2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 32, Number 3

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 1 — CHANGES TO QUESTION PERIOD
AND DAILY HOUSE BUSINESS

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call Motion 1, standing in my name on the order paper.

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Fifth Session of the Fortieth Parliament, which commenced on February 9, 2016:

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

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

Prayers (morning or afternoon sittings)

Introduction of Bills

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

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

Presenting Petitions

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Presenting Reports by Committees

Motions on Notice

Written Questions on Notice

Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the Day.

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

MONDAY

10 a.m. to 12 noon

(Private Members’ Time)

Private Members’ Statements (10 a.m.)

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Private Members’ Motions

Private Bills

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

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

MONDAY (AFTERNOON), TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY

(Government Days)

Throne Speech Debate

Budget Debate including Committee of Supply

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

Private Bills

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Adjourned debate on other motions

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

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

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

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

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

(d) debate shall not be permitted;

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

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

I don’t have a lot to say about this. This is the motion, the sessional order that would move question period on Tuesdays and Thursdays to the morning. It is something that has taken place now over successive sittings during sessions of this parliament.

I suppose one day the parliament and the representatives from the parties in the parliament might turn their mind to whether it should become a permanent feature of the standing orders. My sense is that that discussion is more likely to take place following the election of a new parliament rather than before. For the moment, this is a proposal for the shift to again be made on a sessional basis.

[1005]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the remarks from my colleague the Government House Leader. And yeah, we’ll be supporting the motion. This is a change that we brought in on a sessional basis, and it’s gone on a sessional basis now for a number of sessions.

It was interesting that in the back-and-forth before the House convened, the Government House Leader and myself and a few others were commenting we could throw some people into chaos by calling for oral questions, because such is that the House got used to this current schedule. Many people do kind of expect…. They’re used to the idea now that Thursday mornings at 10 a.m. would be oral questions.

I agree that the time to look at making this a permanent change to the standing orders is probably best done after or at the start of the next parliament. But certainly for this session, this is a change that I think for most members has worked and is one that we will continue.

With that, I just want to indicate that this side of the House will be supporting that motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the throne speech.
[ Page 10280 ]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. Routley: I guess it will not come as any surprise that the member for Cowichan Valley feels that there has been more than enough jiggery-pokery in this House. There is virtually a smorgasbord of jiggery-pokery in which to choose from.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

However, I want to focus today on how this government has failed to address in this throne speech issues that are critical to communities in the Cowichan Valley, particularly our community’s right to protect its water supply of all things.

I can’t believe that I have to be in this Legislature actually talking about the need to defend a water supply in the Cowichan Valley. Communities like Shawnigan Lake and our Cowichan heritage river…. It’s not just the obvious need to secure and protect clean drinking water. While it’s vitally important, it is critically important that Shawnigan Lake, which is a unique community in the Cowichan Valley, has a protected clean lake for our children and grandchildren. For the future of our region, they have a right to enjoy that lake and to have it secure.

Shawnigan Lake is extremely important to landowners, to internationally esteemed schools, to rowing clubs, to boating and fishing, to tourism, to seniors, students and families. Shawnigan Lake is also a regional, economic and visual treasure and a huge resource for community recreation.

I believe this government has a responsibility to secure and protect this beautiful lake and to protect our communities and our environment — something our region thought we could take for granted, just as any community would expect of the government of British Columbia.

Government should be there to protect and secure any special and unique environmental feature, including our beautiful lake, which is key to our families and is clearly the most important feature in the community.

In this government’s throne speech, they say…. I really want to pause and focus on this part of the throne speech. They actually said this in the throne speech. They said: “Getting to yes on economic development does not mean cutting corners or bowing to external pressure. In the province that invented the concept of social licence, it means working with communities” — they actually said that: “working with communities” — “to ensure their concerns are addressed.”

Oh me, oh my. What about Shawnigan Lake? Our community’s concerns are being ignored.

Continuing with the quote, they’re going to work with the “proponents to help address” any concerns of the community.

[1010]

I have to say sorry to the folks in the Cowichan Valley, because this is really what they said in the throne speech. I know it sounds like an alternative universe to any of us that live in the Cowichan Valley and especially in the Shawnigan Lake region. This rings very hollow and is very unbelievable to the people of Shawnigan and the Cowichan Valley, who are now paying millions of dollars to lawyers to try to defend their rights for the protection of their water in their watershed.

They’ve been in court for months and days — in court — and that means the Ministry of Environment is in court. I’ve been there. I went down and witnessed with my own eyes the Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Appeal Board, had lawyers there suggesting that it was okay to delay and deny the community the right. They were trying to demand every single document be provided. They were trying to throw roadblocks in the way of the community. It was shameful.

Imagine this: a government that knows that they’re being accused by the community, that there may be fraud involved, there may be misrepresentation, there may be outright lies in court, evidence to that effect, and this government sides…. I saw their lawyers working together like they were partners in what was going on. It totally rings hollow to the people of Shawnigan Lake to have seen what went on.

How could this government not understand? How could this government prioritize profits over people? That’s what we see going on. They call it “getting to yes.” I call it prioritizing profits over people. That’s what’s really going on here.

It’s not about communities — like they said in the throne speech — at all. They’re not listening to the community. We’ve got young moms in tears, standing in the snow, holding babies in front of dump trucks. We’ve got seniors standing up there. It is emotional for me, as MLA, to see our constituents standing in front of dump trucks before Christmas, in the snow and the cold, trying to protect their watershed and being ignored by this government. It is absolutely unacceptable and shameful, and anybody representing the Cowichan Valley with two bits’ worth of sense would be here saying the same thing.

You know, just before Christmas…. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so crazy. Just before Christmas, this government announced a water warning. They said that the people of Shawnigan Lake shouldn’t drink the water. Then they did testing. Oh, well, there’s an idea. “Maybe we should do some testing.” Shouldn’t you be running around telling everybody and scaring them half to death saying: “Don’t drink the water”? Shouldn’t you do a little testing before? No, they decided. “Out of due diligence, let’s just shut down everybody’s drinking water.”

Then — and I had to play this over and over again — the Minister of Environment, in this hall, here in this Legislature — I’ve got the clip — actually said, after the testing…. Really, oh me, oh my — she didn’t say that. She said: “After all, really everything is fine.”
[ Page 10281 ]

The Minister of Environment reassured the people with a statement that it will just affect “the taste of the water, and it may cause staining of your laundry.” Oh, how comforting is that? Really, that’s how comforting…. That’s the best they can do is come up with some kind of comforting statement from the Minister of Environment that it’s just going to affect the taste of the water and stain the laundry? “Go ahead and drink the water. We’ve done testing. It’s all very scientific.” Yeah, right. You couldn’t make this stuff up. It’s really just too weird.

[1015]

The Ministry of Environment, this government, sent in their crack team. The ministry sent in a statutory decision–maker to make the decision government says is all based on, oh, scientific principles. We’ve heard that over and over: “Scientific principle — oh, it’s all based on science.”

But here are the facts as presented in court. These are statements that were made in court, which the statutory decision–maker actually admitted. When he was being questioned, he admitted that he never stepped foot on the site of the contaminated soil dump until after he made the decision to approve the site as a contaminated soil dump.

Can you imagine that? What arrogance. What an attitude. The best we’ve got in British Columbia for the people’s environment is that the statutory decision–maker is so busy in his office that he doesn’t have time to get in a vehicle….? Maybe he can’t afford the gas with this budget program of the government, can’t afford to get up over the Malahat and have a look. He admits that he never stepped foot on the site until after he made the decision to approve the site to be a contaminated soil dump. This shows an irresponsible attitude to our pristine lake and to the wonderful people that live in Shawnigan Lake, in the community.

In evidence, he showed he had no interest in the science of his own Ministry of Environment, which recommended further testing be done — these were the facts — before a permit was issued. The Ministry of Environment’s own scientists said: “Well, you need to do more testing before you go ahead and introduce this.”

Oh. Well, the statutory decision–maker not only ignored the Ministry of Environment’s own scientists. Four scientists wanted further testing before any permit was issued, of course, including scientists from the community who had come forward. Other scientific evidence was led that said, “Hey, if it’s true that this is a 75-foot granite barrier, then this could happen, but we need to do more testing,” because there was an opposite scientific opinion that said: instead of an impermeable 75-foot layer of granite, maybe it was fractured limestone.

Now, if you were going to use the precautionary principle…. I’m sure that a good government would have, and a good statutory decision–maker would have it in his mind: “Well, what if we’re wrong here? We’d better do some testing before we go ahead and approve this.” No, not so. They just ignored it, plowed ahead and granted a permit. Now, oh, guess what happens after we have a peek under the blanket, so to speak, about what’s really going on here. In the evidence, what came out, the statutory decision–maker only asked for more testing as part of the permit he approved to go ahead and bring in contaminated soil.

Only after the permit was granted did the statutory decision–maker and the Ministry of Environment discover that the proponents or the company’s partners…. The evidence was that the company had hired a company, Active Earth, that had geologists and hydrologists.

Well, I have my own theory about what happened. I don’t know if I should go that far as to talk about my theory, but it sure looks to me very suspicious that a company that was in financial difficulties…. The evidence in court was that the geologists and hydrologists weren’t getting paid and had more than half a million dollars in outstanding payments that needed to be made. Suddenly they discover that there’s a secret document hidden away. That was delivered to the community. It shows that they had become partners in a new numbered company some time before the permit was issued.

This is important, because we’re going to go right to the law in British Columbia — what should be going on and what should be happening, but it’s not. And it’s unacceptable that it’s not. Yeah, again, it was all very scientific, these procedures, according to the minister. But let me tell you what the law in British Columbia actually is in regard to what we learned in the court.

[1020]

The lawyers for the Ministry of Environment were there. They’ve got a perfect opportunity, in my opinion, because in the B.C. Environmental Management Act, in section 18, it states that the minister can suspend the permit if there was a misrepresentation during the application. So it hangs on: was there a misrepresentation?

Let’s go on and hear some more about that. You can suspend or cancel the permits. And we certainly know that this would be an easy way out for the Minister of Environment until the court case is finished. The fraud and perjury right now is only an allegation, but we heard evidence about issues that are completely a violation of the permit.

I would argue that the Minister of Environment…. This shouldn’t be up to the courts of B.C. If the Ministry of Environment’s own representative hears in court that they may have been lied to, and there is sufficient evidence for them to deduct: “Wait a minute. They violated the laws of British Columbia….”

What do we have to do? Call the RCMP? I don’t know. It’s just unacceptable.

In this act, it goes on to the suspension and cancellation of permits and approval. In 18: “(1) Subject to this section, the minister or a director, by notice served on
[ Page 10282 ]
the holder of a permit or approval, may: (a) suspend the permit or approval for any period, or (b) cancel the permit or approval.” The minister may exercise this authority under subsection (1) if any of the following circumstances occur: if a holder of a permit or an approval fails to comply with the terms of the permit or approval.

Now, the community will tell you — and not just one person…. They’re out there, vigilant, watching what’s going on. And there have been so many that it’s starting to lose track, with the large number of issues that are a violation of the permit and approval that was granted, that have totally been forced to be changed.

In (e), which is the key section that allows the minister to act — if she had preferred to act in favour of the good people of British Columbia, if she had preferred to get to yes in protecting the interests of British Columbia — it says: “a holder of a permit or an approval or the holder’s agent has made or makes a material misstatement or misrepresentation in the application for the permit or approval or in the information required under this Act with respect to the permit or approval.” It goes on: “(f) a holder of a permit or an approval fails to comply with any other requirements of this Act or the regulations.”

Well, the lawyers for the community have presented all kinds of evidence of failures of the original permit that was granted there. The evidence, I know, is before the courts.

Again, I would say a logical step for the Ministry of Environment would be to actually step in for the people of British Columbia and for the environment, in my mind. Obviously, they have a different opinion. For them, it’s all about getting to yes.

It’s worth mentioning that not only did the community, this Shawnigan Residents Association, have to take them to court…. They’re now at well over $1 million in legal fees, and that means the government is well over $1 million, spending our taxpayer money against our communities. Yet they come in here and say all this nonsense about how: “Oh my. We care so much about the environment.” You can understand how I would get frustrated.

The real icing on the cake — imagine this: the Cowichan Valley regional district, which represents that area and all of the communities around the Cowichan Valley, is now paying money to take the government to court to get into a technical argument.

Get this. The government says: “Oh, it’s not a contaminated dump site. It’s really a mine reclamation.” We should just put our blinders on and just think of this as a fine mine reclamation.

[1025]

I’m sure the original people who talked about reclaiming a minesite talked about clean soil and bringing in material that wasn’t hazardous to the environment. Oh no. Oh, you would think that they would be trying to make it better or at least reclaim the site to its original pristine way before the development. Oh no.

Now the government says of this site that it’s perfectly fine to have a contaminated soil dump, in violation of what the CVRD’s own zoning rules say. Do you know that they couldn’t have a garbage dump there? It wouldn’t be permitted. It would be too dangerous, too contaminated, too much of a violation of the community plan, the zoning.

Do you know what you can have in the F-1 zone of the CVRD? You can have a lot of things. You can have forestry activity, silviculture. You can have a home-based business. You can have a bed-and-breakfast. You can have a whole bunch of activities going on, including…. They can have a gravel pit or what they’ve got, what they’ve been granted. But nothing in the CVRD regulations….

They had to go to court to argue with technicality and have the government lawyers spending our B.C. taxpayers’…. Think about this: against the community — saying: “Oh, no. We’re just doing a minesite reclamation. It’s all good. You should ignore that we’re bringing in poisonous soil, and you should ignore that we’re actually processing the soil, and we’re planning on maybe even recycling some of this poisonous soil at some sites.” They’re doing all kinds of manufacturing of the soil, if you like, in this so-called engineered site. Anyway, I guess it’ll all get sorted out in court.

But it is tragic. I think it’s tragic that our communities are spending literally millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and of the community’s money, holding fundraisers to defend themselves against this government, which has the audacity to come in here and say: “Oh, it’s all good. We care so much about the environment.”

I want to finish this Shawnigan piece up by continuing. Our Shawnigan Lake is additionally important to the Cowichan Valley for tourism and a number of long-standing, internationally important and renowned education facilities, such as the Shawnigan school. The Shawnigan school was founded in 1916. One of the reasons it was founded: it was on the banks of a pristine lake. It’s their 100th-year anniversary this year.

The Dwight international school. Shawnigan has a long history of international schools, including the rowing club, which, I’m assuming, is also 100 years old, along with the school.

How is it possible that this government doesn’t get that turning the lands adjacent to this pristine, treasured lake into a contaminated soil dump is about the most outrageous thing they could ever do to disparage and disrespect this region of British Columbia?

This is an absolute failure of government policy, if there has ever been one. It will soon be world-renowned, and I hope the courts just kick them around the block, because they should.

The government, through its actions, has proven it is not interested in protecting our critical B.C. waterways. Our B.C. watersheds are now being turned into contaminated soil dumps under the management of this govern-
[ Page 10283 ]
ment. We’ve now seen the result of this mismanagement — for example, the mine tailings pond failures, like Mount Polley.

This government has ignored the pleas of students. Students came out en masse. The Shawnigan school and the Dwight school wrote letter after letter, hundreds of letters. More than 15,000 people signed a petition against this, even though there are only about 8,000 to 12,000 people that live in the Shawnigan region.

Certainly, the statement in the throne speech about working for our communities to ensure our concerns are addressed will not be believed in the Cowichan Valley and certainly not at Shawnigan Lake.

I want to turn now to other matters where this government has ignored their responsibilities on the B.C. environment. It was taken to the B.C. Supreme Court, the ruling on Enbridge, to show that the rush to hand decision-making power over to the Harper federal government was completely wrong, as has now been determined in court, and has put our B.C. environmental protection rights and, even now, major developments in British Columbia at risk.

[1030]

The court decision sent a very clear message to this Liberal government. They failed in their duty to consult with First Nations, whose rights and title are impacted by resource projects. And they failed British Columbians by trying to rid themselves of the clear responsibility the B.C. government has to act to review projects with the responsibility to protect the interests of all British Columbians.

In the Cowichan Valley, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that in the case of Shawnigan, there were letters sent by Cowichan Tribes, and now by the Malahat band, in opposition to what’s going on. And they say: “Despite the fact that the Cowichan Tribes has expressed concerns with the landfill to the province from the outset, including the potential…of contaminating the drinking water and negative impacts to our aboriginal rights, Cowichan Tribes has not been adequately and meaningfully consulted.” That’s a quote from the letter from Cowichan Tribes to this government.

They’re joined: the CVRD, Shawnigan Residents Association, all of the communities around the lake, both First Nation bands. I might add that at first Malahat was in favour. It came out in court that the Malahat Chief was getting so much a tonne. He has now resigned and been replaced by a new chief, who is now looking into this matter and these scandalous actions and behaviours. It’s sad. I really must say that the former Chief had done some good things, I thought, in his community, and it is sad that that happened.

However, now I look at, locally, in the Cowichan Valley and my communities…. Requests through the regional district and through the Shawnigan community’s action request to protect our Shawnigan watershed, from now and in the future, have all fallen on deaf ears.

Even our heritage Cowichan River issues have been ignored and abandoned by this government. Twice, I have come to talk to this government’s Minister of Forests regarding the need to allow the community some flexibility on holding back a little water — a little rainwater — with the existing weir that we have in Lake Cowichan. This government has ignored, delayed and risked our iconic heritage river salmon.

The community’s concerns — expressed by the CVRD chair, North Cowichan mayor, Duncan and Lake Cowichan mayors, CVRD director, Cowichan Tribes Chief and other First Nation representatives — were all ignored by this government, not helped in any way with a simple and specific request made on behalf of their communities to allow them to hold back a little rainwater to benefit the Cowichan River and its fish — and, I might add, the jobs of those people tied to the Crofton pulp mill — and the dilution of any potential pollution in the lake requires water.

We’ve had five years in a row, because this government has failed to act, that the community has had to truck fish upstream in order to rescue our salmon from certain death in these drying pools in the summer, lacking water supply because the government refused to listen to the community and refused to let them do what they needed to do in their own watershed.

In Shawnigan Lake, this government promoted and supported the creation of a poisonous cauldron of dirty dirt, now stored in plastic — as the Environmental Appeal Board called it, an engineered site with a plastic liner the thickness of a toonie. Scientists are now coming forward that say that within seven to 15 years, these may fail. The contaminated dump is now brewing a kind of stewed dirty dirt, or a stored sudden death to fish and the environment if it escapes.

No mention at all of this in the government’s throne speech, which says that they care so much about the environment — nothing of any sort of action for the protection of our water or protecting and enhancing watersheds like Shawnigan and Cowichan. This government even developed a water act that does not apply to protecting water. Here in the Water Act, it talks about contaminants and water. Oh, but I’m told by the Minister of Environment that that section doesn’t apply because we’re under the permits of the Ministry of Environment.

It’s turned to the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Forests and to the ministries of permits. They grandly call it getting to yes. In fact, the government’s Minister of Environment — think about this — has granted a permit to turn the area just uphill to our beautiful Shawnigan Lake into a toxic dump. There have been the young moms and grandfathers protesting this outrageous situation.

[1035]

Government, in our view, in our community’s view, stood by and ignored the environment. They’ve watched
[ Page 10284 ]
while people trying to protect their water were arrested, and their local government, the environment abused…. They know that a woman protester was attacked by a burly truck driver. This government stands by and ignores all the community’s pleas to please protect our water, our drinking water, our region, our special place.

The throne speech offers no help for the poor or for people living on disability assistance. I note that this throne speech does not offer any help to defer hydro payments for the…. They do offer help for the mining sector. No doubt, they need some assistance. However, the government should be judged by how they treat those least able to defend themselves — the disabled, the poor, the sick, the elderly. Nothing by way of financial help on the way for them. Nothing to help with their hydro or increasing costs and fees.

We even had the United Church minister write in the local paper about how they had run out of funding to help so many people coming through the door of their church that needed help dealing with hydro and increased costs. Their families were falling behind. They were struggling and in potential danger of even being forced out of their own homes.

This is what goes on in the province of British Columbia. It’s unacceptable.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my privilege to stand here today to speak in support of the 2016 Speech from the Throne.

I’m a proud representative of Cariboo North, and I would like to take an opportunity to talk a little bit about the significance of our area — first by, of course, thanking our tremendous staff, our ministerial staff and our constituency staff. As we all know, while we are here in Victoria, it’s our constituency staff, Kylie and Sheila, that, with compassion and a tremendous amount of respect for our constituency, do the work that we are so incredibly grateful that they do.

I would like to acknowledge and say thank you for all the work that you’re doing in our communities so that we can be down here ensuring that the voices of our constituents are heard.

Cariboo North is such a unique part of the province of British Columbia. We represent 33,000 square kilometres. It is a very large riding. It’s a very unique part of the province. Of course, I would be remiss to not invite everyone to come and visit some of the fantastic attractions that we have — everything from the Barkerville Historic Town to the Bowron Lake recreational chain to the Williams Lake Stampede. We have over 4,000 lakes in our area — a tremendous opportunity for recreation. We just feel incredibly blessed to live in this part of the province.

With the changes that are happening with the electoral boundaries, there will be some changes in the next upcoming election. I think it is fitting for me, at this time, to say a tremendous thank-you to the fine men and women of 150 Mile and Williams Lake. It truly has been a privilege to represent you every single day and to know how hard-working you are in everything that you do and how compassionate you are in the community to make sure that we are looking after our friends and our neighbours.

I would like to reflect on a few of the items that really stood out for me from the throne speech — first of all, on the agricultural side. It stands really strongly in my family, coming from a fourth-generation ranching family in the Cariboo, how significant agriculture is. I’m incredibly proud of the importance that we have put on agriculture in this throne speech and, really, what it means around supporting these families and making sure that we are ensuring that we have security in the future.

[1040]

My family moved from the Dakotas in the late 1800s. They moved to Alberta to set up homesteads. As the dust bowl did with so many families, it drove us to Vancouver. In the ’30s, there was a program that was put in place that supported homesteaders moving from the Lower Mainland — it was a railway grant — up into the Cariboo to set up homesteads. In 1933, my family took advantage of that, and they were given 160 acres, a tent and a horse.

From that, a great legacy was set forth. I think it’s important for us to remember our legacy. Obviously, we’re all very proud of the areas that we represent.

Some of the people I’d like to talk about today…. Why I’m so emotional is that…. This past year Paul and Terry Nichols took a veterans ride across Canada. I was so incredibly proud when they started their journey to talk to communities across Canada about the significance of our veterans and the impact that they make in all of our lives.

Well, we welcomed them home in December, and I’m very pleased to say that they’ll be coming to the House. We’ll have the opportunity for all of us to share in their stories. They’ve touched thousands of people’s lives, and I’m very proud of their story. I’ll write it down, because it’s obviously easier for me to write down than to share it here with you today.

These are uncertain times for British Columbians. Our government will continue to stand up for B.C., for British Columbians and for those communities and industries that not only built this province but sustain our prosperity. We will not only not forget our legacy, but we will not forget our pioneers. As your member for Cariboo North, I will always champion and fight for voices of rural British Columbia.

Last month I was pleased to attend the B.C. Natural Resource Forum in Prince George. While in Prince George, I had the opportunity to meet with leaders and discuss resource development opportunities.

Our government continues to pursue responsible resource development to grow strong, diverse economies through industries such as forestry, mining, energy and LNG. I had the opportunity to sit down and talk about what the future of our region will look like — talk-
[ Page 10285 ]
ing about opportunities with New Gold, about their Blackwater project — and discuss the opportunities that we have in our area around small business.

Forestry is an important industry in our province. Thousands of men and women and small businesses depend on this important resource. Although the industry continues to thrive, serious disagreements with our largest trading partner, the expired softwood lumber agreement and the unfair U.S. Department of Commerce ruling on Catalyst present a real risk to jobs. We will work with our federal counterparts to renew the softwood agreement and press for full investigation of Catalyst to confirm that they have received no government subsidies.

The men and women and small businesses who depend on B.C.’s mining sector are under threat from low prices for copper and coal but also from internal critics looking for opportunities to seal the industry closed.

To those who don’t support mining, let me ask you this. Do you own a laptop? Do you use an iPad? Do you use a cell phone? Do you travel on an aircraft? When you get up in the morning and turn on the lights, recognize that the power travels through thousands of kilometres of metal wire supported by thousands of metal towers. When you turn up the thermostat, recognize that natural gas travelled thousands of kilometres through metal pipes. All of these products and services that we use on a daily basis come from mineral exploration.

[1045]

Since mining is an important component in B.C.’s diverse economy, we want to support this industry. Rural communities across British Columbia, including my communities of Quesnel and Williams Lake, depend on the mining sector for high-paying jobs.

Our government wants to help equip British Columbians with the skills that they need to get these good-paying jobs — good family-supporting jobs. Using the resources we have is a practical approach to skills training. To ensure that British Columbians benefit from current and future job opportunities, our government is aligning skills training with job market demands. We understand the importance of aligning skills training in our communities.

I know that communities such as ours in the Cariboo are under transition. The mountain pine beetle epidemic has created a challenge where we have a reduction in fibre supply. But our communities understand transition and how resilient we are. We continue to plan and work collaboratively together, because we know this is what it is going to take to ensure that our communities are successful.

I know the importance of skills training. I understand how critically important this is — for skills to come into our communities, to help with this transition. I will continue to advocate for this.

I want to thank the business leaders in our community, who have been meeting with me monthly to ensure that our transition supports everyone in our community.

I would like to take a moment to talk about small businesses. Small businesses, as we know, are the heart and the souls of communities. There are over 380,000 small businesses in British Columbia, touching every sector of the economy and all of the regions of the province. Did you know that in northern British Columbia, with the small town love initiative that is in so many of our communities…? This is the largest Shop Local campaign in all of North America.

Small businesses have a huge impact on our provincial economy. They employ more than one million British Columbians, and that’s 54 percent of all of the private job sectors. In fact, one-third of our GDP is generated by small businesses. Who are these small businesses? They could be a rancher. They could be a welding shop. They could be a restaurant. There are small businesses in every part of our fantastic province of British Columbia.

In my role as the Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction, I’m working with our government to cultivate an environment in which small businesses can prosper. We’ve worked with young people — Futurpreneur, Junior Achievement — to ensure that our young people understand the tremendous opportunities that exist for looking at entrepreneurship and the opportunities that are there for young people.

It’s great that we have some young guests that are visiting our House today. We welcome you to your House and hope that you will consider entrepreneurship in your future.

Our government has accomplished a great deal in this regard. We’ve listened to the small business community and responded by taking action to make British Columbia the most small business–friendly province in Canada.

We feel, we know, and we understand that with the potential we have to harness in our small business community, we will ensure that we will be recognized internationally as the most small business–friendly jurisdiction. We believe that getting out of the way of small businesses so that they can do what they do best — create jobs and continue to grow and diversify our economy — is important.

To help folks who are trying to start or to grow a new small business, we’re encouraging investment, increased access to that venture capital. Specifically, we’re providing small businesses direct access to early-stage venture capital funding through the small business venture capital tax program with $30 million allocated in 2016.

Another way we’re working with small business community is through the implementation of the B.C. small business accord, which guides government interactions with our small business partners.

This accord was developed after consulting the small business community and outlines six key principles that guide government interactions with small business owners to reduce the complexity that small businesses
[ Page 10286 ]
can face when dealing with government. This includes working with our small business awareness of government programs and initiatives, extending key training opportunities and maintaining an open dialogue with the small business community so that they can continue to have a voice at the table.

[1050]

As part of our work to ensure that small businesses have access to information, tools and resources that they need to thrive, we’re helping to fund Small Business B.C., our province’s premier resource centre for business information and services for anyone looking to start, to grow or to manage a business.

My ministry has also established a Small Business Roundtable, which I’m very proud to chair. This round table is comprised of business leaders and industry associations from across the province. It’s engaged in ongoing dialogue about how we continue to grow and create opportunities for our small business. This forum brings together key partners from every part of this fantastic province that provide recommendations and continue to look at how we can improve small businesses in B.C.

These partnerships not only give small businesses a voice at the table, but they’re creating real business solutions. One example of this is the mobile business licence program, which is now operating through 11 agreements in 73 communities around the province. This program allows mobile businesses such as contractors and caterers to operate across participating municipalities and regional districts with one additional business licence, as opposed to having to purchase licences for every single community in which they operate.

Another great example of how we are making it easier to run small businesses in the province is through BizPaL, an innovative on-line service that reduces the process, that in the past took up business days, now to 20 or 30 minutes. Specifically, through a unique partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, BizPaL is helping small business owners to cut through the burden and red tape by offering simplified access to information about the permits and licences that they need to establish and run their businesses all in one easy, accessible on-line location.

It’s not just small businesses that get tied up in red tape and unnecessary regulations. That’s why our government has made it a priority to look at ways that we can reduce red tape and make it easier for all British Columbians to access the government services that they depend on. Since 2001, there has been a 43 percent total reduction in requirements, and 155,000 needless rules have been removed.

Last fall, we asked British Columbians for their ideas on how we could improve government services. Not only did we receive more than 5,900 people engaging with this on-line conversation; we received 280 ideas on how to cut red tape for folks across the province.

In fact, we’ve already made several improvements to how to do business. This is what we’ve heard. It’s easier to take your driving test with 18 more knowledge test kiosks at drivers’ licensing offices in British Columbia. You can get your business done on your schedule with Service B.C.’s extended hours pilot in selected communities. It’s easier now to register as an employer at Work B.C. with its improved on-line registration process and guide.

Over the coming months, many more of these ideas will become a reality and lead to further improvements in the everyday lives of British Columbians. I’m very much looking forward to sharing our final report on the consultation and the actions on the red-tape-reduction day coming up on March 2.

In conclusion, we believe in having the courage to get to yes. We believe in creating jobs. We believe in diversifying, growing and strengthening our community. We believe in rural British Columbia. By keeping our focus on our B.C. jobs plan and growing sectors like tech, agrifoods and natural gas development, we will create real opportunities for families here at home, ensuring that British Columbians remain first in line for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

We also recognize the importance of agriculture, forestry, mining, small business — the hard-working men and women that get up every single day to make sure that we have the tremendous opportunities that each of us has the true privilege to experience.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1055]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: It’s my privilege and pleasure today to introduce a constituent of mine, a teacher, Danny Buchanan, and a group of grade 5 students who are here with their chaperones from the West-Mont Montessori School in the district of Metchosin. I’m waving up at them.

The students are currently learning about government, how bills are passed and about the decision-making processes involved in coming to those decisions. I think there couldn’t be a better example than the throne speech for the kids in Metchosin to learn about this place, what we do and why we do it. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Rice: I stand here today to respond to the 2016 throne speech. I must say that on Tuesday, I sincerely felt sorry for the Lieutenant-Governor. I felt sorry for her in that she was required to read aloud such pomposity. It must be painstakingly embarrassing to have to read such phony, fudged and disingenuous words crafted from the
[ Page 10287 ]
Premier’s office. I guess desperate times call for desperate words by a desperate Premier who has failed on her election promises.

In the 2013 throne speech, a new LNG industry was to eliminate our debt, to eliminate the PST and create 100,000 jobs and $1 trillion in economic activity. In the 2014 throne speech, LNG was “a chance, not a windfall.” In the 2015 throne speech, LNG was still a “generational opportunity” but barely mentioned otherwise, in an effort to change the channel.

Now, in 2016’s throne speech, the government admits that their timelines will not be met. Today the government has done everything they can, but “global conditions are posing new challenges.” Today this government says that LNG export is merely necessary in order for current workers in the natural gas industry to not lose their jobs. I quote from the speech: “We must begin to export, or the 13,000 people who depend on this industry today will be out of work.” This is a serious concern and a colossal failure of this government, who was going to shower us in gold from a lucrative LNG industry.

The speech also says that government will establish the prosperity fund, a.k.a. the magic fund from the 2013 election that was going to pay for everything, eliminate the debt and eliminate the PST. We know this is never going to happen, especially if we are to develop an LNG industry simply to maintain the current natural gas jobs we have now. There’s no new prosperity in that.

The theme of this year’s throne speech is around the Premier’s new slogan about being courageous yes-people. I quote from the speech: “Steadfast, resilient, and the courage to get to yes. That’s the spirit of who we are as British Columbians.”

The throne speech also says that our great spirit is demonstrated with the Great Bear Rainforest agreement. “One of the greatest acts of conservation in our country. One that establishes the certainty required for economic development. An agreement that enshrines human well-being and an opportunity for First Nations to benefit.”

Well, these words are mocking, considering that a week after this announcement, the Premier insulted and disrespected the very same First Nations of the Great Bear Rainforest. She called these people the forces of no and a ragtag group of people for having dissenting views on a project near the most important salmon-bearing river within the Great Bear Rainforest. Now, the Premier and the proponent are determined to build here. The forces of no are simply asking for the location to be moved off this site to one of the many alternative sites nearby.

At what was called the Salmon Nation Summit, held in Prince Rupert, the Lelu Island declaration was signed by hereditary leaders from the Skeena watershed to the Tsimshian territory on the coast. All of these indigenous peoples, known as the title and rights holder in this region, recognized and reaffirmed the need to safeguard Lelu Island and the Skeena estuary.

Flora and Agnew Banks are essential to juvenile salmon. First Nations and non–First Nations communities throughout the watershed and across the coast depend on this salmon. After learning more about the science and the risks to the estuary, this declaration was signed by hereditary chiefs of Lax Kw’alaams and supported by the likes of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.

[1100]

This was not a so-called ragtag group of people. These are informed indigenous peoples and northerners who know the science and know the facts, and they understand the risks of industrial development to this region of our province. This was a powerful statement of people coming together to defend the northern way of life. To try to discredit these leaders by calling them ragtag is untrue and simply and totally disrespectful.

The path to reconciliation and advancement of LNG projects or any projects does not start by labelling a group of hereditary chiefs, matriarchs, leaders and citizens with legitimate concerns as ragtag. You advance projects by bringing people together and finding compromises, such as the Great Bear Rainforest agreement that the Premier speaks so highly of in the throne speech.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

We all want responsible resource development and shared benefits. The Premier, however, prefers name-calling. It’s reminiscent of a Harper-era strategy of divide and conquer, us and them. Remember foreign-funded radicals? I’ve come to learn that this way of dialogue in these chambers seems to be the way we go. But to speak this way to the citizens we represent?

The Premier not only insults the very citizens she represents but insults our neighbouring province, saying Alberta has lost its way. This is in the same breath as stating that she hopes that the trade partner she ridicules will buy our hydroelectric power.

The Premier recently said, in regards to the 300-plus people gathered at the salmon summit in Prince Rupert: “The world is being divided in two…the people that will say no to everything” and “the people who want to find a way to get to yes…. I’m not sure what the science, the forces of no, bring up there, except that it’s not really about the science. It’s not really about the fish. It’s about just trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future.”

Now, Ian Gill writes, in The Tyee, an excellent editorial that does a phenomenal job of depicting the true Skeena narrative. It’s called “Scolding B.C.’s ‘Forces of No,’ Our Premier Crassly Divides Us.” I highly recommend that the members of this House read it. Allow me to quote some passages that describe these matters well.

“Yes, the world is being divided in two, but it is the Premier and her industry pals who are doing the dividing because their powers of persuasion are proving unequal to the task. Her intemperate comments were quickly seized upon by the media, thanks to
[ Page 10288 ]
the nicely simplistic, black and white, us vs. them, good against evil nature of the battle she sees herself as waging and, heroically, not resigning from.

“It is a shockingly unsophisticated view of the world and a deeply divisive one…. But when citizens dare to assemble in the public square — citizens who are squarely in the firing zone of the Premier’s industrial carpet bombing of the north — well, the Premier just lumps and splits and disdains the diverse opinions of those who happen to not agree with her. She starkly demonstrates a failure not just of political leadership but also of moral leadership.

“Suddenly, and we’ve seen this before — Stephen Harper, anyone? — she exposes herself as not our Premier at all but as the chief information officer for a powerful few. She no longer pretends to govern for all British Columbians — just those who agree with her or at least swallow her spin. What a grave strategic error. What a spectacular communications failure. What a fool….

“Our Premier, in Vancouver, refers to people ‘up there.’ She distances them not just philosophically but geographically. They’re ‘up there,’ and by extension, their views are ‘out there.’

[1105]

“‘It’s not really about the science,’ our Premier says, even though the Salmon Nation Summit presented strong, peer-reviewed science that raises serious concerns about the Petronas project and its threat to wild salmon.

“‘It’s not really about our fish,’ the Premier says. Yet actually, it is all about the fish. ‘It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future’ — which, in truth, is absolutely true. People up there do fear for their futures, which is why they devote themselves to participating and, in many instances, expressing dissenting opinions through processes that time and time again favour developers.

“‘The fish will be supported,’ our Premier says. Really? How? Will they be taken into foster care to feed the disproportionate number of First Nations kids currently supported by the Premier’s family-first government…?”

“The Premier ignores the learnings from the Great Bear Rainforest model she has been schooled to extol, choosing instead to divide people along party lines while she wields the hammer in a fire sale auction of the Skeena’s cultures, communities and ecologies, in exchange for a dirty, 24-hour-a-day, glaring, clanging, razor-wire-encircled, guard-dog-patrolled and dangerously combustible industry run by bloodless offshore owners who have no relationship to the lands and who bring nothing but money to the shores….

“The Skeena is rich with ingredients for a narrative that is far more powerful than anything distant corporate and political spin doctors can devise. Forget the Premier’s five conditions. The people of the Skeena have their own conditions, and that’s what they are standing up for. That’s what they are saying yes to.

“Our Premier should ask herself: what do they mean by reconciliation? Who has authority on their lands? Who grants permission to even propose a development on their lands, let alone build one?

“The world is hungry for the Skeena’s genius narrative, just as it developed a huge appetite for what recently went down in the Great Bear Rainforest. A few years ago there was no Great Bear Rainforest, only a central midcoast timber supply area….

“In the Skeena, the battle for 21st-century well-being is likewise a battle for narrative, made potent by the moral authority of principled resistance. The Skeena is a truly great river that deserves its place in the pantheon of B.C.’s great places. It rises as a trickle in our Sacred Headwaters and along its course gives life and expression to peoples for whom every inch of the river is sacred. That’s what people ‘up there’ are trying to convey, a narrative in which the Skeena ends as it begins, flowing freely in the sacred tidewaters of salmon nation.”

Now, the throne speech states: “For over 100 years, British Columbians have successfully created strong, vibrant industries, particularly in the resource sector. But we have too often failed to ensure First Nations received their fair share of the benefits of a modern economy. We are now moving in the right direction.” Moving in the right direction? How is that possible?

As Ian Gill points out, the Skeena narrative is complex, strong and diverse, yet the Premier insults us to a most simplistic narrative of yes or no. Is that moving in the right direction in the 21st century?

Near Bella Bella, in Heiltsuk territory, at the Namu village site, sits an environmental mess from a once vibrant resource industry — that vibrant resource industry mentioned in the throne speech. That is salmon canning. The Heiltsuk First Nation have received their fair share all right — their fair share of a contaminated and abandoned site no one will take responsibility for; resources and wealth exploited; contamination and mess left for the Heiltsuk people to attend to.

Let’s talk about the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision that ruled that this government has breached the honour of the Crown by failing to consult with the Gitga’at First Nation and other coastal First Nations on the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline and supertanker project. The Premier gave over our rights to a federal review process for the most controversial proposal of our time. That was reckless and disrespectful, not only to First Nations but to all British Columbians, to abandon her responsibilities.

[1110]

The decision reaffirms what the courts continue to say, and that is that governments have a legal duty to consult and accommodate First Nations whose rights are impacted by resource projects. We are in a new era when it comes to consulting and truly respecting First Nations. Our new Prime Minister seems to be getting it, but our Premier doesn’t care.

The throne speech speaks about the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and “safe transportation options along Highway 16.” But for years, the B.C. Liberals neglected the families of the murdered and missing women and failed to bring safe, accessible transportation to Highway 16. It took this government getting caught deleting their own emails about murdered and missing aboriginal women along the Highway of Tears for these families, yet so much still needs to be addressed.

The throne speech speaks of “B.C.’s precious coasts” that “have long been known for their abundant and sustainable seafood,” yet this government has remained silent after Canfisco has announced that it’s closing the salmon canning lines in Prince Rupert, the last remaining major cannery on our coast. This government has done nothing to protect up to 600 British Columbian jobs. It allows profit over people — our precious resource to be shipped overseas, to be processed with cheap and unregulated labour, only to be sold back to British Columbians at a premium.
[ Page 10289 ]

Life is really getting unaffordable for British Columbians, and then this government prides itself on a job well done. MSP and ICBC premiums continue to skyrocket. The cost of living continues to rise, with little support for working families from this government. The people who time and time again come into my office struggling to pay their rent or find an affordable place to live, or who have to choose between eating and paying the hydro bill, is growing. This throne speech does little to offer them a hand up. That, I feel, is a colossal failure.

Lastly, I must conclude by going back to the blatant contempt displayed by the Premier for the very people she purports to represent. It is repressive and deplorable for a Premier who so desperately wants an LNG industry in B.C. It is a major step backward in building the necessary relationships for development of this industry or any industry. I sincerely urge the Premier of this province to apologize to the chiefs, to the matriarchs, to the leaders and the people of the northwest and the Skeena watershed for her callous and shallow remarks. These people are not ragtag or the forces of no. They are legitimate people with legitimate concerns, deserving of respect.

J. Yap: It is, as always, an honour and a privilege to rise and speak in this House, the people’s House, and to take my place in responding to the Speech from the Throne.

I first of all want to wish everyone a happy Chinese New Year. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it’s a 14-day celebration. We’re only on day 4 of the Chinese New Year. So to everyone who celebrates this festive lunar new year, I wish you all a happy new Year of the Monkey. Gong xi fa cai, xin nian kuai le.

It is definitely a privilege to speak in response and in full support, in enthusiastic support, of this throne speech. This opportunity comes to us each time that we have an outline of the government’s agenda, the throne speech. Every time I have this opportunity to come into the House and speak, it really feels like a real privilege, and I’m thankful to a lot of people for this opportunity.

I first of all want to just spend a few moments thanking, as other members have, the people who support them back home in our districts, in my constituency office. I want to say heartfelt thanks to my constituency office staff, who are my presence in the community while I’m here in Victoria.

[1115]

I want to thank Paige Robertson, my full-time constituency assistant; and also my part-time assistants, PoWah Ng and Laura Chen; as well as Guang Cheng Ma. I really appreciate their support in helping our constituents navigate issues that are important to them.

I also want to thank the staff here that support us, support me, at the Legislative Assembly: my legislative assistant, Jeff Crone, who does a great job, and also my communications officer, Tracy Grimsrud, who is such a delight to work with and a great communications officer.

Most of all, as all of us have…. We all have gratitude to our loved ones, our families, and I want to say a special word of thanks to my family for their support and love that allows me, as other members experience in discharging their duties, the opportunity to do this job, to represent the people and, through this, sacrifice time with family to be away from home. So I thank my wife, Suzanne, and my children — my daughter, Lisa, and my son, Michael — for their patience, their understanding and their love.

I know that there will be great news next week when the Minister of Finance tables what is looking to be a fourth consecutive balanced budget, which is a tremendous achievement. As we look around the world and closer to home at what’s happening in other parts of our great nation where other jurisdictions are struggling with their fiscal management, here in British Columbia, thanks to the policies of our government and the hard work of British Columbians, our economy is humming and our fiscal plan is sound. We look forward to the great news of the budget that will be tabled next week, as I’m sure all British Columbians are looking forward to that budget.

Today, I wanted to talk about the throne speech and to highlight, as other members have, the great opportunities and to speak with some pride about our home communities. I have the opportunity to represent Richmond and Steveston, which is, I believe, the best community to represent — just a wonderful community, a great riding. I’m sure everyone feels that way about their riding. I want to thank the people of Richmond-Steveston for their continuing trust in me and for continuing to bring issues of interest and concern forward and working together to solve them.

It’s a tremendous place to live, work and raise a family. People in Richmond and Steveston really take pride in our community. Whether it’s in the areas of sport, health care, seniors care, heritage, community harmony or multiculturalism, people really care and come together and try to resolve issues and work together.

One example is the Steveston 20/20, a collaboration of volunteer organizations in Steveston who do great work in grappling with issues that touch on our community and act as a conduit for bringing ideas forward to make our community a better place — for example, in preserving the unique heritage of Steveston village, which, as everyone knows, is a very special place, a historic former Japanese fishing village which today is still home to the largest fishing fleet in Canada.

We have great people in our community. We have people who are exemplars. And Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt have heard, Richmond is home to the population that has the longest longevity, and we’re very proud of that. The people live longest, and according to the statistics, Richmond has a large number of long-living citizens.

[1120]

One who is a real inspiration is Nina Graham, an unstoppable woman in her eighties. She’s contributed to the YMCA active seniors program as a volunteer fitness instructor. Another active senior is George Ng, another senior in his eighties, who is frequently spotted walking and cycling through our wonderful community of Steveston. Age doesn’t slow these two remarkable seniors, who serve as a good example of health at any age.

We have a great business community in Steveston, well-represented by our Richmond Chamber of Commerce and also the Steveston Merchants Association.

One great example of a small business is the Village Books and Coffee House on First Avenue in Steveston. In January, the store reportedly saw phenomenal coffee and book sales during the Christmas time and the best month ever with gift cards, children’s books and coffee and food sales. Angela and Ron Hill took the store over in 2011 and ran it for 25 years, first in Tsawwassen before relocating to Steveston. This is a second-generation, family-run story that is typical of many small businesses that we’re proud to have in our community.

We have as well in Richmond, as everyone knows, probably one of the most significant economic generators. That’s YVR, Vancouver International Airport, which is, by itself, responsible for over 20,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is a great asset for the region, for our province and for our nation. It’s not just a major transportation gateway but a source of pride for all of us.

The Fraser River is a working river, one that sustains our community and has for generations; and, of course, Steveston Harbour, another local gem which, as I mentioned, is still an active commercial fishing venue.

Thanks to our sound fiscal management and the opportunity to invest in major infrastructure, British Columbia is well positioned for the future. As we look around in my community in Richmond, there are so many examples. In the time that I have, I just want to touch on a couple more.

One that the people of Richmond use to promote and enjoy wellness and good health is the Olympic Oval, which is a direct legacy of the 2010 games, perhaps one of the most successful Olympics ever held. Richmond was well served by being involved with the oval that received significant provincial funding to be built and, today, is just a gem in the community, enjoyed by all.

Another example is the Canada Line, which has been an overnight success — another major infrastructure project that is a great success and an example of the vision of our government. The Canada Line is not just a very popular mode of transit. It also contributes to reducing greenhouse gases.

We’re now on the threshold of another major infrastructure investment: the project to replace the Massey Tunnel with a new bridge. The public consultations are in process, and I was delighted to hear that over 1,000 people participated in the consultations.

We look forward to this major piece of infrastructure coming forward and being built. This is so needed for the transportation of people and goods and will directly and indirectly create thousands of jobs and contribute to the continued economic growth not just of Richmond, but the region and our province.

I had the privilege in the last couple of years to be involved in, for me, a very interesting project. That’s the reform of liquor policy in the province of B.C. in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform.

[1125]

I have to say that this project allowed us to be involved in some really commonsense changes to modernize liquor laws that British Columbians asked for and, with the implementation of these recommendations, supported industry and provided a level of convenience for citizens that was desired.

Some examples. We now are seeing liquor in grocery stores. We’re seeing happy hours in establishments, the removal of beer garden and festival barriers, simplifying and increasing flexibility around licensing. Another one that was a popular request during the liquor review: allowing kids into pubs and legions during mealtimes to keep families together.

These are just a few of the commonsense changes that we made to support industry, to support hospitality and tourism and communities. That was the result of the liquor policy changes.

We can all be proud of the fiscal performance of our province over the last number of years in the face of global economic uncertainty and volatility, and we must continue down that path. Here in British Columbia, we have such a special opportunity. We have a diversified and growing economy. We have a competitive economy. We have taxes that are among the lowest in North America. And we have the opportunity to lead Canada with hope and optimism as we look forward to the next year.

Much has been said about the opportunities before us and the need for us to be optimistic and to get to yes in investment decisions. I fully support that theme that was touched on in the throne speech, a throne speech which offers hope and optimism and a strong vision for continued economic success and prosperity and opportunity for British Columbians.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak and conclude my remarks.

J. Horgan: It’s a real pleasure and privilege to rise in my place here in the Legislature and speak to the throne speech tabled this week by the B.C. Liberal government.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, though, I would like to, as is tradition, spend a few minutes talking about how delighted and honoured I am to represent the good people of Juan de Fuca here on Vancouver Island in a constituency that has been my home for 25
[ Page 10291 ]
years. I was born and raised here on Vancouver Island. I’ve raised my children here on Vancouver Island, and I am a proud Vancouver Islander.

But I’m also a proud British Columbian, a British Columbian who wants to see prosperity in every corner of this province. I am a citizen, like all of us in this place, who wants to see the best for the communities that we represent. I do not want to ascribe anything to any of the citizens or the representatives in this House beyond that. I believe we all come with good conscience. We all come with the best of intentions.

Where we have divides, of course, are on substantive policies. The policies laid forward by the government in their throne speech will be the topic of my discussion. But again, before I get there, I want to talk a little bit about representing Juan de Fuca, representing an area that is proud in traditions of volunteerism, entrepreneurism and cooperation as well — longtime New Democrat constituencies, I have to say, but also constituencies blessed with innovation and opportunity for business and investment as well.

I live in Langford, one of the fastest-growing municipalities, certainly in the south Island, if not in all of British Columbia. We’re led by a dynamic council that invites and encourages investment, is as nimble as any municipal government I’ve ever come across, and is able to get solutions to problems effectively by bringing people in and finding solutions and getting to decisions that are in the interest of everybody — not dividing people, but bringing people together. I think that’s a model we can all follow.

I also represent rural Metchosin and rural Highlands. They are fiercely proud of their rural nature and, although enthusiastic about the growth potential in Langford, are also very cautious about the impact on the sheep and on the trees and on the people in those rural communities. I’m also proud to have that diversity. It’s a juggling act sometimes to be in Langford talking about development and then being in Metchosin talking about preserving the rural quality of life and in Highlands talking about the spectacular nature of that homestead community and what it means to be fiercely independent and separate and distinct from the other communities on the south Island.

[1130]

Now, the amalgamation people will probably be sending me emails right now. My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake has got a wry smile on his face as we talk about the diversity. In my constituency alone, there are four municipalities and an electoral area, and that, of course, is just one-quarter of the municipalities in the capital regional district.

Sooke is the heart, the commercial hub, of the west coast of Vancouver Island, and it is growing in leaps and bounds as well. This year Sooke Elementary had 60 more elementary students than they had anticipated, which is significant, right across district 62. Dealing with that growth in school populations — it’s not just happening in my community, but certainly in Surrey, Coquitlam and other parts of British Columbia.

We did have some sad news this past year in Sooke — the passing of two pioneers in our community. Maywell Wickheim left us earlier in the year and John Wilson just at Christmastime. Two pioneers in Sooke, pioneering families, the Wickheims and the Wilsons. They’ll be deeply missed. They made great contributions to not just Sooke and Vancouver Island but all of British Columbia.

It has been an honour to be the member of the Legislature for Sooke because of that fierce nature of independence, which I mentioned in Highlands. But it also permeates the electoral area of Juan de Fuca as well. The community of Port Renfrew, at the farthest corner of my constituency, at the mouth of the San Juan River, where the Pacheedahts have had their traditional territory for millennia, is working with newcomers to Vancouver Island to build the type of community and the type of economy that we want.

Why that’s so important, and why that’s such a contrast to what the Premier put before the Lieutenant-Governor to read from the Speaker’s chair this week, is that my experience here in British Columbia as an elected representative is that when you work with communities, those that are for positions, those who are against positions,, compromise is possible. Consensus can be achieved. We all represent diverse and distinct communities. I know the members on the other side are probably having difficulty condemning half of the people in their populations when they stand and say that they’re all about yes and other people are all about no.

I know that that’s now going to be part of the election campaign. As we get closer to 2017, we’ll hear the members on that side of the House say: “If you’re not with us, you must, therefore, be against us. You’re wreckers of British Columbia. You’re against prosperity. You’re against growth. You’re against all of the things that every British Columbian wants to see.”

But these themes that we heard in the throne speech — the forces of goodness and light coming from that side and then those that keep cheering on the forces of goodness, the friends of the government, and then the enemies, those that oppose them. Well, in and of itself, that divisiveness is bad enough, but I want to speak specifically to those who are speaking in favour of that divisiveness, those that I’ve been hearing on that side of the House speaking to the throne speech over the past number of days.

I do not believe, and my colleagues do not believe — and I think that the majority of British Columbians do not believe — that you get to yes and the benefit to all citizens in the community by dividing those very citizens. I believe the best course of action — which I subscribe to and my colleagues over on this side, and, I would suggest, per-
[ Page 10292 ]
haps the vast majority on that side — is finding ways to get to yes that meet everyone’s needs and everyone’s interests.

Balance is what we do in our personal lives. Balance is what we do with our families. Balance is what the communities we represent do every single day. We have many councillors and mayors on both sides of the House, former municipal politicians, who may well have had a partisan flag when they entered politics, but they know that when they came to the council table, when citizens came forward with ideas and initiatives, they had to put aside their partisan instincts and work together to get the outcomes that the citizens and their communities wanted to see. That’s what I believe we should be doing in this Legislature.

But just this past week, the Premier, in a trip back east, made some references to those who were concerned about the development of an LNG facility on Lelu Island. I heard my colleague from North Coast speak of it. I know my colleagues from Stikine and Skeena will be talking about it in their remarks.

But what’s really remarkable — and, frankly, disturbing — about the Premier’s comments with respect to the First Nations leaders and other long-standing citizens in the community…. She characterized those people who did not share her world view…. There are many, I have to say. Just in the last election, close to three-quarters of a million people disagreed with the Premier by putting an “X” on the ballot not for her candidates. That’s a lot of people to be offending.

[1135]

In this instance, 300 people came together in the small communities on the north coast, and the Premier characterized them as “kind of a ragtag group of people.” Let that sink in for a moment, would you? Kind of a ragtag group of people.

Now, let me be clear about this, and let there be no ambiguity. The Premier’s view of the world is that if you’re not cheering her on, regardless of what’s coming out of her mouth, you therefore must be some ragtag group of people.

I want to ask the Premier and members on that side of the House — and particularly the member for Nechako Lakes, who has a different responsibility than other members on that side of the House, if he agrees that Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is somehow ragtag, or that Chief Bob Chamberlin, also from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, is somehow ragtag.

The Premier’s view is that Chief Murray Smith from Lax Kw’alaams is ragtag. Councillor Stan Dennis Jr. and Chief Stan Dennis Sr. — both from Lax Kw’alaams — also ragtag. John Risdale of the Wet’suwet’en — in the Premier’s view, ragtag. Chief Yvonne Lattie of the Gitksan — ragtag. Councillor Derek MacDonald of the Lake Babine Nation in the minister’s constituency, also, in the view of the Premier of British Columbia, is part of some ragtag group.

These are people who have been on this land and on Lelu Island and in the marine environment of Port Edward, Prince Rupert and throughout the north coast. Ragtag because they have a point of view that’s counter to the government of British Columbia.

Well, yesterday, with respect to the Lelu Island LNG facility, the federal government — another group of, I suppose, ragtag people — said that the Pacific NorthWest LNG project at Lelu Island would increase the greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia by 8½ percent. One project. And that’s just at the site of the project. If you add the upstream emissions, the report considers this to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 10 to 14 percent increase — the single-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada if it should proceed. The federal government — ragtag. A bunch of naysayers, a bunch of people who don’t have the courage to get to yes.

No, I would suggest that when we’re talking about the First Nations people and the citizens of the north coast who are expressing concern, we’re not talking about ragtag; we’re talking about people that we in this Legislature are supposed to represent. Regardless of our political stripe, we’re supposed to listen. We’re supposed to understand their concerns and bring them to the floor of this Legislature, and that’s what I do here today.

Now, I have said in this Legislature and I have said outside of this Legislature that we on this side of the House support prosperity in every corner of this province. I support ensuring that we get a maximum benefit from our natural resources, whether they be in our minerals, our mines, whether it be our forests, whether it be our natural gas.

We had four conditions that we would insist upon before we would agree to proceed with LNG development in B.C. First and foremost, would the jobs, the 100,000 jobs promised by the Premier just three years ago, be going to British Columbians? Guarantees, project labour agreements put in place to ensure that British Columbians were first in line — not as a hope, as the member for Kootenay East says, but as a given, as a matter of public policy — British Columbians first. B.C. first for B.C. jobs. That’s a primary commitment that we would like to see from this government and anyone who wants to come and to build and develop our natural gas resources.

Another key element was First Nations participation and partnership. What’s the government’s response to that? To label First Nations in the community ragtag and the forces of no. The forces of no, just like the federal government, who said that the single source of greenhouse gas emissions will come from the Lelu Island facility.

What will the return be to the people of British Columbia? That was our third concern. We had a project development agreement tabled in this place that saw the ability for companies coming here to have a 25-year tax holiday. Where’s the benefit to British Columbia? If
[ Page 10293 ]
we can’t guarantee the jobs, if we’re not buying in First Nations to these processes and we’re not getting any return to the treasury in the form of taxation and royalties, then why are we doing it?

Certainly, we’re not doing it to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. Why would we step into that pool? We have citizens all over this province who are doing their level best to reduce their personal impact on the environment. Myself, I bought a Prius over Christmas. I’m doing my best to reduce my emissions.

[1140]

What is the result of all of the efforts of all of us in this House and all of the citizens of British Columbia, by reducing their personal footprint? The government allows a company from Malaysia to come and increase our overall emissions by 8½ percent. That’s massive, absolutely massive.

So all of you out there who are doing your best, who are buying into the notion that if we all work together, we can get out of the morass that industrialization has brought upon this planet, all of us who want to work together to address the challenge of our generation…. One project that the ragtag people say is going to have an impact were the forces of no.

The final requirement for our participation in LNG was just that. What are the consequences going to be to our air, our water and our land? Based on the draft environmental assessment report we’ve just seen from the federal government, we’ve got a good distance to go before we make this as benign as we possibly can.

Now, the Premier will have something to say about this, I’m sure, when she takes her place to defend the indefensible, and I look forward to that. What I would suggest to the Premier — and I think that all of us can agree — is the way we get to a situation where all British Columbians are benefiting from our industrial activity is we do it together, hand in hand, not dividing British Columbians, as the Premier so likes to do, but, in fact, bringing British Columbians together.

This is a partisan province. People have often said the blood sport of politics in British Columbia is renowned across the land. We spoke yesterday of the passage of Bill Bennett, who was a titan beside our titan, Dave Barrett — three elections, from ’75 to 1983, where these two individuals represented the divide in British Columbia.

Well, since that time, I believe we’ve been trying our level best, certainly in this generation of legislators, to put aside, in the interest of British Columbia, some of the partisan hectoring that has gone on in this place for far too long. But when we have the Premier of British Columbia naming people as enemies of development, I don’t think we’ve made the progress that I had hoped we would over time.

It’s not just in the north. Just in my own community, just north of my community, in Shawnigan Lake, 15,000 people have signed a petition. Hundreds show up every day to protect their drinking water source, Shawnigan Lake.

A contaminated soil site has been approved by the Minister of Environment, despite the overwhelming opposition of the two First Nations in the region, despite the overwhelming opposition of those who depend on that lake for their drinking water. The government says no to those communities. What they could do is say yes to pulling that permit. Instead of putting the permit holders ahead of the people, the government of British Columbia could say yes to the community of Shawnigan Lake and stop that practice today. They should do it, absolutely.

I’ve been travelling around the province. I’ve been talking to people in every corner of this province, whether it’s been in the north coast, in the northeast, in the Kootenays, in the Interior, in the Lower Mainland. Most recently I’ve been talking quite extensively to people in Coquitlam and Vancouver, and it’s with a song in my heart that I say that while we were listening to people in Coquitlam and Vancouver, what we heard over and over again was that they believe that they are not being represented effectively in this Legislature by the former member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, for example, a member of the government side.

What was the result of that conversation with citizens? What was the result of that dialogue? Well, on Wednesday of next week, we’ll be bringing Jodie Wickens into this House to represent the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. What Jodie Wickens and I and many others heard on the doorstep was that they’re tired of a government that makes hollow promises. There is nothing that represents hollow promises more than a throne speech, and this year was no disappointment when you’re looking for hollow promises.

For years, the people in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain have been appealing to the government, through the representatives that they had here on the government side, to have schools built, to get the kids that live in the community into a local community school. Thirteen years they’ve been waiting — since the now Premier and then Minister of Education made the commitment to ensure that every citizen in Coquitlam would access a community school.

It’s outrageous that we have to wait for a by-election for the government to wake from its slumber and make yet another hollow promise. Well, I can commit to you, hon. Speaker, and to the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain that when Jodie Wickens arrives in this Legislature, she’ll be advocating on their behalf every single day until we get some progress on the most profound and important issue to those people — schools for their kids. That’s what we need, and we need them right now.

[1145]

It’s not just in Coquitlam. It’s in Surrey as well. My colleagues and I have been visiting school trustees and families in Surrey, and 7,000 students are in portables in that
[ Page 10294 ]
growing, burgeoning community. The growth in Surrey is phenomenal. It’s off the charts, and the government is not prepared for it.

Government members from Surrey on that side of the House — again, lots of hollow promises and not delivering for the people in that community. We can do better. We should do better.

I appeal, again, to the government members who are not around the executive cabinet table — the member from White Rock, for example — to stand up in your caucus meetings, to stand up in your communities and say: “Enough is enough. We need to address the burgeoning portables in Surrey, and we need to make sure that our kids in that community get the same education as everyone else deserves.”

Now, while we’re talking about growth communities — like mine, Coquitlam and Surrey — we also have the spectre of school closures in communities around British Columbia. In Osoyoos this week, 1,000 people showed up at a public meeting — 1,000 people in Osoyoos. Imagine that.

I don’t know if we’re going to call them ragtag. We, certainly, are not, on this side of the House. But 1,000 people showed up in Osoyoos to say to the B.C. Liberal Party: “Hey, this school is important to us. We do not want to force our children to drive half an hour out of town and half an hour back to get an education.” Public education is a fundamental right in this province, and if we can’t deliver it in communities, we are failing the citizens — the next generation of leaders, the next generation of entrepreneurs and the next generation of thinkers, who will solve the problems that we have created in our time here in this place.

We need to make sure that every child in British Columbia has access to a community school so they can be the best they can possibly be. That’s not too much to ask. That’s a basic right in this province. The B.C. Liberals are failing in Coquitlam. They’re failing in Surrey, and now they’re failing in Osoyoos.

It’s not just schools in Surrey. Shootings, almost weekly, have become just another issue for the B.C. Liberals. I’ve often said that if the problem is not a problem for the Premier, then it doesn’t exist. If the Premier lived in Surrey, if she was raising her family in Surrey, she would be appalled at the prospect of 50 shootings over the course of 52 weeks. How is that acceptable in British Columbia in 2015? How is it acceptable for the government to say, “We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” and then do absolutely nothing?

There was a promise of 100 new RCMP officers — haven’t arrived yet. When the by-election was called in Coquitlam, the Liberals had the audacity to publicly claim that the NDP wanted to take RCMP officers from Coquitlam and put them into Surrey. Even when it comes to something as basic as public safety, they don’t miss an opportunity to divide communities. They don’t miss the opportunity to divide British Columbians. We on this side of the House and British Columbians across this province want to unite for the prosperity, the safety and the education that we all deserve.

Fifty shootings in British Columbia in one community over the course of a year. It’s just not acceptable. It’s not acceptable to call citizens who disagree with you “ragtag.” It’s not acceptable to say to school boards that they should find low-hanging fruit. They’re starved when, each year, MSP premiums have been increased by this government. It has an impact on school boards, has an impact on small businesses, has an impact on citizens in British Columbia.

The priorities of this government are wrong. Last year they decided a $230 million tax cut for millionaires made more sense than investing in schools, made more sense than investing in public safety and made more sense than bringing people together to address the environmental challenges of our time and to create an economy that’s balanced and sustainable over time.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

One of the issues that the Liberals like to talk about — and I heard the member for Cariboo North speaking about it — is the mining sector. One of the issues that was part of the jobs plan…. That was the last great hollow promise of the B.C. Liberals before the last election. There were the 100,000 LNG jobs. There was the endless prosperity fund in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We were going to do away with sales taxes. Well, we increased MSP premiums. I guess that was the trade-off.

But what did we get in the mining industry when that promise was made? We were told there were going to be eight new mines and nine expansions by 2015.

[1150]

Now, I checked my calendar this morning when I got up, and we’re in 2016 right now. And what’s happened? Well, 2,200 people who were directly working in the mining industry in 2014 are not working in the mining industry today. I don’t see that as a successful jobs plan. But in the throne speech, the Premier had the gall to say we’re winning on all fronts. Impossible to reconcile that, impossible to square the circle. So 16 mines are either closed or in maintenance since the jobs plan was announced — 16 mines. Imagine that. We were supposed to have eight new ones and nine expansions, and in the same period, 16 have closed.

Success, says the Premier. I’m ragtag if I suggest that her facts are incorrect. But you know what? They’re incorrect, and they are time after time after time. Drinking water in Shawnigan Lake. Schools in our growing communities. Public safety.

Health care in the Interior continues to be a problem. I travelled with the member for New Westminster to Kamloops and through the Interior, and we talked to communities there. Can’t find family doctors — that’s a
[ Page 10295 ]
common theme throughout British Columbia, urban and rural. But the access to emergency services is absolutely appalling. You go to Logan Lake, to the health clinic there, and the sign says: “Emergency room closed. Drive to Ashcroft.” It doesn’t say: “Don’t go on the weekend because it’s closed on the weekend.” It just says: “Drive to Ashcroft.”

We suggested maybe a Post-it. The Premier has got lots of them in the office. Maybe put a Post-it on saying: “If this is Friday, go straight to Kamloops. Don’t do the circle route. Go straight to Kamloops.” And if you are worried about your greenhouse gas emissions in the long drive, don’t bother, because the Lelu Island LNG facility is going to increase our overall emissions by 8½ percent — 8½ percent. Madness.

But I’m a force of no, I guess, because I want to say yes to communities. I want to say yes to sustainable development. I want to say yes to the tech sector, to the hospitality sector, to the tourism industry, to film, to all of the exciting things that are happening not just in the Lower Mainland but right across this province.

In the Nicola Valley…. Say what you will about George Clooney. He’s dashingly good-looking and not a bad actor. He was in the interior of British Columbia making movies. It’s not just in Burnaby and the Lower Mainland that this exciting industry is exploding. Our 60-cent dollar helps a lot, to be sure, but it’s the experience of the people that live here.

We have built over 30 years, not just when the Premier arrived…. This is another problem that I have with the Premier. It’s manifest in the throne speech. In her world, if she wasn’t here, it didn’t really happen. If she wasn’t present to smile for the photo, it didn’t really happen. We have been building and diversifying our economy in British Columbia for generations. We’re all part of that, and we’re all proud of that.

But when we have a Premier who divides us, when we have a Premier who says, “You’re against me; then I’m against you,” how do we come together as a province? How do we find the prosperity that we all want and deserve in this country and in this province? How do we do that when the leader of the government of British Columbia is all about political advantage?

Housing affordability in the Lower Mainland is the issue of the week, according to the Premier. It’s not the issue of the week. It is debilitating families in the Lower Mainland. It’s creating a crisis in the economy. Hootsuite says they can’t hire more people because they can’t find a place to live. It’s not just getting into the housing market; it’s finding a place to rent.

We on this side of the House have been working hard to come up with solutions, talking to mayors and councils in the Lower Mainland to see what we can do together, working with the federal government to find solutions to the housing problems that we’re seeing in the urban centres of British Columbia. But for the Premier, it wasn’t an issue, until she had to make it an issue. It’s only something that she’s concerned about if it doesn’t look well on her.

Now, that’s fine. That’s okay if the sun revolves around you, but the rest of the province needs action, not hollow promises. They need action on a range of issues, and it wasn’t in this year’s throne speech. As with past speeches, long on rhetoric, short on substance.

I am profoundly proud to be a member of this Legislature to represent the people of Juan de Fuca. I am proud to be the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I cannot wait to go to the people — as we did in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — in the next 12 months and ask the question of them: do you want a government that puts you first, or do you want a government that’s just there for the people that fund it?

If it’s all about campaign donations, you’re on the wrong team if you’re backing us because the first thing we’re going to do when we become government is to do away with corporations and union donations to make sure that we have a government of people, not of profit.

[1155]

We need to send a message, as we’re hearing in the United States right now, that people are tired of politicians that are in it for themselves, for their party and their friends. We need a government that works with everybody, all sides of the political spectrum, to build the province that we all want — a prosperous province, a caring province, a province that makes sure that education is the highest priority we can have for our children, not just something that we’ll deal with if it becomes a problem.

I want you to think, hon. Speaker and colleagues, of 1,000 people coming together this week in Osoyoos to say: “Enough is enough. We want a government that puts people first.” We on this side of the House want to provide that, and in 2017, we’re going to do just that.

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader.

J. Horgan: I move adjournment of the debate.

Madame Speaker: I appreciate that immensely.

J. Horgan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada