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)

Monday, April 4, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 36, Number 1

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

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

TOURISM IN B.C.

G. Kyllo: On behalf of the people of Shuswap, I’m proud to speak today about one of our province’s most important industries, an industry that continues to grow year after year. That industry is tourism, and I take a lot of personal pride in tourism because it is the lifeblood of the Shuswap.

First, some recent statistics. There were 72,000 more visitors in July of 2015 compared to 2014, a 9.9 percent increase over July of 2014. The total number of visitors to B.C. from January to July of last year was up by 228,950 visitors, an 8.8 percent increase over the same period in 2014. The total number of visitors to B.C. from January to August was up 7.1 percent over that period a year earlier. Tourism generated $14.6 billion in revenue for our province in 2014. That was a 5.1 percent increase over 2013.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There are several reasons for our tourism success. Through the B.C. jobs plan, British Columbia is growing its tourism sector by establishing an integrated marketing approach in partnership with tourism marketing organizations. The strong growth in the tourism sector can be linked to a number of factors, including more direct flights to B.C. from key U.S. and international markets as well as Destination B.C.’s new international marketing strategy.

It has been two years since our government created Destination B.C. as an independent Crown corporation. The creation of Destination B.C. was a result of our five-year tourism strategy, called Gaining the Edge, which launched in 2012. As one of B.C.’s jobs plan priority sectors, tourism has a huge role to play in our strong economy.

[1005]

Our government set an ambitious revenue target in 2011 of 5 percent growth each year. This target is ambitious, but it’s achievable if world economic conditions remain in our favour. In fact, tourism revenues increased each year since the introduction of the Gaining the Edge strategy.

Our strategy has been central to sustaining jobs and revenue growth, with a 17.4 percent increase in the number of tourism workers since 2003. Last year alone we created 3,000 new tourism jobs and expect 2 percent annual growth in the years ahead. In cooperation with Destination B.C., our government will continue to focus our attention on new markets, identifying trends and tackling new challenges in the tourism sector.

What else have we accomplished from Gaining the Edge? We’ve upgraded Destination B.C.’s Hello B.C. website and enhanced its social media presence, with 283,000 Facebook fans, 97,000 Twitter followers and 141,000 Instagram followers as of September 2015. Several new direct flights connecting B.C. to priority markets were also added. We’ve increased marketing in priority markets, resulting in increasing visitor volumes from areas such as China.

Last year B.C. saw increases in overnight entries from some of our key markets compared to July 2014, including the U.S., which was up 11.6 percent. India was up 15.6 percent and for Japan, a 12.5 percent increase. In all, there were 21,000 more international overnight visitors in November of 2015 compared to a year earlier, an 11.1 percent increase. The total number of international overnight visitors to B.C. from January to November of 2015 was up by 329,000 visitors, a 7.7 percent increase over the same period a year earlier.

Destination B.C.’s corporate strategy is about finding better ways of marketing our province while at the same time winding down non–core activities and reducing administrative costs. Destination B.C. is looking to enhance our province’s competitiveness by focusing on improved visitor experiences.

Our government has been in close communication with Destination B.C. to emphasize that consultation with regions is a priority. This consultation process is designed to gather input and help craft guidelines for a proposed strategy. This consultation includes workshops with at least a dozen communities across the province, webinars with stakeholders and feedback forums.

Destination B.C. has also pioneered the use of virtual reality headsets, which are designed to showcase B.C.’s tourism brand. The virtual reality headset, known as a VR experience, is a business-to-business tool designed to attract attention and show innovation in the marketplace. The VR experience is focused on trade and media influencers around the world. It is there to get tour operators excited about what B.C. has to offer and as a way of igniting interest in our province.

This innovation has not gone unnoticed either. Destination B.C. is the first in North America to use this technology, and industry feedback has been extremely positive.

Allow me to end this portion of my statement with this quote from Marsha Walden, the CEO of Destination B.C. She states:
[ Page 11678 ]

“We are tremendously proud of our industry partners and the exceptional products they offer our visitors from around the world. With our awe-inspiring natural assets, solid infrastructure, remarkable experiences and world-class customer service, these results clearly demonstrate that tourism continues to be a strong and growing economic driver for our provincial economy. With global tourism forecast to double over the next 20 years, we believe B.C.’s tourism industry is well positioned for even greater economic success in the years to come.”

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d like to thank the member opposite for heaping praise on Destination B.C., an organization that I fought long and hard to get restored and to become our tourism marketer once again.

The member might not know, as it happened prior to his time in this House, but it was his government, the B.C. Liberal government, which blew up Tourism B.C., fired the board, got rid of the industry leadership for tourism in this province and brought it into government, thinking that government should tell people how to live and how they should market rather than the tourism industry. That’s the Liberal record.

We on the New Democrat side fought each and every step of the way to restore industry leadership for our tourism marketing in B.C. In fact, Tourism B.C., which was the precursor organization to Destination B.C. — which the Liberal member opposite praised so highly — was actually established by the NDP, because we know, in the New Democrats, that tourism is the lifeblood of many communities in this province. It is something that we need to do more for, not less.

[1010]

While I’m glad that the member opposite is enthusiastic about tourism, his government doesn’t seem to be at the same level of enthusiasm. As many in the tourism sector tell me, if they changed their name to LNG, maybe they’d be paid attention to. They were arguing for a bumper sticker at one point: “B and B, not LNG. Bed-and-breakfasts — remember us?” That’s the way it goes.

I think some have been pointing out that tourism could grow much stronger and much faster in this province if the government restored formula funding for tourism marketing, so you could actually see, as the industry grows, we would get more money for marketing in this province and continue to grow it up. Unfortunately, this government has flatlined marketing funding for tourism, refusing to restore industry funding so far, despite numerous promises.

Tourism could also be doing a lot better if we looked at our locations — if we looked at places like the Discovery Coast, if we looked at the coastal communities in this province that have had much of their tourism clobbered by this government’s incessant desire to increase ferry fares and reduce service.

I think of friends in the West Chilcotin. I think of friends in Kamloops. I think of friends in northern Vancouver Island, who, because of the Transportation Minister’s decision to blow up that ferry service, replacing it with the Nimpkish, have seen their businesses just drop. The number of tourists coming through their door in Williams Lake and other communities has just flatlined, in some cases.

They’ve also talked…. I was surprised that this decision to blow up the Discovery Coast ferry route was also felt in communities like Kamloops, who’ve said they haven’t seen the circle tourism that they used to. In the Gulf Islands, of course, they say much the same, and I’ve heard similar concerns on the Sunshine Coast.

You can market, and I think that we should be marketing more. I certainly thank Destination B.C. for marketing — we need to get them some more money to do that — but we also need to support the development of attractions, the development of routes for people to travel. There’s much more to tourism than taking a hands-off approach, as this government does, on the one side, but also throwing up barriers on the other. I speak, of course, of some more of the land-based tourism businesses in rural B.C., wilderness tourism operations.

They tell me that, really, they can’t get noticed at all because forestry and mining always come first for this government. If they’re developing a business, too often they’ll find, “Well, I’ve got my beautiful lodge. I’ve booked the season, and then I get a letter: ‘Well, next week we’re going to clearcut in front of you’ or ‘Two weeks from now a new mining operation is going in. They’re doing some exploration over here, and that trail that you dedicated weeks, months and thousands upon thousands of dollars to establish is no longer usable because we didn’t pay attention to your tourism business.’”

There’s no tourism advocate on the Liberal side of the bench any longer, and that to me is a huge, huge miss. We could be growing jobs, growing money into the province from overseas — coming into the province, staying, investing — if we actually took an active interest in tourism.

We on the New Democrat side will be working with groups like Aboriginal Tourism B.C.; local destination marketing organizations; go2, to look at the labour side of this, because a big challenge is ensuring you have enough adequate employees to do the work; also working with arts and culture organizations; with ecological, environmental organizations; heritage organizations — which have so much to offer. If only they’d been paid more attention to, we could grow not only the product we have to offer but also have more to sell and get more people into this province.

We’ll continue to work on those files. We’ll also continue, on the NDP side, to be working on how we get more air traffic into this province, so people can come here and stay here and leave their money here, go home, talk about what a great time they had here and come back again. We certainly need to increase air opportunities into the province as well.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair would like to remind all members that private statements on Monday morning
[ Page 11679 ]
are supposed to be non-partisan, so please keep that in mind. Thank you very much.

G. Kyllo: As I said in my earlier remarks, tourism was one of the key drivers of our province’s economy. It’s large, and it’s growing.

In 2014, the tourism industry generated $14.6 billion in revenue, which is a 5.1 percent increase over 2013, and it’s a 37.7 percent increase over 2004. Tourism-related provincial tax revenue was $825 million in 2014, an increase of 13.2 percent, again, since 2004. In 2014, tourism exports generated revenue of $3.4 billion, an increase of 9.1 percent over 2013.

[1015]

Tourism export revenue was similar to that of the mineral and agriculture and fish primary resource industries but lower than that of forests products and energy products. Tourism provides a job for, roughly, one out of every 15 British Columbians. That translates to 132,000 jobs in 2015, an increase of 3 percent over 2012. In 2014, wages and salaries to tourism sector employees was $4.3 billion, which was up 4.5 percent over 2013.

It gets better. The industry projects that the number of positions in the tourism hospitality sector will increase from 255,000 in 2010 to over 300,000 by 2020, meaning tourism is adding more than 44,000 new jobs to B.C.’s economy.

Our government invests more than $90 million annually in the tourism sector across every region to grow and market the sector, and these efforts are paying great dividends. But don’t take my word for it. This is what Ingrid Jarett, the general manager of the Watermark Beach Resort in Osoyoos, had to say recently:

“The positive statistics show the outcome of strategic partnerships, common goals, strategic alliances with stakeholders and marketing organizations. These outcomes are encouraging and are gaining momentum. The leadership and partnership approach from Destination B.C., the destination marketing organizations, as well as the investment from industry stakeholders, has truly set the foundation for future success of our industry.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Deputy Speaker: Let me just clarify my statement that I made earlier. Just to remind all members of the provisions of the Standing Order 25A and the guidance given on page 61 in Parliamentary Practice in B.C., private members’ statements are not meant to be partisan debates. I would like to invite members to participate in private members’ statements in keeping with the spirit and intention of Standing Order 25A.

GETTING THE RIGHT
HOUSING SUPPORTS IN PLACE

D. Eby: I will endeavour to do my best in speaking about supportive housing, which is an issue I feel quite passionate about. I’d like to illustrate my concern about the government’s record on supportive housing with the ongoing controversy in Maple Ridge.

It was in March of 2016 that a homeless camp began to form out in front of the Maple Ridge Salvation Army. At first, the number of people on the site was about a dozen, but by June, Mayor Nicole Reid and the Maple Ridge city council called for an emergency meeting on the issue because the camp had grown to 32 tents.

Now, there were a number of people present at that emergency meeting. There was the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and the assistant for the former Member of Parliament for Maple Ridge. Following that meeting, on June 25, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows told the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows News that the Minister for Housing had made him the point person for the provincial government on the tent city, and I think the people of Maple Ridge were relieved that finally some action was being taken.

Well, it was August before the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and B.C. Housing announced funding for a temporary shelter at an old mattress store, saying that long-term supportive housing would be coming soon. Two months later — this was a full six months after the beginning of the crisis — 30 people were moved off of Cliff Avenue and into the old mattress store.

Now, it’s important to illustrate the concern about supportive housing with a very concrete example of 30 people who were unable to be housed by the city in regular rental housing because they needed supports. They were so ill with mental health issues and addiction issues. They needed health care. So their old neighbours on Cliff Avenue, who had given people water, who had been patient through the entire six-month crisis, were told the shelter would be temporary and that there would be supportive housing coming.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows took full credit for the housing of the people in the mattress store. He said in this place: “I have been working on the issue for months.”

The member for Chilliwack actually insisted that was true. He demanded an apology from me, in members’ statements, for saying the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was absent on the issue. He talked about the fine work the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows had been doing to find a solution for the homeless camp on Cliff Avenue. In February, just two months ago, the member for Chilliwack said the same thing — that the member was “working diligently behind the scenes.”

What has happened with this government’s diligent work on supportive housing in Maple Ridge? Again, important to illustrate the concern about supportive housing with an actual example. Three weeks ago, just one week before the mattress store shelter was supposed to close, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and the Minister for Housing announced the plan they’d
[ Page 11680 ]
come up with. They were going to move the people out of the old mattress store, into an old hotel that the government would be buying with public money.

[1020]

Now, 30 people with serious mental health and addiction issues in hotel rooms — the community literally couldn’t believe it. Community members in Maple Ridge had read the news that I’ve read and that many of us have read — shocking news — that for one in four people who die in supportive housing in British Columbia, their bodies are not discovered for two days. That is the level of support in supportive housing in British Columbia.

Now, there’s a person who’s been in the media on this — a woman named Christine Harris, the mother of a man named Lindsey Longe — demanding better supports for people in supportive housing after her son suffered for days in his supportive housing room — three days — with an infection in his heart, and he died. He wasn’t discovered for three more days after he died, in a so-called supportive housing facility in this province, because staff funding levels are so low.

Maple Ridge city council, knowing about this issue, said: “If this is the government’s plan, if this is the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows’s plan, there are going to have to be outstanding health care supports, mental health supports, in this facility.” They felt, and understandably so, that people with serious mental health and addiction issues should be in a health care setting — not in hotel rooms.

Then, when it really sank in that the plan was to move the temporary shelter from a mattress store into an old hotel, the people of Maple Ridge were outraged and held protests. In response to that outrage, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows took to Facebook. He said he was “not part of the negotiations,” and “the only people involved were Maple Ridge and B.C. Housing.”

Well, either this government is responsible for supportive housing in Maple Ridge, or it’s not. Either the Minister for Housing is responsible for supports in the housing in this province, or he’s not.

The problem for the people of Maple Ridge isn’t the ducking and the weaving of the politicians here. It’s that after a year — since this crisis started — we’re no further ahead. This is emblematic of the status of supportive housing across the province. This isn’t just Maple Ridge. It’s Abbotsford. It’s Victoria. It’s Terrace. It’s Prince George.

Whoever’s making these decisions, they’ve now cancelled the plan for the hotel, and there’s no other plan. There was $5 million supposed to go into the purchase of the hotel. I can give the member credit, as I think I should, that it’s been increased to $15 million, but that’s just on paper. There’s no plan for these people who are in this old mattress store. The deadline for the temporary mattress store shelter has been extended now to July 1. So one year after the crisis began, still no plan for solving it.

I hope, on both sides of this House, we can come together and say that people with serious mental health and addiction issues should see health care supports. The community deserves to know that people who are so sick are being looked after. There was a toddler who was pricked with a syringe, an abandoned syringe, in Maple Ridge. People are really upset and sensitive about this issue, and it’s time for everyone in this House to step up and recognize that we need to do better than temporary short-term solutions.

That is a question for all of us in this House. That is the question for the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and it is the question for the Minister for Housing and the cabinet. I hope there is an answer here today.

J. Martin: I always look forward to the opportunity on Mondays to correct the misinformation from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

This government has a number of programs in place to maintain affordable home ownership. We’ve all been hearing an awful lot lately about shadow flipping. We know that it’s wrong for unscrupulous operators to take advantage of people in a hot real estate market. It’s not right, it’s not honest, and it’s not fair.

That’s why our Premier has announced that government will take immediate action to end the practice of real estate contract assignment, otherwise known as shadow flipping. New provincial regulations will be introduced to prevent the abuse of assignment clauses by requiring the express consent of the seller and mandating that any profits from assignments are returned to the home seller. We also look forward to the Real Estate Council’s independent advisory group recommendations on licensee conduct and potential conflicts of interest.

As our economy continues to lead the country, the demand for housing in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland is going to continue, and that’s a good thing. When we talk about housing supports, we can talk about the diverse range of program supports already in place. Over 102,500 households in B.C. benefit from these programs.

[1025]

These, of course, include funding for emergency shelters, outreach, supportive housing to help homeless people get off the street and to begin rebuilding their lives. It also includes rent assistance to keep private market rentals affordable for low-income families and seniors. As well, we have the SAFER program, which provides aid for eligible seniors so that they can stay renting their place.

The rental assistance programs are great. They support people in communities all across British Columbia. More importantly, they allow families and individuals to remain in private market housing so they don’t otherwise face stigmatization. You don’t know where these people live. They’re integrated into the community.

To build affordable housing takes time and a lot more money. While we are doing that, we are able to help more families by providing them a little bit of extra assistance. In Vancouver alone, you would never know that we as-
[ Page 11681 ]
sist over 1,300 families with rent assistance and almost 3,000 seniors through SAFER. It’s unfortunate that opposition members are opposed to rent assistance, because this is a program that has greatly benefited thousands of people across B.C.

Other programs that we have in place to support affordable housing include the homeowner grant, which helps keep residential property taxes affordable for B.C. families. The first-time-homebuyers program helps people looking to enter the real estate market by reducing or eliminating the amount of property transfer tax B.C. residents pay when they purchase their first home. This exemption alone could save first-time homebuyers up to $7,500.

Other programs that support affordable housing include the seniors home-renovation tax credit, a refundable personal income tax credit of up to $1,000 to help individuals 65 and over with the cost of certain permanent home renovations. Additionally, the Home Adaptations for Independence program provides financial assistance of up to $20,000 to help low-income seniors and people with disabilities with home modifications for accessible, safe and independent living.

Since 2001, we have invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals. We believe in preserving affordable housing for those who need it most. In most instances, we provide those people with support services that help them become more productive members of society.

We’re committing a total of $355 million over the next five years to create upwards of 2,000 new affordable housing units all across the province. A strong, growing and diverse economy gives us the ability to make these investments in critical services such as this, the single largest affordable housing investment in B.C.’s history.

We have many supports in place for those in need. There is no other government in North America that has been more aggressive on the home assistance front and affordability. This is a far cry and in contrast to the 1990s, when absolutely nothing was done on this front.

Deputy Speaker: Member, again, a reminder. Under Standing Order 25A, we are supposed to remain non-partisan.

D. Eby: I’m sure it’s a great relief to the people sleeping in an old mattress store in Maple Ridge that when they sell their mats, they won’t be shadow flipped by a realtor. It will also be a great relief for those who are renting their mats in the old mattress store in Maple Ridge that when they buy their first home, the government is providing them with the resources they need to get into the market.

These people are seriously ill. They have serious mental health issues. They have serious addiction issues that they are struggling with. The people of Maple Ridge, the people of Abbotsford and the people of Prince George have great empathy for this situation. When I visited that tent city in Maple Ridge, I talked to a homeowner who said they knew one of the people living in the tents. The husband in that family had worked with one of the people living in one of the tents there on Cliff Avenue. So there is a great deal of empathy for these concerns.

This government is so out of touch on these issues. I don’t even know where to start in response to the member’s response, except to say that Lindsey Longe is the exemplar of the failures of supportive housing in this province — the man who suffered in his room for three days with an acute infection and then died and was in his room for three more days before he was discovered in so-called supportive housing under this government.

His mother, who came forward, talked about her experience calling the building staff, saying she was concerned about her son, begging them to check on him — they never did — and finding out about his death on Facebook. Seven days went by before anyone bothered to check on him.

[1030]

If this is the level of supportive housing that this government thinks is a North American standard, I don’t know what to say. After a year has gone by, we’re no further ahead towards supportive housing in Maple Ridge than we were when the crisis started. It is inexcusable.

I hope that, in the next private members’ debate, there is some response that reflects the calling on all of us in this chamber to support the weakest and most ill members of our community with supports that they and their families deserve, to get them off the streets, to get them healthy, to get them the support they need, because that is not happening right now.

CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

E. Foster: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome back to the precinct our colleague and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I know he’s not in the House right now. He’s had some struggles over the last while with health, and we just want to welcome him back from this side. I can guarantee you that question period hasn’t been quite as lively without him in the House. We’re certainly glad that he’s on the mend and back to join us.

As we all know, April is Cancer Awareness Month. This is a tough one for me. I don’t generally bring personal parts of my life into this building. My little sister died of cancer when she was 47 years old. She had two young sons and a great husband. She did all the right things. She never smoked. She ate properly. We had no history of cancer in our family. She went to the doctor on a regular basis. But, still, at 47, she passed away. That’s tough. That’s tough for everybody — you know, the family and certainly her children.

That was in the spring of 2005. With all the things that have happened in cancer research over the last 11 years,
[ Page 11682 ]
had she been diagnosed today with the cancer that she had in 2005, she would have a 70 percent better chance of survival if she was diagnosed early.

In British Columbia, we have some of the best cancer outcomes in the country and, therefore, the world. We have, we believe, one of the best health care systems in the country and, therefore, the world. A lot of this is due to the research that’s being done here in British Columbia. We’re leaders. A quote recently from a practitioner said that if you’re going to have to get cancer, the best place in the country to get it is here in B.C. because of all the opportunities that we have through the funding for the cancer facilities in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George and Kelowna.

We’ve done a tremendous amount here. We’ve got all kinds of validators. We have the research that’s been done and the millions and millions of dollars that have been put into cancer research here in British Columbia through the B.C. Cancer Foundation.

The B.C. Cancer Foundation is a bridge that connects philanthropic support and research breakthroughs in cancer knowledge. As a fundraising partner of the B.C. Cancer Agency and the largest funder of cancer research in this province, the foundation enables donors to make contributions to leading-edge research that have a direct impact on improvements in cancer care for patients in British Columbia.

The B.C. Cancer Agency of the Provincial Health Services Authority is committed to reducing the incidence of cancer, reducing the mortality from cancer and improving the quality of life of those living with cancer. British Columbia is a national leader in cancer prevention and treatment, with one of the lowest rates of breast cancer and the second-lowest mortality rate for women who get breast cancer.

British Columbia is a leading centre for world-class research on genomics, brain health, cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. Today’s announcements have to do with the millions of dollars that the province, over the last 15 years, has put into cancer research, both in funds for the research but also in the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in facilities for cancer research and treatment over the last number of years.

[1035]

We in the Okanagan are fortunate to have the new cancer centre in Kelowna, which enables patients from our part of the province, certainly the southern Interior, to convenient, timely treatment of their ailments. It also attracts world-class clinicians and practitioners. Everybody likes new, and they come to the new facilities where they have the best equipment and the research is done. Certainly, now having a medical school at UBC Okanagan in Kelowna has also helped — another multi-million-dollar investment that’s been made by this government over the last number of years.

One of the big issues…. We hear it brought up in the House. I know the member for Surrey–Green Timbers annually speaks to men’s health. She addresses prostate cancer. Not too many years ago, something like prostate cancer was a death sentence for men. But now, with early diagnosis, which is the key to any successful cancer treatment….

We’ve seen this over the years. The opportunity for early diagnosis certainly has a lot to do with the opportunities that we give to people. The treatment, the research that’s been done and the investment that’s been done in research over the years make that possible. The clinicians and practitioners that are in those facilities make the early diagnosis and treatment more available and essential.

I can’t emphasize enough the importance of the investment that’s been made here in the province over the last number of years and also the opportunities that provides for folks to get early treatment, early diagnosis and early success in their fight against this terrible disease.

Can more be done? Always. We can do more till nobody has cancer. We’re working towards that as a society. Certainly, here in British Columbia, we’re trying to do our best to encourage the research. We’re funding the research both from the private sector and, certainly, from the public sector. It’s made a huge difference to the lives of people in British Columbia. In, like I say, the Okanagan, we hear on a daily basis from folks who have been to the cancer centre in Kelowna what a godsend it is for them, their families — the travelling and, again, the early diagnosis.

With that, I will wait to hear from my colleague.

J. Darcy: I want to join with the member for Vernon-Monashee in saying that, indeed, cancer does affect…. We all have a personal connection, with colleagues, friends, family members. This is an issue that touches all of us very, very deeply.

We have indeed made huge advances in this province and in this country in cancer research in recent years, but I think it’s also very important for us not to be complacent. It’s important for us to also talk about the areas where we need to focus greater effort in order that we can ensure that all British Columbians have access to the best possible treatment and care. We also need to do more on the side of prevention.

I would remind this House of a couple of incidents that, sadly, made news headlines in the last year. Fred Cosman, last April, a 58-year-old Princeton man whose face was disfigured with cancerous lesions and who waited months before he even got an appointment with the Cancer Agency. Sadly, he got treatment too late to save his life. Carolyn Budd-Goertzen, also a story from last year, with endometrial cancer, who was only supposed to wait two weeks and waited, in fact, 46 days before she saw the Cancer Agency — and that, again, because she went to the media.

We have some important work to do in the area of shortening wait times at the B.C. Cancer Agency. That needs to be a critical priority.
[ Page 11683 ]

The other issue that I want to touch on is prevention — in particular, in the area of tobacco control. This province has indeed led the country in the past on tobacco control, but there’s an area where we are falling very, very short. That’s the issue of flavoured tobacco.

[1040]

Preventing youth from starting to smoke is a significant priority of the Canadian Cancer Society, as it should be with the B.C. government. It is urgent that we introduce amendments to the Tobacco Control Act in this province to ban menthol cigarettes and capsules as well as all flavoured tobacco products.

As I’ve become aware every time I visit a tobacco shop in my community — not because I smoke, but because I want to see for myself whether there have been any changes that make a difference on the street in this respect…. On a major street in Victoria, as well as on Sixth Street in New Westminster, you can still buy flavoured tobacco cigarillos. You can still buy this new product called menthol burst cigarettes. This is a new one.

Tobacco companies are incredibly creative and innovative when it comes to finding new products in order to encourage young people to smoke. This particular type of cigarette has a menthol capsule inside the filter. The concept is that when you press your lips down on this cigarette, you get a burst of menthol flavour in your mouth, which makes the experience of smoking the tobacco and inhaling the smoke quite pleasant, actually — certainly not a disincentive to begin smoking.

I know that when I’ve raised this issue in this House in the past and introduced private members’ bills on the issue, the minister has said: “Well, menthol has been around for decades, and it’s really something that is about middle-aged and older people.” Well, the fact is that almost one-half of B.C. youth who smoke choose flavoured tobacco and almost a third of them choose menthol cigarettes.

We need to act on this issue if we want to ensure that our cancer rates continue to go down, if we want to ensure that the number of people who smoke — in particular, the number of youth who smoke — continues to go down. In British Columbia, 32 percent of high school students who smoke, smoke menthol cigarettes. So 32 percent of high school students who smoke, smoke menthol cigarettes.

Alberta and Nova Scotia have already banned the sale of menthol and other flavoured tobacco products. Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are expected to have similar legislation this year. It’s very, very important when we talk about cancer awareness this month that we match our words with deeds, and those deeds are that we need to take further action, immediate action, to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to ensure that these new products, these creative products, these products that make it easier and more attractive to smoke, don’t get into the hands of our young people.

We need to be talking about improving wait times. We need to improve research, absolutely. We also need to prevent the incidence of cancer by keeping tobacco out of the hands of our young people.

E. Foster: I don’t know, in response to what the member has just said…. I agree wholeheartedly, certainly, with the last comment. How do we keep the tobacco out of the hands of youth? I guess that “shocked” is probably a good word. It shocks me when I see the number of young people smoking. I mean, we’ve advertised. It’s against the law to sell to them. It’s against the law to give to them. We still don’t seem to be…. I mean, we’re certainly doing better than we did. There’s no question. But we’re still falling short.

I don’t know. I mean, we could bring in legislation to change all kinds of things. It’s attitude that needs to be changed. I, again, struggle.

I guess I liken it to someone who has parents that have a drinking problem, and the kids start drinking. You know, young people whose parents smoked…. I can remember my dad lecturing me when I was — I don’t know — 13, 14 years old, with a cigarette in his mouth, telling me not to smoke. It didn’t fly. I started smoking. Duh. But I quit a long time ago.

I agree with the member when she says that we’ve got to come up with a solution to encourage children to not smoke. They’re children. They’re nine, ten, 11 years old. I mean, we can ban the product. That, I guess, is a step. Prohibition has proven over the years not to work. I guess we’re not doing so well with the education end of it, either.

[1045]

I suppose we’re doing better than we used to do. When I was in high school, three-quarters of the kids that I knew smoked, and I think those numbers are way down. So we’re doing better there.

I just wanted to finish off with, again, another personal note. In the last number of years, I’ve had six procedures — they’re just day things — to have little pieces of me taken away. It hasn’t worked as a great weight-loss program. But I got early diagnosis.

The first one was one on my back. My wife told me, so I went to the doctor. He looked at it. He said, “We’re going to take that out,” and it came back as a stage 1 melanoma. Of course, not that many years ago, when somebody told you that you had melanoma, you started getting your things in order because you weren’t going to be around for a long time.

Well, I’ve had…. I just go now every six months, and I get checked. If they find another one, they take it off. They’re very small. They don’t amount to anything. The reason I bring this up is this is about early diagnosis. If I hadn’t had that first one taken off — that was four or five years ago — I might not be alive today.

So my message on this for people is: go to your doctor. Do the tests. Get your diagnosis. Those are the things
[ Page 11684 ]
that are going to give you your best chance of survival if you develop cancer.

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIPS

S. Robinson: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand in this House and speak to the idea of working in partnerships.

Now, I’ve spent my entire adult life working together with people about issues and concerns that matter most to them. As an individual, couple and family therapist for over 20 years, I’ve had the opportunity to work with so many people from so many different walks of life to address ways to come together, to identify shared problems or concerns, to bring resources and ideas to the table and to develop a plan to resolve or change the identified problem in some way.

So here I am as a politician in this House, still committed to those very same family therapy principles that I saw work in small family units and in the workplace. I stand here with the belief that these same principles work when we are addressing problems in our communities and in our province.

What does it mean to work in partnership? Partnership is a relationship based on mutual respect. Each party to the partnership brings something of value to the conversation, and all the partners are recognized with respect for what they bring to the table, their commitment for being in the relationship and their desire to make things better. When I think about how we, as government, work in partnership, I have to say that at times I am surprised and shocked and disappointed at how partnership is understood here in this House.

First, I just want to talk about partnerships that I’ve seen with local governments. Now, we all live and rely on government services that are provided at the local level, the regional level, the provincial level and the federal level. And while government likes to say that there is only one taxpayer, we seem to forget that each level of government is responsible for providing services to their constituents. It’s carved out and defined for each level of government.

What does this government say when they work in partnership with local governments? Does that mean that we’re treating local governments with respect? Does that mean that we recognize and value the resources that local governments bring to the table?

Two years ago, this government released a flawed Ernst and Young report in the weeks leading up to the local elections insinuating that local government spending was out of control. Where was the partnership then? Where was the conversation about how to work together to resolve some sort of perceived issue? There was no dialogue, just blame, just derision and just plain old disrespect.

What about partnership with First Nations? There has certainly been talk about partnership. But respect? Last year, at the eleventh hour, without so much as a conversation with First Nations leaders, this government decided not to move forward with appointing George Abbott as chief of the B.C. Treaty Commission. It blindsided First Nations and the federal government.

In a true partnership, we talk to our partners before we act. We consult with our partners. We talk over concerns. We don’t make unilateral decisions and dismiss partners as irrelevant, discounting them as true partners.

So how do we talk about our partners? I think that’s really important.

[1050]

I’m not convinced that calling First Nations leaders a “ragtag bunch” is about how you treat your partners with respect. When you have a difference of opinion with a government in a relationship based on respect, name-calling is not part of that.

What about partnership with all the 60 school boards? This is a model — and we’ve talked about it as a model — of co-governance. When I think about co-governance in my community, we talk about working together. It’s much like co-parenting. Each parent….

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep in mind what I reminded members of earlier, under Standing Order 25A.

S. Robinson: I have some concerns about how we do partnership here in this House. I think partnership is an important piece of the work we all do. We all talk with our stakeholders. When I have some concerns about how we do it, I think we need to be able to talk about that.

I do have some concerns about how we relate to others who provide services in our community. You know, I really do believe that we have to have an opportunity to talk about the way in which we work with our partners. It is critically important that we are critical of ourselves in the ways in which we do the work of the business of this government.

As a private member, I’d like the opportunity to talk about some of those concerns and make sure that we are all paying attention to how it is that we do partnership. I think that when we say that we want to work with you — whether it’s local government, whether it’s school boards — we work with some sort of respect that says, “I trust you, I have faith in you, and I will listen to what it is you have to say,” because partnership is based on those sorts of notions.

It’s not okay to just use the words. Words have to follow with actions, actions that include conversation, that include hearing other opinions that say: “Oh, you don’t agree with that? Well, let’s see if we can hash that out.”

I think it’s really important that any government has a responsibility to listen to what their partners have to say, to not treat them with derision, to not to treat them with disrespect, to not engage in name-calling — to at least, at a minimum, say that we disagree, and that’s okay, be-
[ Page 11685 ]
cause disagreement is what makes this province great. The opportunity to have debate, the opportunity to have discussion, the opportunity to bring people together, to have differences of opinion, and to work together to find solutions to these very real problems.

I’m just using examples of where I have been very frustrated as a private member, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, representing my constituents. I have heard some very serious concerns, and as a private member, I want to bring this forward to the House for debate. So when we talk about school boards and the challenges that they’re having…. They are not feeling like they have a partner in this government. They are not feeling that. They are unilaterally told what to do, when to do, how to do, and that doesn’t go with the co-governance model that they have been led to believe that they have.

I have some serious concerns, in representing the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville, about how it is, in this House, we talk about partnership and how we do partnership. I seriously think that we ought to be paying attention to the process of partnership, not just to the end-game, not to the decision, not to “you’re either with me or against me.” It is about coming together. It is about listening to each other. It’s about having a serious commitment to resolve issues and concerns. It’s not about name-calling, it’s not about ignoring concerns, and it’s not about saying “you’re against us.”

L. Reimer: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for her involvement this morning on the issue of working in partnership.

Today there are 189 local governments in British Columbia, including 162 municipalities and 27 regional districts. As you know, hon. Speaker, many of us who came to the Legislature started public life first in local government. This is true for the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who served on city council. It’s also true in my own circumstance, where I also had the honour of serving two terms on Coquitlam city council.

In many ways, those of us who have served in local government have a tremendous advantage before entering the provincial realm. Everything from tap water to local roads, public transit, sewage treatment, the fire department and even police services are the responsibility of local government. From a strictly legal point of view, our national constitution only shares responsibilities between the federal and the provincial governments. The Constitution Act of Canada leaves it up to the provinces to make laws exclusively in relationship to local government.

[1055]

In many ways, local governments are considered to be a creature of our provincial government. But in the last 145 years, since B.C. joined Confederation, the role of local governments has evolved with the social and economic development of our province. So, too, has the relationship — the partnership, in fact — between municipalities and the provincial government.

The Local Government Act is a perfect example. This piece of legislation came about, again as amended, on January 1, 2016. The revised act supports effective local government administration by making the act more readable and easy to use. In addition, this government delivered on a promise to create the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. The municipal auditor general works collaboratively with local government to add value and ensure that local ratepayers are receiving proper value. We all serve the same taxpayer.

As you are probably also aware, the government recently introduced the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act. This piece of legislation came about after many years of consultation with local government. This included the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, as well as many local government associations.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, for communities, I naturally had a particular interest in the development of this legislation. In particular, I served on the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, with a mandate to further explore the best options in relation to campaign expenses. In June 2015, the special committee made recommendations on expense limit amounts.

The challenge in this entire process was to adopt a fair structure for elections that runs simultaneously across the province, in communities of vastly different sizes and communities with vastly different needs. The committee had to examine the rules along a broad spectrum, ranging from small townships to regional districts, special-purpose bodies and, of course, small and larger cities. To arrive at the best possible solution, the legislation was developed in partnership with local government associations and the UBCM. In the end, it will establish expense limits for candidates for mayor, council, school boards and certain special-purpose bodies.

I could go on with a great many more examples of partnership between the province and local governments. But I must conclude by saying that the provincial government remains committed to working in close cooperation with all districts and municipalities to ensure our high standard of living in British Columbia.

S. Robinson: I’m really pleased for the opportunity to respond to the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. I’m glad that she raised the issue of the Local Government Act, because right now in Shawnigan Lake, we have a situation where in fact a permit was issued that actually contradicts the Local Government Act.

Again, it’s this idea of partnership that I keep coming back to and keep banging up against. We can say all kinds of things — that we work in partnership — but unless you actually do it, you are not working in partnership. The
[ Page 11686 ]
member hasn’t quite addressed what it means to work in real partnership.

As a therapist, I’ve worked with dozens and dozens of families and couples and workplaces. Unless you are committed to the relationship, the problem-solving just doesn’t take care of itself. You can’t do problem-solving unless you have meaningful partnership.

It means listening to each other. It means identifying issues and concerns together as they arise. It means ongoing dialogue, and it means mutual respect. Working in partnership is a value. It is a value.

The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam talked about the work that we did together on council. It was great work because we were respectful to all of our partners.

School district 43 has written a letter to this government expressing concern about the lack of partnership, the lack of relationship. When this House was debating Bill 11, they said the legislation in its current form was created without consultation with boards of education. It resulted in confusion, dismay and lack of clarity. There were serious concerns in our community about this notion of partnership. I think it’s important that when we talk about partnership, that it’s not just a slogan and it’s not just words. It’s not like GP for Me, families first — whatever. It is a real, meaningful act, with very serious consequences.

Time and time again. We have seen too often where we say the words but we don’t follow through on those actions. Whether it’s a unilateral decision around a bus pass clawback or the treaty commissioner — not following through — or name-calling, I don’t care who you are, it’s not how you do partnership in my life and, I suspect, in the life of every single member.

[1100]

We all have partnerships, whether they’re our spouses, our siblings or our business partners. We treat them with respect. We have differences of opinion. Who here in this House has had a difference of opinion with their spouse? I’m sure it has happened.

We find ways. We come to the table. We treat people with respect. We listen to what they have to say. We ask for their opinion. We want to know what it’s like for them on the other side so that together we can come up with solutions — solutions that we both have hashed out, solutions that we both buy into. And sometimes the solution isn’t exactly what I wanted, right? If I want the honey-do list to get done, it’s not always on my timeline. It’s on his timeline.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member’s Motion 8.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 8 — DIVERSE ECONOMY
AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

R. Sultan: I move the following:

[Be it resolved that this House supports growing a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible resource development.]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Getting to yes is one of the guiding themes of this government for the practical reason that it works. We are leading the country in economic growth and are predicted to stay there. We created 50,000 new jobs last year, more than any other province. We are on track to eliminate our operating debt — that is to say, the pay-the-grocery-bills debt as opposed to the buy-a-home debt — for the first time in 40 years. Because of our financial strength, we can spend $20 billion on five new schools, 14 new health facilities, five major transportation projects and four other major projects, without even counting B.C. Hydro.

How could we accomplish this? We accomplish this by saying yes to such things as B.C. Hydro completing 560 capital projects over the last five years; opening six new mines since 2011, with two more under construction; proving up the biggest raw natural gas reserves in Canada, much more than Alberta and sufficient to support a long-term export industry based on LNG; and through land, taxation and royalty policies, encouraging companies to invest over $20 billion — that’s billion with a “b” — to further our LNG opportunity. That’s what you can achieve when you say yes.

In contrast, my good friends across the aisle just love to say no. The leader has said: “The current position of my party is to oppose….” You fill in the blanks. “The current position is….” What will the position be tomorrow? When billions of dollars of investment are at stake, uncertainty kills momentum, and opposition kills — period.

Yesterday I googled the words “NDP opposes,” and in only 0.42 seconds got 372,000 hits. That pretty much sums it all up. When gloating over our LNG delays, the opposition tosses around words such as “fantasy,” but the opportunity is real. All those jobs and government revenues are within our grasp.

Recently the Conference Board of Canada estimated that only one of these projects, Pacific NorthWest LNG, would inject a further $79 million a year in corporate income taxes to B.C. and $204 million a year into federal tax coffers, not to mention 18,000 new jobs. Ottawa, please note.

The more we dilly-dally, the more we encourage our potential customers to turn elsewhere. Last week, in a letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,
[ Page 11687 ]
Kenjiro Monji, Japan’s ambassador to Canada, warned that Canada’s LNG opportunity in Japan was closing fast.

[1105]

Japan wants to decommission most of its 52 nuclear reactors permanently and supply almost a third of its electricity from LNG. Does British Columbia, downwind from all those Japanese nuclear reactors, want to increase the risk of another radiation spill drifting our way?

We could use a bit of enthusiasm on this file from the opposite bench instead of all this “no, no, not now, maybe never” stuff. If we want British Columbia to sustain its hot streak on jobs and economy, we might want to try and resurrect that old song. House rules inhibit me from actually singing, but it goes like this: “You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, and don’t mess with Mr. In-Between.”

You might call that wedge politics. In my view, a lot of people in this House are stuck on the wrong side of the wedge.

B. Ralston: Well, I always enjoy hearing from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I note, in particular, his usually thoughtful and careful speeches, betraying perhaps his education and his business experience. But it is really rather disappointing to see that he has laid his views on the Procrustean bed of caucus discipline and come forward with a really sad and tawdry speech which mimics the communications bullet points that’s he’s been forced to state here in the House.

It is really sad because he’s capable of so much more, and he understands that responsible resource development involves more than a couple of idle shibboleths that the Premier utters from time to time. He knows that — and, in fact, many of his colleagues know that — but that is the result of the way things work here sometimes. It is a bit sad.

The Premier, in her effort to persuade people to her point of view, for example, in Prince Rupert, attacked a group of 350 people — 130 scientists, including international scientists — expressing concern about the fate of Canada’s second-largest wild salmon watershed. That is a genuinely renewable resource. That’s something that’s been there for millennia and, if cared for, nurtured and not destroyed, will be there for millennia more.

So these people — First Nations leaders, elected and hereditary; scientists; commercial and sports fishermen; even politicians — were there, expressing their points of view, as is important in a democracy. Presumably, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano would support that as well. When they expressed their points of view, the Premier rather casually, and I think in a very mean-spirited way, dismissed them as a ragtag bunch. According to the dictionary, one of the definitions of a ragtag group is a group of people viewed as disreputable or undesirable.

Now, if that’s the way a political debate is going to unfold on resource development here, I think most people in the province would rightly want no part of it — no part of it at all. So it is rather sad that that’s where the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is taking us today.

There are important projects in this province. There will be important projects. We support projects, and our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has made it very clear that we have four principles when we consider resource projects in this province: that British Columbians be first in line for jobs and training opportunities; that there be genuine First Nations participation; that there be clear benefits to British Columbia, to the treasury; and finally, that the air, land and water are protected through strong environmental standards and stewardship.

That’s an important debate in our province, and the member knows, having sat on boards of directors and having taught at a business school, that the way in which these decisions are made is not made in the simplistic way which he just enunciated here.

[1110]

D. Plecas: It’s a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the constituents of Abbotsford South to the motion: “Be it resolved that this House supports growing a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible resource development.”

Growing the economy means getting to yes on responsible natural resource development all across this province. Our natural resources give us an advantage not only in Canada but around the world. It’s one of our leading edges in the world. So we always need to be asking: how do we get to yes? We also need to be asking: what conditions need to be in place so that we can have responsible economic and natural resource development?

People want access to what we have to offer, but we need to make sure that we look after the environment and that British Columbians are first in line for jobs, always remembering that we need our natural resources to pay for the services that British Columbians rely on. By diversifying our economy, we are able to make investments in health care, education and social services for those most in need.

It is important to diversify our economy. Our commodities are impacted by world markets. Especially at a time like this, when our commodity prices have dropped, it’s important that we don’t rely on one single industry. That’s why we’ve been working so hard to diversify the economy. We can see those benefits right now in British Columbia, as we are leading the country in economic growth. We are also leading Canada in job creation, with some 55,000 jobs created last year.

Our government wants to grow the economy, create jobs and power the future. To help do that, our government and B.C. Hydro are investing to support our energy needs and economic activity. We are constructing Site C, which will not only provide significant economic, community and environmental benefits for B.C., but once
[ Page 11688 ]
built, it will also be a source of clean, reliable and affordable electricity for more than 100 years.

We believe that we can develop our natural resources in a responsible way, one that ensures that our province remains as pristine as we found it, for generations to come. Our environmental assessment office ensures major projects in B.C. undergo a rigorous and thorough review. These reviews provide significant opportunities for aboriginal groups, government agencies and the public to provide input into environmental assessments and the potential for economic, social and health effects from a proposed project.

The environmental assessment office recognizes the importance of meaningful consulting and engaging and working constructively with First Nations in the environmental assessment process on a government-to-government basis.

When it comes to getting to yes on heavy-oil pipelines, we have been clear and have laid out five conditions. Our position on this has remained unchanged. We have taken a fair and responsible approach which reflects and defends the interest of British Columbians and our environment.

Mining, forestry and natural gas are all key economic drivers in our economy. The oil and gas sector alone employs some 16,000 people. Recently an analysis of a study assessing the amount of natural gas in the Liard Basin was released, and it concluded that B.C.’s portion holds a staggering 848 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Needless to say, we have vast resources to support jobs and long-term export industry. Major global companies have shown a strong commitment to B.C.’s natural gas sector and its future. We’ve already seen over $20 billion invested by industry to further B.C.’s LNG opportunity.

Again, our natural resources are an incredible advantage for us in so many ways. Let’s not miss the opportunity. Let’s say yes, with responsible economic development on projects all across this province.

J. Shin: As always, it’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed to respond to the motion on the floor this morning, calling on the House to support growing a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible resource development.

[1115]

There is no doubt that natural resources are an important part of B.C.’s economy. We are blessed with a wealth of forest, mineral, metal reserves and more. For generations, natural resources have brought opportunity and growth to many regions throughout our province. Now, for those of you joining us in the gallery today, the 2014 numbers show the sector provided 50,000 jobs, 2,600 of which were from oil and gas extraction, accounting for $7.2 billion out of $237.2 billion total GDP for B.C. That’s about 3 percent of our provincial GDP.

As the opposition spokesperson for Small Business, I’d be remiss if I didn’t put these numbers in perspective by pointing out that in the same year, B.C.’s small business sector accounted for over one million jobs, or 54 percent of all private sector employment, and generated $78.2 billion. That accounts for a third of our province’s GDP.

Regardless of the size and scale, be it natural resources or small business, I think all of us can agree that we have diverse drivers for our economy here in B.C., the revenue from which goes to support critical social services and infrastructure like health, education and transportation. The government of the day is tasked with the development of these economic industries and their activities. But development is not the same as responsible development.

As the members would know, Auditor General is an independent office that reports to the Legislative Assembly and not the government of the day, conducting both financial audits and performance value-for-money audits of tax-funded activities, functions and decisions of the government.

Last year the Auditor General presented to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts its findings from the audit of cumulative effects of resource development in our province. The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the government of B.C. and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations have established a sound basis for managing cumulative effects to the environment or not.

Unfortunately, the conclusions of the audit showed that the government did not provide FLNRO with a clear direction nor the powers necessary to manage cumulative effects when deciding on a natural resource use. Hence, the office is not considering cumulative effects effectively in its decision-making.

While FLNRO is reportedly developing an assessment framework to improve cumulative effects management, they’re doing so in a phased approach that won’t be fully implemented until 2021. Even so, the government isn’t resolved on how exactly it’s going to use the framework to coordinate or make decisions across the ministry and its agencies. The Auditor General recommends that it is in the interests of British Columbians to see this government address cumulative effects and that they do so now.

What does responsible look like? Well, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I believe that responsible development means: (1) British Columbians are first in line for project-related jobs; (2) First Nations are consulted and included; (3) there are clear benefits to the province; and (4) air, land and water are protected through strong environmental protection and stewardship.

When this government speaks of responsible resource development, its actions so far have included a series of introductions and reforms to legislation and regulations to facilitate, really, the approval and market access for projects, including pipelines.

Where is the responsible piece in the so-called responsible resource development, though? I certainly didn’t see
[ Page 11689 ]
responsible in their latest attempt with the LNG bill last fall, and we certainly debated on that strongly.

I challenge this government to ensure more academic and timely reviews, strengthening our environmental protection plans, enhancing consultation with aboriginal people, and getting jobs, local procurement and revenue guarantees for B.C. in writing for industrial activities that we plan to develop. That, I think, would be the kind of responsible resource development that I could say yes to, for the long-term and sustainable growth and prosperity that all British Columbians expect and deserve from public assets like natural resources.

[1120]

L. Reimer: The reason why British Columbia has the strongest economic outlook in the country is because of our diversified economy. We didn’t arrive at this rather enviable position in Confederation by chance or without a plan. This government did so with a great deal of determination and with a strong commitment to get our own house in proper order.

With a balanced budget, the public sector is in a much stronger position to help the private sector flourish. Balancing the budget took discipline and a willingness to make tough decisions. As the Premier has often mentioned, it is far better to do the right thing for British Columbia than it is the popular thing. It would be easy to simply throw up our arms and say no to everything, but that is not responsible government.

We owe our current standard of living, the highest in the world, not by passing off the hard decisions to future generations. No, we owe our prosperity to those who have worked hard in the past, got their hands dirty and were prepared to say “yes, we can” rather than “no” at every turn.

Growing the economy means getting to yes on responsible economic development projects across the province. Our government wants to grow the economy, create jobs and ensure a reliable source of power in the future, using clean energy and conservation. Site C is a perfect example. When complete, Site C will be a source of clean, reliable and affordable electricity for more than 100 years. Yes, we can develop our natural resources in a responsible way that ensures our province remains as pristine as we found it for generations to come.

Responsible government also means making tough decisions, even though there might be tremendous external pressures from outside our province. That’s why the government has taken a clear position on heavy-oil pipelines and set five conditions that must be fulfilled before we consider offering our support. It’s a tough decision, and it is the right decision for British Columbia.

Another example is LNG. As we are all aware, it is no easy task to develop a new export market from scratch, but that is essentially what this government has set out to do with LNG. To date, we estimate that over $20 billion has been invested by industry to further B.C.’s LNG opportunity. Companies have spent capital to acquire natural gas assets and move development forward, including exploration and production activities.

The Conference Board of Canada released a detailed analysis of British Columbia’s LNG opportunity. Their report clearly shows how substantial the benefits are. Developing B.C.’s LNG industry will grow Canada’s economy by an average of $7.4 billion per year over the next 30 years. Increased economic activity would raise national employment by an annual average of 65,000 jobs. In British Columbia, the real GDP could rise by $5.3 billion, and employment would increase by annual average of more than 46,000 jobs.

In conclusion, it is not easy getting to yes. It takes a considerable amount of hard work and willingness to make tough decisions, but in the end, we owe it to future generations to pass on a sustainable legacy that will support our aspirations and protect the environment at the same time.

H. Bains: I am glad to stand and speak on this motion, the motion put forward by the member from West Vancouver, that the House support growing a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible resource development. But it is a bit rich — coming from a government who, up until only recently, put all of their economic eggs in one LNG basket.

Finally they realized that that approach has failed. It was designed to fail right from the beginning, because no work was done. It was just a political decision made, and we see the results today. As a result of that, all of the other important — especially resource-based — sectors were neglected: forestry, mining.

No wonder the Premier is going to the member from West Vancouver. If anybody has some credibility on that side of the House, I think that member has some because of his knowledge and background. No wonder the Premier is going to that member. But that member should know better, and he does know better, because this government has been ignoring all of the other sectors for the last three years.

When you look at forestry, we have lost 35,000 workers in the forest industry in the last 15 years under the watch of this government. Over 200 sawmills, according to the government’s own numbers, have been shut down.

[1125]

How about saying yes to keeping our raw logs, seven million cubic metres of them, in British Columbia and processing them here in British Columbia, on the coast, to create jobs for British Columbians, for British Columbia’s benefit? Seven million in 2013 and 5.5 million last year — almost half of the coastal harvesting level has been exported. In the meantime, we have mills that are not running at full capacity or are shut down.

How about saying yes to those workers? How about saying yes to our industry, which built this province, and
[ Page 11690 ]
bring them back from almost the ruins? How about saying yes to encouraging our British Columbia forest companies, which are investing at a record level across the border under the watch of this government?

Forty sawmills have been purchased by the British Columbia companies Canfor, Interfor and West Fraser. Those are the records of this government, because this government ignored the forest industry. As a result, we have thousands fewer people working in the forest industry. Hundreds of mills have been shut down, and a record amount of raw logs have been exported.

How about saying yes to our forest industry, which this government has been ignoring? How about saying yes to our mining industry? Eighteen mines have been shut down under their watch. They only talk about mines that have been opened. Eighteen have been shut down, or they are in a maintenance-and-care mode.

How about saying yes to B.C. workers? For example, during the HD Mining. At the time when the company came in, they were also allowed to bring their own workers from overseas. This government said no to the B.C. workers who were laid off and were fully qualified to work and take on those jobs.

How about saying yes to building public transportation expansion south of the Fraser and along the Broadway corridor rather than hiding behind a referendum, making political decisions year after year after year? How about saying yes to those projects?

How about saying yes to building schools in Surrey? We could use ten of them today. If this government said yes to that today, we would start building those schools today, ten of them, so that we could accommodate and bring all those students who are in portables right now. That’s where we need to say yes.

How about saying yes to bringing people together — people who have diverse opinions, people who have different directions and different suggestions of how we grow our economy? How about bringing them together and respecting those opinions and acting on the decisions that are the best opinions, collected by bringing people together rather than calling those who differ from the Premier’s vision “ragtag” and “the forces of no”? How about that? Wouldn’t that be a good way to bring people together and build this province? And how about we build…?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bains: Thank you so much. Time ran out.

J. Yap: I’m delighted and honoured to add my voice to the debate. I’m grateful to my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, for bringing this motion forward, and on behalf of the people of my riding, Richmond-Steveston, I take pleasure in participating in this morning’s debate.

I’m actually pleased to follow the member opposite, who gave a somewhat typical opposition commentary. I’ll focus on why we have to get to yes, why it is so important to get to yes.

It’s quite simple. As I talk to constituents in my riding, they talk about their anxieties, about the need for more opportunities and the need for more services. It’s very clear that British Columbia, as has been said earlier in the debate, is blessed with having a diverse economy that has served us so well in providing such a high standard of living and prosperity for British Columbians.

[1130]

We didn’t just get there out of sheer luck. We got there because of a willingness to work hard and to develop the resources that we have been blessed with. Every school, every hospital, every bridge, every public asset, every investment that we make in social programs and every transportation asset exists because we have been able to have a strong economy underpinned by a strong resource development sector.

Getting to yes means investment throughout our great province. Getting to yes means private sector job opportunities for British Columbians throughout our province. Getting to yes means opportunities in both urban as well as rural areas of our province. Getting to yes means revenues that will allow our province to continue to invest in the needed services that British Columbians deserve and expect.

I would like to touch on a few particular aspects of getting to yes — why it is so important that we do that. One that has already been talked about is the Site C project on the Peace River. This is a project that has been talked about, reviewed and analyzed for many, many years. This government has taken the major step, the courageous step, to say yes to this project.

After much review, after much deliberation, getting to yes on the Site C project will mean 100 years of clean, renewable energy that this hydroelectric project will provide. It’s a large investment, yes, but one that will provide, during the construction phase, tens of thousands of jobs that will sustain communities and provide opportunities for British Columbians. Once it’s completed, it will provide amazing opportunities to continue to build our economy with clean, renewable energy. We can continue to build British Columbia’s economy and generate the prosperity that we all want for British Columbians.

We’ve seen the opposite from the other side. We realize that the opposition, at times, can be very conflicted on things, but it seems that on this issue they have taken a position and then taken an opposite position. They’re quite conflicted. As we’ve seen, the Leader of the Opposition has been publicly quoted as being conflicted. He said that he’s in favour and he’s also not in favour of Site C.

This is a project that will provide a foundational opportunity for our province in the years to come, along with
[ Page 11691 ]
many other opportunities for resource development in British Columbia.

With my colleagues on this side of the House, we support this motion — that it’s important to say yes to responsible resource development to continue to build our great province.

K. Conroy: I believe we can all get to yes on this motion, except that we on this side of the House actually believe in real economic diversity and responsible, sustainable resource development.

We moved to Castlegar when I was five. It was in the ’60s. My parents used to take us for Sunday drives to see our new community. I remember seeing whole houses being picked up and moved away, and learning about the new dam. As I grew up, I learned more about what had happened to people, their homes, farms and the surrounding countryside.

In those days, when the Columbia River treaty was signed, it was all about power generation and flood control. The government of the day didn’t think about the environmental or socioeconomic ramifications that flooding thousands of hectares of land would bring — the houses that weren’t moved but were actually burnt, how some of the best agricultural land in the province was flooded, how people weren’t given a choice. B.C. Hydro and the government drove a hard bargain, and the people of the region didn’t benefit. It was all for the greater good of the province.

Today we are well aware of the devastation caused and the families who are, to this day, affected by the past history, the destruction of entire ecosystems, riparian zones, the drowning of wildlife and no regard for the impact of a continually changing reservoir.

Has the province benefited? Yep. We received anywhere from $100 million to $300 million a year in downstream benefits. Also, we didn’t see floods again, like the area did in 1948 when communities were flooded and some were wiped out.

Thanks to the foresight of the NDP government in the ’90s, with the creation of the Columbia Basin Trust, benefits are finally being returned to the region.

[1135]

A month ago, I travelled to Fort St. John. I was invited to attend a town hall meeting sponsored by the North Peace Rod and Gun Club. The meeting was generated by concerns that the government is quietly giving away residents’ rights to fish, hunt, hike or otherwise recreate in the back country.

The government, in its efforts to get Site C to a “point of no return,” as the Premier has said, is trying to quickly negotiate agreements with First Nations — compensation for the land lost by the proposed flooding of Site C. I was impressed with the passion in the room and the respect for the rights of the First Nations in the region.

I was also struck by the anger at the government for failing to be transparent, to consult, to manage and to conserve B.C.’s wildlife and the fact the government will not guarantee to preserve existing access to the back country. Over 300 hunters and concerned citizens were ensuring their voices were being heard.

An eye-opener for me, though, was that every time someone raised that this was happening because of Site C, there was resounding support in the room — support against Site C. Even with some of the highest unemployment in the province right now in the North Peace country, they don’t want the dam.

The next morning I toured some of the farms and homes that will be affected — the couple who built their dream home only to find that it’s in the sloughing zone and could fall into the new large river, or the Boones’ farm, where her grandfather had homesteaded in the land that would be lost — land that is being utilized today. One section is a profitable market garden to grow fruits and vegetables. They can even grow watermelons and cantaloupes up there. We can’t barely do that in the Kootenays.

Standing above the land and looking out over the area, I was struck by such an emotional feeling. What a waste. What a sense of inexcusable destruction. And for what?

If we really did need the power and the jobs and if there was absolutely no other alternative…. But the reality is there are other options in this province — things this government won’t even explore or invest in. Instead, for whatever reason, they want to engage in 1960s policies in the 21st century. Surely in this day and age, we can do better.

There are other options that could be invested in, creating more jobs over the entire province without the devastating losses that Site C brings. B.C. can create a world-class clean energy economy, leading to long-term economic benefits and jobs in every corner of the province, including significant First Nations benefits and employment opportunities, while also fighting climate change and diversifying our economy towards new technologies.

Now is the time to look forward, not backwards, as advances in wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies are rapid and prices are dropping, positioning B.C. to build incrementally and take advantage of these improvements.

The Canadian geothermal association released a study showing we could get the same amount of energy more affordably from geothermal sources — for about half the constructions costs. Unlike Site C, geothermal wouldn’t require massive transmission upgrades. It would be less environmentally disruptive and would create more jobs throughout the entire province.

Our leader’s Power B.C. vision would take advantage of new and emerging technologies to make B.C. a clean energy powerhouse, creating the long-lasting jobs for today and tomorrow, growing the economy for future generations, while also fighting climate change and reducing
[ Page 11692 ]
energy bills. Power B.C. would create more jobs, while producing and saving more energy than Site C. It is actually a plan that would grow a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible, sustainable resource development.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to add my voice in support of my colleague’s motion. Our government firmly believes that developing our natural resources must be done in a responsible manner which creates and strengthens a diverse and growing economy for the benefit of all British Columbians.

In my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, the mining industry is one of the cornerstones of our economy, with well-paying jobs and providing benefits for our First Nations communities. The successful mining companies in my riding and throughout B.C. engage in the development process, building mutually beneficial relationships, committing to training and collaborating with First Nations as the project develops.

This early engagement allows companies to include input from First Nations communities and train workers close to the project. It also brings overall community support to their project.

Our government is working with First Nations to develop a shared vision for mining. First Nations have identified mineral tenure, revenue-sharing and environmental assessment as important topics for further discussion.

[1140]

We recognize the importance of working with First Nations in the environmental assessment process. That’s why, over the past few years, we’ve taken steps to enhance the environmental assessment process, providing significant opportunities for First Nations to participate and to both inform and improve projects.

We also believe First Nations should have a direct revenue connection to the wealth-creating ability of B.C.’s resource development projects. B.C. is the first province to share direct tax revenue generated from new mines and major mine expansions with First Nations, helping to enhance the governance, social, economic and cultural well-being of First Nations communities. We have been noted nationally for using the revenue-sharing model as the correct approach to addressing aboriginal rights and title and advancing economic development.

Since August of 2013, more than $22 million in direct mineral tax revenues from new mines and major mine expansions has flowed to First Nations as a result of mining-related revenue-sharing agreements. To date, B.C. has signed 23 of these agreements with 39 nations. Last May our government reached an agreement to acquire 61 coal licences in the Klappan, so that discussions between the province, the Tahltan Nation and industry on a shared vision for responsible management of the area could move forward.

As part of our response to the breach at Mount Polley, our government signed a letter of understanding with the Williams Lake Indian Band and the Soda Creek Indian Band. This concluded a commitment to begin broader dialogue with the First Nations about existing mining sector regulations and policies in British Columbia. This dialogue is already beginning, with First Nations participating in a major review of British Columbia’s mining code.

First Nations were also included in the dam safety inspection process following the breach at Mount Polley. The results of dam safety inspections for every permitted minesite, including those under care and maintenance, were made available to First Nations, and consultation was completely directed with 19 bands.

There are an estimated 30,000 jobs in mineral exploration, mining and its related sectors today, up from 14,070 in 2001, more than double. The average salary and benefits today are about $120,000 a year, up from $81,000 a year in 2001. Since June 2011, six new mines have opened, and two more are under construction. Spending on mineral exploration in B.C. totalled $272 million last year. While that total is lower than the two previous years, due to the global downturn, it is well up from 2001, when spending on exploration in B.C. was just $29 million.

We continue to take steps to support mineral exploration by extending the mining flow-through share tax credit to the end of 2016, and we have extended the new mine allowance to the year 2020.

Growing the economy means creating jobs and getting to yes on responsible economic development in all corners of our province. Our government has set the table for impressive growth in the mining industry over the past several years, and it is our intention to see that continue.

D. Donaldson: I rise to debate the motion from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano: “Be it resolved that this House supports growing a diverse economy by getting to yes on responsible resource development.”

Getting to yes involves compromise, and compromise is reached through consensus-building. The best chance to build consensus is through respect of another individual’s perspective. The easiest way to ensure failure is to use old strategies of divide and conquer that are at the root of divisive politics.

For example, labelling Hereditary Chiefs of the northwest who do not agree with you as “ragtags,” as the Premier did, does not demonstrate respect and does nothing to help achieve consensus on contentious resource development projects. “Ragtag” means “shabby, ragged, dishevelled, not organized or put together well” — a derogatory term. When speaking in reference to Hereditary Chiefs and community members expressing legitimate concerns about industrial development, the Premier called them ragtags.

It reminds one of a Donald Trump strategy. Is that what the government member who introduced this pri-
[ Page 11693 ]
vate motion is thinking when he talks about getting to yes? Knowing him, I think not. But this is the kind of negative, divisive approach — it’s one from the south of the border — that the Premier is intent on copying in B.C. today, and it will not help us get to yes.

[1145]

Another part of the motion deals with growing a diverse economy. It’s a good idea. Many communities in Stikine, for instance, are able to level out the valleys and troughs of the resource extraction economy through diversification. A part of the tourism sector, for instance, that is dependent on healthy, intact salmon and steelhead runs puts millions into the Skeena River watershed economy every year. But putting all your eggs in one basket and ignoring other sectors in the economy is no strategy to diversify the economy, yet that’s the course this government has and is taking with LNG.

The final segment of this motion deals with responsible resource development. That is what we all want. It requires trust by the public in the process government creates to ensure responsibility. If the public trusts the process and believes the government is acting in their best interest, and not the interests of a few, then consensus-building will be easier to achieve.

Unfortunately, the B.C. environmental assessment process was gutted in 2002 by the current government. Cumulative effects? In other words, considering all parts of a proposed development — from wellhead to waterline, for instance — was removed from the act. This decreases public confidence.

Likewise, when an Auditor General reports out, as he did, that the environmental assessment office doesn’t have the resources to even monitor the conditions they put in place when granting a development approval, that undermines public confidence and hinders consensus-building, as the Mount Polley disaster typifies.

Here is a template for building consensus around resource projects: meaningful employment for locals, not projects that support temporary foreign workers; a fair return on resources, not cutting a deal at any cost; respecting the land, water and air with strong environmental protection and monitoring; respecting First Nations and knowing the difference between the hereditary system and the elected band council so you know who to consult with on aboriginal title.

Those are four ways of building consensus that, on this side of the House, we support versus the derogatory name-calling of Hereditary Chiefs that the Premier has demonstrated is her approach.

J. Martin: There are few things I enjoy more in this House than having the opportunity to speak about investing in our natural resources. I, along with my colleagues and the government caucus, like to say yes to responsible economic development projects throughout British Columbia. We support a growing, diverse economy, and we do that by getting to yes on responsible resource development.

This isn’t about picking and choosing projects on a whim. Now, the opposition has been all over the map on whether they support LNG. We’ve seen the Leader of the Opposition take every opportunity to say no to LNG and constantly throw roadblocks in front of the development of the industry.

Members of the opposition from the northwest recently wrote a letter declaring that they do not support Pacific NorthWest LNG. This is a project that will create thousands of jobs in their very own region. This is a $30 billion project. It is the single-largest private sector investment in Canadian history. It has support from mayors across the north and from First Nations along the entire route. Yet they can’t bring themselves to support this project?

Are there impacts to the project? Of course there are, which is why mitigation with industry, stakeholders and First Nations was developed and allows for support — support from everyone, it seems, except the opposition.

Well, I’m proud to stand in this House and be able to say yes to the responsible development that British Columbia needs and yes to 330 local long-term careers operating the facility; yes to up to 4,500 jobs during peak construction, jobs for welders, labourers, truck drivers and engineers; and yes to the countless small businesses throughout British Columbia who will be able to grow their companies as a consequence of this project.

I ask those members: do you not support jobs in your own community? Do you not support economic development? Do you not support growing the economy? What will it take for them to get to yes? At this point, I don’t really think any of us know.

We believe that we can develop our natural resources in a responsible way that ensures B.C. remains as pristine as we found it for generations to come. We have the Site C project currently under construction that they also say no to. Site C will be a source of clean, reliable and affordable electricity for more than a century, helping B.C. meet our long-term electricity needs. Along with the benefits to British Columbians of keeping hydro rates low, this project will provide thousands of jobs.

[1150]

Think of all the benefits to the local communities and First Nations in Peace country. Right now job fairs are being held in the north and have already drawn more than 5,000 people who want to work on the Site C project — 5,000 people that the opposition would like to see unemployed. And this is just the beginning of the project. There will be more job fairs as further contracts are let and more workers are needed. Saying no to the thousands of jobs this project will create makes no sense.

The northwest transmission line came into service in 2014. It’s a vital project to the future of our province, providing power to open up new mines and new clean
[ Page 11694 ]
energy projects in the northwest. This transmission line powers the Red Chris mine, which is one of the top ten copper-gold deposits in the world. It employs 350 people, including many First Nations, and the opposition has the gall to call it a transmission line to nowhere.

As well, more mines will be opening, thanks to the northwest transmission line, leading to almost 2,200 permanent jobs. That’s 2,200 jobs that the opposition continues to say no to.

Getting to yes on heavy-oil pipelines is part of a diverse economy and can be done responsibly. That’s why we have taken a clear position on heavy-oil pipelines and set our five conditions that must be fulfilled.

When we look at the opposition, it seems they have no idea where they stand. Since the infamous Kinder surprise incident, the current Leader of the Opposition has refused to take a clear position on Kinder Morgan expansion. In 2013, we heard him say he was pleased to be able to say no to Kinder Morgan. In 2014, he said he’s going to wait and see. We’ve seen members for Vancouver-Fairview, Vancouver-Kensington and Vancouver–West End oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. Well, that not a productive way of getting to yes.

It’s not just natural resources. Think about it: no to the Coquihalla Highway, no to the Alex Fraser Bridge, no to Expo 86, no to B.C. Place, no to the Trade and Convention Centre, no to the 2010 Winter Games, no to the Sea to Sky Highway, no to the Port Mann Bridge, no to the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We are very proud in this government to say yes to responsible development and responsible growth in British Columbia, and this serves the people of British Columbia for generations to come.

J. Martin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:52 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