay the fuel, the wages and so on. But every single new dolphin, new terminal, new luxury, foreign-built ferry — we are helping to pay for it through the fares.

It doesn’t happen on the highways — through the Crowsnest Pass or up to Dease Lake. We only have two toll bridges in this province. Even on the massively over-budget Port Mann Bridge, the toll is, in comparison, minimal, and even that toll is a deterrent impacting truckers and other business users.

It doesn’t happen — that paying for capital cost — when you’re talking about users of public transport. Bus riders in Kamloops aren’t seeing their fares increase every time they get a new bus.

Now, no one wants to micromanage the ferry system. No politician should get into the real minutiae of scheduling and planning, but there are some things in which an active and engaged minister should do to intervene on behalf of the province as a whole. That is what a minister is supposed to do — look after the interests of the whole of the province, engage with communities, be respectful of business.

Let’s remember why the ferry system was first established by W.A.C. Bennett: for the economic benefit of the whole province. This is being forgotten.

B.C. Ferries was created for a reason — to connect our massive coastal province, to open up the economy and to ensure that those working and living in coastal communities could fully participate in our society. We still have a massive coastal province, we still need to have economic access to all parts, and we still need to ensure those working and living in coastal communities can participate with the rest of B.C.

This is not happening. We need to keep all our communities engaged and viable, and it can be done. Everyone who lives and works in coastal communities…
[ Page 9720 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

C. Trevena: …knows that the present governance model does not work, but further to changing that, fundamentally, the cost of using the ferry system…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

…has to be brought down, so everyone can participate in our province, and all our rural economies can be kept afloat.

SUPPORTING THE TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY

D. Ashton: The Okanagan conjures up images of sunshine, lakes, beaches, wine, endless beautiful vistas and some of the most incredible scenery anywhere. I’m truly lucky to be able to call this area home. But I left out, perhaps, one of the Okanagan’s best-known and most economically important features, and that’s the tree fruit industry and the associated orchards.

The Okanagan tree fruit industry is a vital part of the food system and part of B.C.’s heritage that makes all British Columbians, especially me, very proud.

The B.C. government is committed to promoting the growth of production of high-value, high-quality B.C. fruit and helping develop a stronger, more sustainable tree fruit sector that results in growers earning more dollars.

[1035]

Whether it’s talking about the $8 million tree fruit replant program announced in late 2014, multi-million-dollar investments to help packing houses modernize or Buy Local program funding to promote B.C. apples and cherries to B.C. consumers, the B.C. government is working with B.C. growers to help them compete locally and also around the globe.

Our government’s funding for the tree fruit replant program in 2016 is now available to help tree fruit growers replant their orchards. This will allow them to plant high-value, high-quality fruit varieties, which will help them increase the value of their sales. This funding is part of our government’s $8.4 million, seven-year tree fruit replant program, which started in 2014. The program will result in an estimated 1,500 acres of orchard being replanted by 2021.

This will also support about 2,600 jobs annually in the Okanagan. Last year B.C. tree fruit farms produced more than 126,000 tonnes of apples, sweet cherries, peaches, pears, plums, prunes, nectarines and apricots. This total represents nearly 30 percent of the Canadian value in production. The new replant program rebuilds on the successes of the previous program, where growers replanted low-value orchards with high-demand, high-quality varieties like Ambrosia apples and late-season cherries.

I need to mention some of those wonderful apples. The House and many of the people that work in this Legislature have experienced that wonderful apple called the Aurora Golden Gala.

A new replant program builds on the success of previous programs where growers replanted substantial, vast tracts of their land, and the benefits are paying off. This new funding will help ensure that British Columbians have fresh and local foods. It will also bring employment and business opportunities for B.C. growers in the future. Long term, the replant program provides certainty for B.C. growers and strengthens future viability and competitiveness of the sector in the domestic and export markets.

The replant program is considered to be very vital and essential to those in the industry. B.C. Fruit Growers Association’s Fred Steele has said of the program:

“Replanting is critical to the future of our industry as we need to produce high-quality, new varieties of tree fruit to compete locally and to seize export opportunities. We appreciate the B.C. government’s early launch of the second year of the replant program and their investment in this renewal of British Columbia orchards that is critical to the future of Okanagan tree fruit farms.”

We and others believe in protecting our tree fruit growers. Over the years, B.C. tree fruit growers have received more than $120 million from provincial and federal governments in response to weather-related losses and income stability programs, including hail insurance. Insurance for hail damage is available to all tree fruit growers, and B.C.’s insurance premiums for hail and crop insurance remain one of the lowest in Canada.

Spring and summer hailstorms occur regularly, unfortunately, in the Okanagan, but the exact timing and the areas that will be impacted can never be predicted. Each year tree fruit growers must make a decision to purchase the insurance for hail damage, but not all growers, unfortunately, choose to purchase it. Should a grower have the insurance available, it covers up to 100 percent of their crops, and that also helps the grower in many, many ways.

Many growers feel that 80 percent coverage is an appropriate level of insurance to buy, and many commit to that amount. The government of British Columbia and Canada subsidize the premium of each hail insurance policy. Though many different options of coverage are available, in most cases, the government subsidizes 60 percent of the premium.

As an example of a premium, an apple producer who purchased an 80 percent coverage with a net crop value of $100,000 would typically pay about $7,200 in premiums. To encourage the fruit producers to include hail insurance as part of their risk management plan, the Minister of Agriculture has developed and distributes a free guide to the tree fruit growers that specifically outlines the hail insurance coverage and the differential options for each of them to consider.

The ministry also distributes annual bulletins to encourage the tree fruit producers to consider hail damage
[ Page 9721 ]
in their risk management planning. We all know, with the weather changes that are taking place, this is very prudent for growers to do. The ministry also provides a range of risk management programs that producers can choose to participate in to help them plan for other weather-related losses and income stability.

[1040]

The fruit industry that we have in the Okanagan is some of the best in the world. The steps we have taken and we continue to take will ensure that this industry is one that British Columbians, each and every one of us, can be proud of for the future.

L. Popham: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member for Penticton and the amazing tree fruit industry that we have. I completely agree that we have an incredible fruit tree industry, and a lot of the supports that the B.C. government has brought forward over the years have helped support this industry. But in my view, much like many of the agriculture policies that this current government represents, it is much like a patchwork quilt. It’s a piecemeal plan, and we aren’t connecting the dots as far as a long-term, sustainable agriculture industry.

When you look at the fruit tree industry and the money that’s put forward for replant, it’s an excellent program, but much like other policies within this government, the policy is not expanded to include other trees. I’ve gone on many times in this chamber about the hazelnut industry, which would also benefit from something like the replant that the fruit tree industry has benefited from. We can all agree that the fruit tree industry has benefited greatly from that program. Sometimes that’s just what an industry needs in order to be reborn and become stronger.

One of the things that I got to do this weekend was head to the Moss Street Market and be part of a pie tasting, which brought in 50 pies made by chefs — apple pies, many, many varieties of pies. The customers got to pay $5, taste three varieties, and the proceeds went to support a local chef’s program.

It was wonderful, and the excitement around the new apples that have come in early this fall is there. People really like to taste the new season of apples. When you look at how healthy an apple is and how we benefit from it nutritionally, it really begs the question: why are we not encouraging this type of food — our own grown, healthy food — to be used more frequently in our hospital system?

Now, one of the ideas that the opposition has put forward, a very positive idea, is using our procurement system for the hospitals to use our locally grown food, much like apples. The problem with the way we handle agriculture in this province is we don’t actually have a handle on how much we could use as a province.

It would be very interesting to see a study by the Ministry of Agriculture to take a look at the millions of hospital meals that we provide every year — hospital meals, long-term-care-facility meals, any institutional meals that we provide. How many B.C. apples would actually be used if you did some procurement locally?

Now, I think that it would be substantial. Just in the Lower Mainland, we spend about $50 million per year on hospital meals. And if you look at the opportunities there, what are the opportunities by using procurement contracts? What are the opportunities that farmers would gain and businesses would gain?

Well, it would bring in a very stable marketplace to sell into, and it would give the opportunity to develop different supply chains and look at expanding markets. If farmers knew that they could do even 30 percent of what we would require in the hospital system, it would change the look of agriculture in this province. We would have a stable market to grow into. And it doesn’t mean that we’re against the export market. It would actually give us a stronger foundation in order to develop different export markets.

When you look at some of the restrictions when you’re talking about procurement…. From the other side of the House, I often get comments that it would be working against the trade agreements that we signed onto. And that actually isn’t true. There are many jurisdictions in other areas of the world who work with the trade agreements and are able to do local procurement for different reasons.

Now, some of the ways that you can actually work with trade agreements is if you look at seasonality of food, health quality of food. You’re even able to look at the amount of pollution that transporting food brings.

When you look at the bigger picture — the trade agreements and, also, the amount of money that you are spending on these contracts that you’re signing — there are many opportunities to work with the current trade agreements that we have worldwide and still support our local agriculture industry by using procurement contracts in our institutions.

[1045]

Ontario is doing it. We see this happening in Washington state. We see this over in Europe. All around the world we are recognizing that the multiplier effect of supporting our local industry through procurement enhances our local economies everywhere.

D. Ashton: I thank the member opposite for her from-the-heart comments, which are always there with regards to agriculture. I would like to speak briefly now about how we are building markets for British Columbia foods.

In June 2014, the B.C. government led a B.C. delegation, including representatives from the province’s cherry industry, as part of a trade mission to China. One of the highlights of building markets for British Columbia agriculture is a trade agreement between the governments of Canada and China that is leading to full, unimpeded access for B.C. cherries in China.
[ Page 9722 ]

In 2013, B.C. shipped $3.9 million worth of fresh cherries to China for the first time. With the new agreement, B.C. cherry growers estimate up to $20 million in new revenue annually over the next few years. As you can see, that’s a phenomenal increase.

The B.C. government and the federal government have provided $3.5 million in funding since 2012 to assist the industry in modernizing their packing houses and storage facilities to enhance return to the growers. The industry has received more than $38 million in other funding, including the B.C. government’s current $8 million replant program.

B.C. apple growers have focused now on the “right variety, the right size and the right grade” strategy in recent years to serve this high-value tree fruit marketing availability. That is going to really, really increase what transpires in British Columbia in the agriculture industry.

Consumers are increasingly associating premium apples — like Ambrosia, those Galas that we’ve all experienced — with British Columbia orchards. Building demand for these high-value apples locally will enhance the opportunity all across Canada and abroad. Focusing on high-value products like these apples and cherries that are now available from the Okanagan is a wonderful opportunity for a $14-billion-a-year industry in agriculture all across Canada.

I’d be very remiss in not stating that two families from Summerland…. One of them — Alan and Thea Fisher — is Canada’s largest provider of fruit trees. Alan is a gentleman that I grew up with from a young age. Also, Richard and Denise MacDonald are growers of those incredible Aurora Golden Galas that I’m so fortunate to be able to bring here. Richard has just finished a lifelong career at PARC, a Pacific agricultural research station in Summerland, propagating some of these new varieties of apples and cherries. It’s because of families like this that the Okanagan fruit industry has a phenomenal career ahead of us.

INVESTING IN OUR SENIORS

S. Robinson: Last month I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition if I would consider taking on an additional responsibility and become the opposition spokesperson for seniors issues. I agreed to take on the file, and two days later the office of the seniors advocate released a report about the impact of caring for an aging senior on the caregiver.

As this was a new file for me, I had to roll up my sleeves pretty quickly and dig into the report. What I learned suggested to me that we are not doing all that we can for caregivers. These are caregivers who are caring for an aging parent, spouse, relative or friend.

I know that everyone in this House agrees that unpaid caregivers are a critical piece of our health care system. These caregivers are spouses, children and neighbours. They are grandchildren, nieces and nephews. They are people committed to the well-being of their senior, intent on keeping them as healthy and as safe as possible so that they can remain in their homes for as long as possible. Unpaid caregivers are often the only thing standing between the older person’s continued ability to stay in their home and residential care.

We know that caring for a senior can be physically, emotionally and spiritually exhausting. The physical activities of lifting, carrying and supporting can have a significant physical impact. Caring for an aging or ill loved one has an emotional toll as well. Watching your loved one become physically frailer or disappear into the haze of dementia can overwhelm the caregiver with grief.

[1050]

I know. I watched my dad care for my mom for years, as cancer slowly eroded her independence. He was there to help her up the stairs, help her in the shower, give her pain medications, sleep beside her so that when she awoke in the middle of the night, he could give her more pain relief. He prepared her meals. As she slowly wasted away, he would be the one to urge her to eat. He would beg her to eat. Every day I watched his heart break just a little bit more — to see the love of his life disappear before his very eyes.

My dad was fortunate. My sister and I would spell him off to give him a break on weekends, and a lovely neighbour, who was a nurse, would help out when my father needed a hand or a good night’s sleep. Caring for my mom created significant stress for my dad. But he had other supports, and my mom’s health deteriorated rather quickly before she died. The round-the-clock care only lasted four months, but it took a toll. How could it not?

While we talk about the desire to keep seniors in their homes for as long as possible and the valuable role that caregivers play in the desire to keep seniors in their own homes, the report from the office of the seniors advocate, entitled Caregivers in Distress: More Respite Needed, paints a picture that suggests we just aren’t doing enough.

A 2009 economic study found that the national market value of unpaid caregiver care is $25 billion to $65 billion a year. It’s reasonable to estimate that in British Columbia in 2005, unpaid care had a value of about $4.1 billion. The seniors advocate identified over 30,000 seniors in B.C. who are able to live at home because of the support of an unpaid caregiver. I believe everyone in this House and all British Columbians agree that these unpaid caregivers are an incredibly valuable and — I would even argue — a critical component of our health care system.

The report, however, notes that we need to do more for these unpaid caregivers. These people who provide care need to be supported themselves so that they can continue to do the lion’s share of the work. The report focused on the need for respite for caregiving duties and noted that if we invest in our caregivers and ensure that they have easy access to breaks from care, they will be better able to support their senior for far longer at home.
[ Page 9723 ]

The seniors advocate studied a subset of seniors, those who have been assessed as eligible for health-care-authority-provided home support services. In all, she looked at just over 31,000 seniors. The data analysis showed that one-third of caregivers are in distress, and she notes that unpaid caregivers experience greater distress the greater the hours of unpaid caregiving.

The report notes: “In B.C., the odds of having a distressed caregiver are four times more likely for clients receiving 20 or more hours of unpaid care per week than for clients receiving six hours or less.” The report also notes that where the senior needing care has some sort of cognitive impairment, behavioural challenge or depression, the caregiver is far more distressed than in those situations where these challenges aren’t present.

If we are intent on supporting seniors staying in their homes as long as possible — because we know that that’s what’s in their best interest and that it’s way more cost-effective to keep these people in their homes — then we need to be investing in these caregivers. Caring for a depressed person who may have some sort of dementia for more than 30 hours a week has to be overwhelming, and the burden for their care has to take a toll.

What did the seniors advocate learn? She learned that while 16,000 seniors could benefit from respite, meaning they were entitled to access respite services, only 11 percent used a respite bed in the last year. In the last week, 7 percent participated in an adult day program and 53 percent used home support. She also found that 29 percent of clients assessed have a caregiver in distress. For these seniors with distressed caregivers, only 9 percent attended an adult day program and only 47 percent received home support services.

What she learned is that there is poor coordination in health authorities to ensure that adult day program spaces are properly utilized. Some programs have long wait-lists, while others have empty spaces. She also learned that transportation to these programs is limited, making them inaccessible to seniors in some communities. We have a situation where 91 percent of the distressed caregivers are not making use of adult day programs that exist in their communities.

What about home support services, services that would ease the burden of caring for a senior in their home? Only 47 percent of seniors eligible for these services received them in the last week. The model for providing home support assumes that the family will provide most of the care, with home support filling the gap between what the client needs and what the family can provide. The seniors advocate notes: “Lack of staffing or budget constraints, rather than client need, would appear to influence the hours of support provided in some parts of the province.”

Finally, the seniors advocate notes that while the total number of seniors receiving care and the total number of hours providing care have increased, these increases have not kept pace with population growth. There has actually been a decrease in the number of clients who get the home support hours that they need, so we can’t keep seniors in their homes for longer, a place where they want to live out their years in comfort and familiarity with the people that they love.

[1055]

We need to do better. We ought to do better. Seniors deserve better. Finally, their caregivers deserve better.

D. Plecas: Thank you to the member opposite for her comments. I’m happy to respond today to the private member’s statement on investing in our seniors.

We have heard from seniors that care and supports in their local community to enable them to live in their homes longer is important to them. It is important to ensure, we know, that we have proper supports in place to support them.

Almost 1/6 of B.C.’s population is over the age of 65. Today we have some 750,000 seniors in the province, and we know that that will double by the year 2035. In fact, the data from Statistics Canada shows that seniors are now outnumbering children in this province. This is something which will impact on the health care system, and government is preparing.

We invest substantial resources to support seniors health care. B.C. has more than 32,000 publicly subsidized residential care, family care home, assisted-living and group home beds. In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, health authorities reported spending over $2.8 billion on home and community care. Government has provided $26 million in funding to enhance and support the Better at Home program, which operates at 67 program sites throughout the province.

Better at Home is a non-medical home support program that helps seniors with simple day-to-day tasks so that they can continue to live independently in their own homes. Better at Home services may include light housekeeping, grocery shopping, visits and transportation to appointments.

Not only do we support seniors in staying in their homes as long as possible, but we want to also help communities be more accessible and senior-friendly. With this in mind, in September, we announced continued funding of $500,000 for 2016 for age-friendly community planning. It also includes project grants of up to $20,000. This program helps communities better plan for an aging population through age-friendly planning and projects.

Projects are meant to reflect the vision of an age-friendly British Columbia in which older people are supported to live active, socially engaged and independent lives. A few examples of projects include a seniors drop-in support centre in the village of Fraser Lake and a seniors bus providing accessible, reliable and affordable transportation options in North Delta. Nakusp is home to a seniors resource fair, and the village of Sayward has an outdoor gym and wellness program for seniors.
[ Page 9724 ]

Ensuring that vulnerable seniors are as safe as possible also means assisting those with dementia. Government is committed to ensuring that those with dementia and Alzheimer’s have access to early diagnosis, treatment and support. The province’s dementia action plan commits government to supporting community programs such as the Alzheimer Society of B.C.’s First Link program. It refers people with dementia and their families to support services as early as possible.

First Link is available in locations throughout B.C. It’s available in the Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley, Sunshine Coast, North and Central Okanagan, Interior, northern B.C. and Vancouver Island. Since 1997, the province has provided a total of $10.7 million to support the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia.

We want British Columbians, as well their families, to know that resources are available to them. The B.C. seniors guide is a resource to help older adults and their families and caregivers find information on supports and services they need. This includes information on provincial programs, as well as what is available federally, with sections on benefits, health, lifestyle, housing, transportation, finance and safety.

[1100]

When it comes to seniors, there’s a strong voice in place that speaks on their behalf, and that is the seniors advocate. Isobel Mackenzie and her staff are working hard to identify solutions to systemic issues. They are also making recommendations to government on ways to improve B.C.’s aging population. Her office has presented reports ranging from seniors housing to caregiver distress and is currently working on a major initiative to track elder abuse and neglect.

We are committed to providing the services and supports to enable a high quality of life for all seniors.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the comments by the member for Abbotsford South.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

British Columbians know that unpaid caregivers are an invaluable part of our health care system. We know that most of the unpaid caregivers in British Columbia are family members who love and worry about their senior. We know that these family members are committed to their senior and want to do right by them by keeping them at home for as long as possible.

Now we know that one-third of these caregivers are distressed. We know that their ability to continue caring for their loved one is compromised. We know that there are 9,000 British Columbians who are in distress and who are caring for their mom, their dad, their husband, their wife or their sibling.

Just last week Saint Elizabeth, a Vancouver Coastal home support provider, confirmed that in order to be consistent with provincial guidelines, they must limit assistance only to personal medical care. They are leaving the rest of the work — like housecleaning, laundry, cooking and shopping — to friends and family. This flies in the face of what the seniors advocate has learned.

This is not support for caregivers. This is not support for seniors. While the member for Abbotsford South mentioned Better At Home, to have yet more strangers in a senior’s home…. I want to recognize that…. Who has to coordinate all these different people coming into the senior’s home? Well, it’s the caregiver. This just adds to their stress.

We know that the services that government provides to offer relief are not working as they should. We also know that it is far more cost-effective to British Columbian taxpayers to support these unpaid caregivers than to have these seniors in residential care.

We are failing to connect our most distressed caregivers with the services and resources they need to make caring for their loved one easier. We are not determining who needs the most support. We are not properly tracking how many caregivers need a break. We are not making sure that access to supports is the same across the province. We are not ensuring that these services to support caregivers are keeping up with the growing senior population in this province.

British Columbian seniors deserve the highest level of care possible. They deserve the very best. They deserve caregivers who are patient, caring and supported. They deserve a government that understands this. They deserve a government that recognizes when a system isn’t working as it should. They deserve a government prepared to act, a government prepared to invest in them by making sure that their unpaid caregivers have the resources and the supports they need so that they can continue to provide the very best care that their seniors deserve.

We need to do better. We ought to do better. Our seniors deserve better. Their caregivers deserve better.

Hon. N. Letnick: I now call debate on Motion 27.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 27 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 27 — INTERNATIONAL
TRADING PARTNERSHIPS

J. Yap:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.]

It’s my honour and privilege to rise and speak on this motion that is very near and dear to the hearts of my constituents in Richmond, the gateway to British Columbia and Canada and, indeed, North America.

[1105]

This motion speaks to the value of international trading partnerships — that it is important that this House support the expansion of markets for British Columbia’s products. This will strengthen our economy and support communities.

British Columbia’s attractive fiscal climate, business incentives and diversified economy offer significant opportunities for growth and investment, and our trading partnerships have a direct impact on the growth of family-supporting jobs throughout British Columbia. That’s why we are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and memoranda of understanding with trading partners.

We congratulate Canada and all member countries for reaching a Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP trade agreement. Our priority for international trade agreements has always been a fair and open marketplace where B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any business in the world. This deal, the TPP, ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with businesses in the 22-country membership of the TPP. As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, B.C. and my community of Richmond will benefit from increased bilateral trade between North America and other TPP markets, spurring economic growth and job creation here at home.

The TPP was initiated in 2002 by New Zealand, Singapore and Chile and is designed to create a free trade area that will encompass all members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC. The TPP was signed by all member countries on Monday, October 5, 2015, in Atlanta, Georgia. The TPP agreement is the largest free trade agreement in the world, comprising 800 million people, with a combined GDP of $28 trillion, and future members are lining up to join in.

Current member countries include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. In 2014, B.C.’s domestic export of goods to TPP members was $23 billion or roughly 64 percent of the province’s international goods exports.

The TPP needs to be ratified by each government and is expected to be implemented in 2016. The agreement covers all aspects of trade, including improved market access for goods and services, investment, financial services and government procurement. It will also increase bilateral trade and level the playing field for all parties by ensuring enforceable rules around labour, the environment, state-owned enterprises, intellectual property, rules of origin and vital sanitary measures, and it includes ambitious 21st-century disciplines on subjects like electronic commerce.

B.C. was actively involved in the TPP negotiations to ensure that our provincial interests and priorities are met. It is crucially important that as an open-trading, subnational economy, we continue to support and value the expansion of trading relationships and trading opportunities, and the TPP provides that opportunity.

I look forward to the comments from members on both sides of the House in support of this motion.

C. James: Thank you to the member for bringing forward the motion that speaks to recognizing the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbia and strengthen our economy.

I don’t think anyone in this House would disagree about how important it is to look at international trade, to look at trade for British Columbia and to ensure that it strengthens our economy. I think we would all agree that that’s critical, but I think that, like all statistics, the devil is in the details.

Not only with the TPP but, in fact, with all trade agreements in British Columbia, it’s important to unpack those statistics, to take a look at the details, to take a look at — as there always are in trade partnerships — winners and losers, give and take, and what impact that’s going to have on the province of British Columbia.

[1110]

If we take a look at the statistics for Canada, there’s no question that we in British Columbia are dependent on international trade. In Canada, 60 percent of our GDP is generated by international trade.

But let’s take a look at the statistics for British Columbia. We, in fact, across this country, are one of the weakest provinces for export intensity. We’re far behind almost every other province. In fact, we’re seventh when it comes to exports to other provinces and to other countries. Exports here in British Columbia are just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita. In British Columbia, we do face huge challenges. We do in fact have a large and a growing trade deficit here in our province.

If we take a look at our imports here in British Columbia…. 2013 are the most recent stats. Here in British Columbia, we imported $21.8 billion more in goods and services than we exported, which means in fact we have a trade deficit — 8.7 percent of our B.C. GDP.

I think it is important, as I said, to take a look at the statistics and unpack them and look at the kinds of things that we are exporting here in British Columbia. If we examine that number, we see that there are some areas that we certainly need to improve on, that we certainly need to do some work on. We, in fact, here in B.C., send 66 percent of our exports as commodity exports, as raw commodities in most cases — lumber, unprocessed metals, raw logs, natural gas.

Now, if you look at it, there is nothing inherently wrong with exporting natural resources. In fact, British Columbia has a history of natural resources, and I be-
[ Page 9726 ]
lieve that that’s going to continue to be part of our province, current and future, when it comes to our economy. But if we look at our share of minimally processed resources — in other words, raw resources or unprocessed resources sent out — those exports have increased 59 percent since 2001.

Now, that, from my perspective, is a trade statistic that is very important to pay attention to. What does it mean when we’re exporting unprocessed or raw materials? It means we aren’t getting the benefit of those additional jobs and that additional employment that is so critical to our province.

The member before me talked about the importance of jobs for B.C. This, from my perspective, is a statistic that we need to pay attention to. If we’re going to build a diverse economy that includes jobs for British Columbia in a small open economy — which we are in British Columbia — we need to be pushing for more value from our resources. We need to make sure that, as much as possible, whether it’s agriculture or whether it’s forestry, we are making sure that those jobs are here for British Columbia and that we take that value-added and look at exporting it.

The other piece that I think is interesting to take a look at when it comes to exports in B.C. is that we are very heavily reliant on exchange rate–driven trade. When the Canadian dollar is weak and when the American dollar is strong, we tend to do better in our province.

From my perspective, that’s not a long-lasting trade plan — to wait and hope that the Canadian dollar is going to weaken and the American dollar is going to do better. I’m pleased that we’re seeing industries that are doing well. But again, if we’re looking at a long-term plan for trade and if we’re looking at a long-term plan for exports and for trading partnerships — as the motion says — I think we really need to take a look at a plan to focus on things like innovation, creativity, intellectual and technological expertise.

Those are the kinds of things that we have a huge opportunity, here in British Columbia, to be able to expand, to have government support them. No question that international trade is important, but let’s look at the statistics and do what we can.

D. Barnett: It is my pleasure to add my support to the motion introduced by my colleague from Richmond-Steveston: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.”

[1115]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was reached earlier this month between Canada and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. This partnership covers all aspects of trade, including improved market access for goods and services, investment, financial services and government procurement.

My riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin is rich in resource industries, especially forestry and mining. The TPP will be a boon to those industries and to people in communities in Cariboo-Chilcotin and other natural resource–dependent regions of British Columbia.

The partnership will provide our forest sector with a significant price advantage over key competitors who are not members of the TPP. B.C. exports of wood and other forest products to TPP countries averaged $4.8 billion per year from 2012 to 2014, and exports of pulp and paper averaged $1.5 billion per year in the same period.

Currently, Japan applies tariffs of up to 10 percent on wood and other forestry products, Vietnam of up to 31 percent, Malaysia of up to 40 percent, Borneo of up to 20 percent, and Australia and New Zealand of up to 5 percent. On pulp and paper products, Vietnam has tariffs of up to 27 percent, Malaysia of up to 25 percent and Australia of up to 5 percent.

Tariffs for those products will be eliminated under the TPP. For example, Japan’s tariffs on lumber — orientated strand board and plywood will be reduced by 50 percent on day 1 of implementation and eliminated after 15 years. In some cases, tariffs in some countries will be eliminated right away. For example, for orientated strand board, Malaysia’s tariffs of up to 20 percent will be eliminated upon the TPP going into effect.

There are also many benefits for our province surrounding mining under the TPP. From 2012 to 2014, B.C. exported an annual average of $7.9 billion worth of metals and minerals to TPP countries. The growth in emerging Asia-Pacific markets, including those in the TPP, means significant potential for strong, long-term demand for the minerals and the metals produced in B.C. Here is just one example of the benefits. For iron and steel products, Vietnam’s tariff of up to 40 percent will be eliminated within ten years.

Diversification of markets is another priority for our government. In 2014, exports to the U.S. made up to 50.6 percent of our total exports, while 39.5 percent of exports went to markets in the Pacific Rim.

While we continue to diversify B.C.’s markets, exports to the U.S. are still growing. Currently, one in five jobs and 20 percent of our annual economic benefits are generated through exports. In 2014 alone, exports accounted for $35.5 billion, which was an increase of 6.3 percent over 2013. As of May 2015, the exports of B.C. goods totalled $8.77 billion, which is a 4.1 percent increase over the previous year.

Our government is focused, building stronger relationships with Asia. We are using the B.C. Business Network and our expanded international trade and investment network to connect export-ready B.C. businesses with their opportunities to find new markets for their products.

The results are impressive. For example, 43 percent of all B.C. trade now flows to Asia. This has grown at a rate of 19 percent over the past decade. Also, over the past ten
[ Page 9727 ]
years, our province’s exports with China have increased by 375 percent. We are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be an effective tool in helping us strengthen our economy for years to come.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to get an opportunity to join this debate around the issue of the impacts and implications of trade for British Columbia. I think everybody in this Legislature — everybody in British Columbia — understands that we’re an economy where trade is pretty critical to our future.

We’re a relatively small economy. We depend largely on natural resources. We talk about diversification. It hasn’t much happened, but we do depend on trade.

[1120]

Trade is critically important to our future. We need to understand it better, and we need to take advantage of those opportunities when they’re in front of us. Trade deals, though, as we know, have real implications for the province. Trade, like every other kind of deal…. There are good deals, and there are deals that are not so good. You need to weigh and measure those as you move forward.

Members on the other side have been talking about the TPP agreement. I look forward to seeing the terms of that agreement, the language, to see what is written there. I certainly look forward to the debate in the House of Commons, probably next year when this becomes a matter for the House of Commons and the new Prime Minister to decide.

Maybe even more importantly than the debate in our own federal parliament will be what happens in the United States, where a number of presidential candidates on both sides have said they do not support that agreement. In fact, the Republican majority in the Congress and the Senate have said it will not pass without amendments. So it will be very interesting to watch that discussion in the United States as well.

I think the TPP may create opportunities for us, and we’re going to have to wait to see what it looks like at the end of the day — depending on what our House of Commons says, depending on what the U.S. says, primarily.

I think, though, the real question for us today has to be how well our government prepares us for trade opportunities. How clear is the government about objectives? How much do we really understand the parameters around job creation, around building our local economies, around ensuring the environment is protected in these agreements, and understanding who really benefits from any given trade agreement?

We need to know that people in Surrey, Williams Lake, Comox, Castlegar and other communities across this province are the primary beneficiaries of a trade agreement. We need to understand that by understanding the implications for those communities as we move forward. We need to understand that the success of the B.C. economy around trade relationships will not be how well somebody does in a corporate tower in Toronto or New York. It will be how well families do in this province. That’s what we need to pay attention to.

We need to ensure, in the trade agreements that we are fully engaged in, and we need to be as engaged as we can be, that in fact families are benefiting. The problem we have is we have very little diversity in our economy and in our trade relationships, and we have very little value-added. Those are critical.

I would note that in 2012, the B.C. Business Council report on this issue said: “Taken as a whole, resource-based products actually loom larger in the province’s merchandise export mix today than they did ten years ago, making up almost 80 percent of our total in 2011, up from 76 percent in 2002.” What they were saying is that the intention was to reduce and diversify away from those products and commodities to other products and things we do. In fact, the situation has gotten worse.

We know when you look at the question of value in the forest sector, wood products rebounded at the end of the recession that ended in 2009 by about 98 percent, but it was all low-value softwood. It was raw logs.

In fact, we have seen a dramatic drop in value-added in this province. Half the companies that were competitive in the value-added sector have gone out of business since 2002. Employment has fallen by 40 percent and sales by 60 percent. The president of the Independent Wood Processors Association says his members have suffered because of inattention from the B.C. Liberal government.

If we’re going to succeed in trade agreements, the government needs to be working to diversify the economy, working to enhance value-added, working to prepare communities to be successful. Whatever agreements are signed in Washington or Ottawa or London will not have the impact they need to have in this province unless we are ready to take advantage of them.

The challenge we have is that this government has not put us in place to take advantage of them. We have not diversified our economy. We have continued to rely on an old economy. We have not done the work we need to do, and as a result, we are not going to get the benefit we should get, sadly.

[1125]

D. Plecas: It is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South to speak on this motion. The motion reads as follows: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.”

B.C.’s attractive fiscal climate, its business incentive and diverse economy present incredible opportunities that offer significant growth and investment. Our trade investments have a direct impact on the growth of jobs in this
[ Page 9728 ]
province, and this government is committed to expanding and diversifying our markets. We do this through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment network, and working on new partnerships and MOUs.

On Octobers 5, the largest free trade agreement in the world, the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement, was signed by all 12 member countries. These members include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam. The TPP compromises 800 million people with a combined GDP of $28 trillion, and future members are lining up to join. We congratulate Canada and all member countries for reaching a trade agreement. It is quite a remarkable accomplishment.

B.C. was actively involved in the negotiations to ensure that provincial interests and priorities are met. Our priorities for international trade agreements have always been a fair and open marketplace, where B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business in the world. This deal ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business in the 12 member countries of the TPP.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, British Columbia will benefit from increased bilateral trade between North America and other TPP markets, spurring economic growth and job creation here at home. This could result in a $350 million increase in B.C. exports. It could also lead to an increase of 2,500 jobs and $3.25 million in increased GDP.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, B.C. also stands to gain from increased bilateral trade between the rest of Canada and TPP members. We have an opportunity to become an economic hub and gateway between the Americas and Asia. This agreement will give B.C. exporters of goods and services new and improved access to key Pacific Rim markets.

The greatest opportunity for B.C. businesses comes in sectors like fish and seafood, agriculture, forestry, technology and manufactured goods, where tariffs were high and now will be reduced and eliminated.

Diversification of our markets is a priority for this government. For example, in 2001, 70 percent of markets went to the U.S. In 2014, exports to the U.S. made up just 50 percent of total exports, while 39 percent of exports went to markets in the Pacific Rim. More importantly, since 2009, B.C. exports have increased over 32 percent. Right now, one in five jobs and 20 percent of our annual economic benefits are generated through exports.

Our government is focused on building stronger relationships with Asia. We are using the B.C. Business Network and our expanded international trade and investment network to connect export-ready British Columbia businesses with opportunities to find new markets for their products. And 43 percent of all trade flows to Asia, which has grown at a rate of 19 percent over the last ten years.

A Canada-EU joint study that supports the launch of negotiations estimated that a trade agreement with the EU could result in a 20 percent boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada’s economy. That’s equivalent to adding some 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

Canada will become one of the few developed countries to have a preferred access to the world’s two largest markets — the 28-member European Union and the United States. By making it easier for trade and investment between Canada and the EU, the key outcome of CETA is clear: more jobs and economic opportunities for British Columbians. B.C. exporters will benefit from an increased access to a lucrative 28-member-states market, including duty-free access for forestry and wood products as well as new markets.

It is clear that international trading partnerships are valuable to British Columbia, as they expand our markets and strengthen our economy.

[1130]

G. Heyman: I’m pleased to join this discussion about trade, expanding markets and creating jobs in British Columbia, and I’m pleased to talk about it from the perspective of fair trade and fair trade that benefits communities throughout British Columbia.

The member for Abbotsford South said that his government is committed to expanding and diversifying markets. I would ask the member opposite and all of the members opposite: markets for what? I believe, and people on this side of the House believe, that Canadians and British Columbians want a trade policy that encourages and develops good jobs in our communities — jobs in manufacturing, increasingly — and the development of value-added production to our many resources here in B.C.

That is not what we’ve been getting from this government. What we’ve been getting is increased reliance on raw log exports. We see reliance on low-value commodity exports, minimally processed exports. There is nothing wrong with a resource-based economy and exporting our resources, but the share of unprocessed resource exports has been rising steadily since this government took office in 2001. It has gone from 59 percent to 66 percent according to the latest figures.

We simply do not maximize value here in British Columbia. By example, we know that for every tree we cut, B.C. gets just one-quarter of the number of jobs that they do in Ontario and one-third the number of jobs they do in Quebec.

We’ve heard the Premier and this government talk about the importance of renewing the softwood lumber agreement. Yet the value-added wood-manufacturing sector has said repeatedly that they’ve been getting the short end of the stick in the softwood lumber agreement and the agreement concentrates on accessibility to
[ Page 9729 ]
U.S. markets for minimally processed lumber. Yet the Premier simply says that it’s good enough for her to roll over this agreement.

We need, as well, a balanced trade policy. Members opposite have talked about leveling the playing field, but we have example after example in Canada of signing trade agreements with countries that have low or nonexistent human rights, low or nonexistent labour rights, minimal environmental standards and a lack of a culture of democracy. We need a trade policy that builds trade while it fosters positive democratic development, human rights and environmental standards, here and with the countries with whom we trade.

The Conservative government signed trade agreements with Colombia, which had a horrific human rights record and a horrific judicial system to defend the rights of working people. More than a dozen human rights defenders and 46 trade unionists were killed in that country in 2008 alone. Yet the government went ahead and made a deal with a country where workers have minimal rights.

The June 2008 report of the Standing Committee on International Trade said that an independent human rights impact assessment and the resulting concerns must be addressed as we negotiate trade deals. Yet I’ve heard nothing about this from members opposite. The same is true of Honduras.

Finally, let me close by talking about the importance and the controversy that surrounds investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in trade agreements, mechanisms that threaten to undermine the ability of sovereign states and sovereign governments to pass laws and have them defended in the interests of the environment and in the interests of labour rights. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom has said: “Ottawa says that the TPP does not remove the right of government to legislate and regulate in the public interest. Yet that’s what was said about NAFTA originally, and those claims proved to be false.”

This is a concern to British Columbians and Canadians and needs to be addressed. We need to protect our environment. We need to protect labour rights. We need to protect human rights. We need open, transparent and accountable process in all aspects of trade policy.

[1135]

I’ve heard members opposite praise the TPP. It’s interesting to me how they know what’s in it, seeing as it’s not a public document. Perhaps they’re simply reading from the speaking notes in the election of the late, unlamented Conservative government.

S. Hamilton: Right now in British Columbia, one in five jobs and 20 percent of our annual economic benefits are generated through exports. That’s a pretty impressive statistic from the point of view of job creation and from the fact that British Columbia truly is the gateway to the Pacific, not only for our province but for all of Canada, of course.

We are in fact a trading nation, and trade agreements are key to our current and future prosperity. That’s why I welcome the news that Canada and 11 other major trading partners have signed up for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is the largest free trade agreement in the world. It comprises 800 million people, with a combined GDP of $28 trillion. If you’re a company large or small and based in British Columbia, you now have greater access to markets in these 11 other countries in the Pacific corridor — as was mentioned by the member for Abbotsford South and named specifically.

In fact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement accounts for 2/5 of the global economy. It’s not surprising that prospective members are lining up to join the agreement.

This is great news for the high-tech sector in British Columbia as well. Earlier this month I addressed this House and described how we are helping to foster a technological revolution that’s establishing B.C. as a hub for high-tech start-up success stories. I described a company, Immersive Media, as a start-up success story that began right here in British Columbia. Headquartered in Kelowna, Immersive Media is a digital imaging company that specializes in spherical immersive video. For a company like Immersive Media, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will help open up a whole new world and introduce its products to new markets.

Our internal economic impacts analysis estimates that the TPP could result in a $350 million increase in B.C. goods exports, an increase of over 2,500 jobs and a $325 million GDP increase. On the other hand, if the TPP were to go ahead without Canada’s participation, it’s estimated that B.C.’s GDP could decrease by $197 million by 2035 — the cost of opting out. In effect, the cost of not participating for B.C. amounts to $523 million in provincial GDP. I hope the members opposite will support the private sector, support job creation in British Columbia and embrace the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

During the last few weeks of the federal election campaign, federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said that if he were elected, he would “not be bound” to the TPP.” In fact, he made it official and, less than two weeks ago, put it in writing in a letter to the federal Trade Minister, claiming: “This secret trade deal will affect all Canadians. It puts their jobs, their environment and their household budgets at risk.”

That’s just plain wrong, and that’s at best. At worst, it’s fearmongering. That’s a shame, because the greatest opportunities for B.C. businesses come from sectors like fish and seafood, agriculture, forestry, technology, manufactured goods. These are all sectors where business was suppressed because tariffs were high. As a result of the agreement, tariffs will now be reduced or even eliminated.

I’m wondering what we would say to our farmers, people in the forest industry, manufacturers and people
[ Page 9730 ]
at companies like Immersive Media. How would we explain that we’re opposed to greater market access, that we’re opposed to job creation, that we’re opposed to finding new markets for the one in five British Columbians whose job depends on exports from this province? B.C. has some of the world’s brightest engineers, technicians, international education firms and environmental service providers, who will all benefit from increased access to TPP markets.

I would deeply appreciate some answers to my earlier questions, but for now, I’m quite happy to support this motion and to support all the families in British Columbia who will benefit from a good deal for British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to speak to the motion “that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.”

[1140]

I think we’ve heard from all members who’ve spoken on both sides of the House recognizing the importance of international trade and the role that it plays in our economy — and, certainly, the importance to strengthen that relationship, expand our markets and, fundamental to that, to ensure that good-paying, family-supporting jobs are leveraging and are a benefit of that expanded trade.

We know that our economy in British Columbia…. We are blessed with abundant natural resources. Certainly, it’s been the basis on which our economy in the province has been built. We have an educated and hard-working population. As well, it’s been mentioned that we have a great geographic location on the edge of the Asia-Pacific region.

When we talk about the important role of trade and exports, certainly we’ve seen, in our relationship in trade with the United States and also with the Asia-Pacific, one area that I think we’re missing in terms of context: what it is that leverages the benefits to British Columbia, what it is, in terms of our economy, that brings those improvements to British Columbian families. And that has to do with good-quality jobs.

When we look at the characteristic of our economy and what it is that would place British Columbia at an advantage to be able to really see the benefits come into our communities, I think we have to do an assessment of our economy and the characteristics of our exports. We know that we are one of the weakest provinces for export intensity. We export just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita. We lag behind many other provinces. We’re currently in seventh place for exports to other provinces and countries, on a per-capita basis, for 2013.

We know that in B.C., we’re still heavily reliant on low-value commodity exports. Certainly, that was the history of the development of our economy and, really, the basis for our success. Certainly, it’s going to be an important and big part of that moving forward. But we have to look at: what does it mean to diversify our economy and really maximize the benefit from our natural resources? This comes from value-added products.

It comes from adding value to processing those natural resources and not just exporting them en masse. We know that two-thirds of our exports are from lumber, pulp, natural gas and raw log exports, and certainly, that’s a big number. But we have seen that that shift has not gone in the direction of seeing a bigger proportion from value-added products. That’s a concern. This is where the good-paying jobs come from in our communities, not just exporting raw logs to mills overseas and then importing the finished products back into British Columbia.

We are positioned, and there is no excuse for us. I think it’s a real disappointment that we’ve seen our province really decline in terms of our number of value-added mills and companies in British Columbia, particularly in the forestry sector. This is an area we need to have concerted government support.

As well, we have a significant, large and growing trade deficit. This puts us in a position where we are not best situated in terms of benefiting from trade deals. We’ve heard some details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement from the other side. It’ll be interesting to hear and actually see some of those details that have been discussed. It is a discussion that is still to happen in Ottawa, with regards to that trade deal being finalized. It’s also subject to discussions and deliberations from the United States. Many unanswered questions.

Fundamentally, trade is important for British Columbia’s economy. We have to do a better job of ensuring that our economy has more investment in maximizing the jobs from our natural resources and benefiting British Columbians.

[1145]

G. Kyllo: I’m pleased to be able to take this opportunity to add my support to the motion introduced by my colleague from Richmond-Steveston: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.”

There has been discussion this morning about diversification. British Columbia has a very diversified economy. We also have lots of diversification with respect to the different markets that we serve. It was only back in 2001 that 74 percent of B.C.’s exports were destined for the United States. This government has done a great job over the last number of years in increasing our trade relations with Asia. We’ve now reduced that down to just 54 percent.

As well, the diversification of different industry sectors that serve this great province, whether we’re talking forestry, mining, natural gas development, tourism, technology…. We have film. We have manufacturing. We
[ Page 9731 ]
have a very diversified economy in this province, and that is what makes us truly the envy of other provinces across Canada.

B.C.’s attractive fiscal climate, our business incentives and our diversified economy offer tremendous opportunities, both for growth and investment in this province. Our trade relationships have a direct impact on the growth of family-supporting jobs for B.C. That is why we’re committed to expanding and diversifying our markets, our overseas trade missions, expanding our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and MOUs.

Our priority for international trade agreements has always been a fair and open marketplace where B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with other businesses around the globe. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great news for B.C., and we congratulate Canada and all member countries for reaching this important trade agreement just three weeks ago.

The TPP ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business in the 12-country membership of the TPP. For B.C., our analysis estimates that the TPP could result in a $350 million increase in exports of B.C. goods, an increase of 2,500 jobs and a $325 million increase in GDP. By way of comparison, if the TPP were to go ahead without Canada’s participation, B.C.’s GDP is anticipated to decrease by almost $200 million by 2035. So the opportunity cost for non-participation for B.C. amounts to $523 million in provincial GDP.

Increased bilateral trade between Canada and TPP partners also means that B.C. has an opportunity to become an economic hub and a gateway between the Americas and Asia. Additionally, the TPP is designed to create a free trade area for all members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, including China, and priority B.C. markets, such as Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, have already expressed an interest in joining.

The TPP will give B.C.’s exporters of goods and services new and improved access to key Pacific Rim markets. The greatest opportunities for B.C. businesses come in sectors like fish and seafood, agriculture, forestry, technology and manufactured goods, where tariffs were high and will now be reduced or eliminated. B.C. also has some of the world’s brightest engineers, technicians, international education firms and environmental service providers, who will all benefit from increased access to TPP markets.

The TPP also represents an opportunity for B.C. to position itself as an economic gateway between Asia and the Americas, as B.C.’s entrepreneurs, consultants and financial, legal and business service providers could benefit from TPP companies travelling to and meeting in our province to conduct their business. As highlighted in the B.C. jobs plan, we want to expand trade with Southeast Asia, and this agreement will give us new market access to countries like Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

Members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership recognize that small- and medium-sized enterprises contribute significantly to economic growth, employment and innovation. The TPP includes provisions around information-sharing and institutional arrangements designed to enhance the ability of small- and medium-sized businesses to participate in and benefit from the opportunities that are created by the TPP.

For example, parties will be required to publish and maintain a website containing information about the TPP agreement, including the text and summary of the agreement, and information outlining opportunities that the agreement will provide for these small- and medium-sized businesses. Parties will also be responsible for establishing a committee on issues relevant to both small- and medium-sized enterprises, comprising government representatives from each country that will discuss how to actively encourage the businesses to engage in international trade and benefit from the opportunities that are provided by the TPP.

[1150]

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, British Columbia will benefit greatly from the bilateral trade agreement between North America and other member countries of the TPP.

K. Conroy: I, too, am pleased to stand to speak to this motion: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of international trading partnerships that expand markets for British Columbians and strengthen our economy.”

As the last speaker for the official opposition, I think it is apparent from my colleagues before me that we do support international trade as long as it does strengthen our economy but also ensures certain standards are met — trade deals that ensure environmental standards are as stringent as, if not better than, B.C.’s; labour laws that ensure workers earn a decent standard of living with good wages and benefits, while not compromising their health and safety with little or no regulations to protect these workers; and a trading partner that is a democracy that respects human rights.

Now it is obvious that past deals haven’t strengthened our economy. One only has to look at the stats in B.C. to see how apparent that is. We are one of the weakest provinces for export intensity. We export just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita, far behind most other provinces in Canada. We were in seventh place for exports to other provinces and countries per capita in 2013, the last year available, which is astounding when you think of what a resource-rich province we are.

B.C. is still heavily reliant on low-value commodity export. Sixty percent of our exports are in things like dimensional lumber, pulp, unprocessed metals, coal and natural gas, raw log exports and agricultural products. There’s nothing wrong with natural resource exports, but the share of unprocessed or minimally processed resource exports has been rising.
[ Page 9732 ]

In B.C., we have a large and growing trade deficit. In 2013, we imported almost 22 billion more in goods and services than we exported, a deficit worth 8.7 percent of our provincial GDP. This has grown from a deficit of about 3.8 percent in the 1990s. This is largely from not getting maximum value out of our resources prior to exporting.

The B.C. Liberals can be excited about trading partnerships, but the reality is there hasn’t been any net job growth here in B.C. with any of the trade deals in the past — or, it might look like, in the future. Since Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan signed the first trade agreement in 1989, the U.S.-Canada agreement that set the framework for future trade agreements, B.C. has not benefited from net job increases.

It begs the question: will this government stand up for the rights of the many British Columbians working in the various resource industries who have already been hurt by trade deals and potentially can be hurt even more? Will the government reach out and ensure guidelines are in place and actually help and not hinder British Columbians?

The forest industry, primarily in the Interior but also on the coast as well, has struggled in the past ten years. Our forests represent a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets owned by the people of British Columbia, yet under the B.C. Liberals, we get less and less — less jobs, less revenue — out of every tree we cut.

Expanded trade with China has been a positive development, and we commend the government’s work to develop the new market for B.C. goods, but more needs to be done to increase export of value-added goods.

Wood product exports have rebounded by 98 percent since the recession ended in 2009, but 90 percent of that has been from relatively low-value softwood lumber and raw logs. Exports of value-added wood products have stayed flat since 2009 and are still far behind what they were in 2000.

Half the companies in the competitive value-added sector have gone out of business since 2002, while employment fell by 40 percent and sales fell by 60 percent. Small and medium businesses in other parts of the forestry sector are also finding it tough under B.C. Liberal policy. Logging and silviculture contractors are struggling under low rates because consolidation in the industry means there are fewer companies for them to bargain with.

Again, forests are a vast resource. As I said, B.C. has 55 million hectares of productive, publically owned forest land at an estimated timber value of a quarter of a trillion dollars, but we need to do much better in maximizing that value. For every tree we cut, B.C. gets just one-quarter the number of jobs that they do in Ontario and one-third the jobs they get in Quebec. B.C.’s wood and paper manufacturing industries make just 1/5 the sales revenue from every tree we cut compared to Ontario and one-third compared to Quebec. In all these measures, we’ve only been getting worse.

In 2013, B.C. exported 6.7 million cubic metres of raw logs, more than ever before. Compared to the 1990s, raw log exports have increased by 500 percent. And while all those raw logs are being exported, mills have closed. B.C. lost 206 forestry mills, 46 percent of all mills, between 2001 and 2013 and 21,000 wood and paper manufacturing jobs.

[1155]

Despite recent gains of about 10,000 jobs since 2009 — I’ll give the Liberals that — at the same time, we’ve lost over 25,000 jobs in the forest sector, a 30 percent loss. And that’s just the forest industry. Similar concerns can be reiterated in other industries like mining, agriculture and in health care, particularly with drug costs.

I think the questions we have to ask are: will B.C. lose more than gain under these trade deals, and will we continue to have a large and growing deficit? Hopefully, the B.C. government will stand up for the people of this province and ensure this deal is going to be beneficial to all.

L. Reimer: Canada is a trading nation, and British Columbia counts for the lion’s share of Canada’s exports to the Pacific Rim.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

On behalf of my constituents of Port Moody–Coquitlam, I am pleased to support the member for Richmond-Steveston’s motion.

The fact is that one in five jobs in B.C. depends on the goods that we export to markets overseas and south of the border. With B.C.’s diversified economy, we have customers waiting all over the world to get their hands on B.C. wines, seafood, berries and, of course, our highly sought-after wood products and minerals. You name it, and every single industry in British Columbia is welcoming the news of the successful conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement will greatly reduce or eliminate tariffs that have served as a barrier to our customers abroad who love our products.

That’s why our government is committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and MOUs. The Premier has shown tremendous leadership on this front and has been leading trade missions throughout Pacific Rim countries to find new markets and customers in the rising middle classes throughout the region.

Trade missions support targeted sectors of the B.C. jobs plan as well as provincial trade and investment strategic objectives. They’re also a cost-effective tool for B.C. companies to participate firsthand in targeted export markets. They secure B.C.’s entry into priority markets and provide the momentum required to leverage partnerships and international investments and expand potential trade deals.

Rather than go it alone, B.C. companies appreciate
[ Page 9733 ]
badge of government, because it opens doors overseas, especially in highly competitive export markets. That’s why trade agreements, like the TPP, are so important to British Columbia.

Our priority for international trade agreements has always been a fair and open marketplace, where B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business in the world. We are Canada’s Pacific Gateway. As such, B.C. stands to gain from increased bilateral trade between the rest of Canada and TPP members. It represents an opportunity to become an economic hub and gateway between the Americas and Asia. British Columbia will benefit from increased bilateral trade between North America and other TPP markets, spurring economic growth and job creation here at home.

The TPP agreement is the largest free trade agreement in the world. It comprises 800 million people with a combined GDP of $28 trillion. The agreement covers all aspects of trade, including improved market access for goods and services, investment, financial services and government procurement.

Government procurement is a major source of economic activity, and the TPP will expand and secure opportunities for B.C. firms to supply their products and services to TPP member countries. Our internal economic impacts analysis estimates that the TPP could result in a $350 million increase in B.C. goods exports, an increase of 2,513 jobs and a $325 million GDP increase.

The B.C. jobs plan is focused on the expansion of trade with Southeast Asia. This agreement will give us new market access to countries like Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. That’s why I’m supporting the motion moved by my colleague.

At this juncture, I would like to conclude and move adjournment of debate.

L. Reimer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

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