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, May 16, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 40, Number 1

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

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

GETTING TO YES
ON INTEGRITY IN POLITICS

G. Holman: As opposition spokesperson for democratic reform and as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, I’m very pleased to speak to this statement, “Getting to Yes on Integrity in Politics.”

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I’m sure that no one in this House would disagree that integrity is an essential element of good government. Of course we would all say yes to integrity in politics, at least at the rhetorical level. But as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. We need to assure our citizens that governments and elected officials of any political stripe are not just expected to meet the highest standard of ethical conduct, but they’re required to do so, and that effective rules are in place to ensure integrity in politics.

Rhetoric aside, the real issue I’m trying to address today is: are the rules that are actually in place sufficient to ensure ethical behaviour, particularly with respect to the influence of big money? Do the laws in B.C. constitute best practices in Canada? Do they meet the highest standards in our country?

Unfortunately, the laws in B.C. do not meet this standard, and they are clearly inadequate in comparison to other provinces in Canada and at the federal level itself. This is not just my opinion. It’s the opinion of a whole range of voices, none of whom could be accused of having a partisan or ideological basis or bias that favours this side of the House. For example, Andrew Coyne, a conservative columnist writing for the National Post, recently wrote: “It should not be necessary to prove unethical behaviour, nor should it be a policy choice. It should be a given.”

[1005]

While some members of the public have questioned the decision by the conflict commissioner regarding the Premier’s stipend, the point is that our laws should prevent such situations from occurring at all. This is not a partisan issue. The potential for undue influence or conflict of interest, either real or perceived, must be eliminated regardless of which party forms government.

Do citizens and voters really care if their elected officials and the governance system within which they function are acting with integrity? Do they care if election and election finance rules give powerful political interests more influence over government decisions than average citizens? Of course they do.

Recent polling by Insights West for the Dogwood Initiative indicates that 86 percent of British Columbians support a ban on corporate and union political donations before the next election, including 81 percent of those who voted Liberal in the last election. Seventy-six percent of British Columbians would also support a cap on personal contributions.

There’s plenty of evidence that confidence in the provincial political process, in part because of public concerns about lack of integrity in politics, has been waning for years. Voting participation has declined to the point that 40 percent to 50 percent of citizens in British Columbia do not even bother to exercise their democratic franchise.

Since the 1970s, citizens in western democracies have been voting later in life and in smaller numbers. Accordingly, overall voter turnout has dropped from approximately three-quarters of eligible voters in the 1970s to approximately half of eligible voters today. In the 2013 provincial general election, overall turnout was about 55 percent of eligible voters, but only 30 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 24 chose to vote. At the local government level, voter turnout is equally dismal. In the 2011 B.C. local government elections, voter turnout averaged about 30 percent.

Much of the legislation necessary to restore integrity to B.C. politics is already in place at the federal level and a number of the larger provinces. For example, at the federal level, political donations from corporations and unions are banned, and personal donations to political parties are capped. Six provinces, including the two largest in Canada, have either banned or are about to ban such political donations. Almost all of the provinces have some upper limit on personal donations.

Sadly, British Columbia appears to be falling behind other Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions on this important issue of integrity in politics and ensuring ethical behaviour. B.C. is seen as a laggard on election finance and other laws to ensure that politicians are above ethical reproach. It should concern all citizens of British Columbia when members of the opposition, including the independents, put forward such proposals and they are rejected outright by government. In fact, we are the laughing stock of the country. The Times Colonist recently editorialized with respect to our Wild West approach to political donations, as have other, I would say, right-of-centre newspapers, such as the National Post and the Globe and Mail.

Unfortunately, there has been a similar response to a whole package of voting, election finance and governance
[ Page 13106 ]
reforms proposed on this side of the House. This response, in itself, is concerning. In fact, concerns about the influence of big money on the political integrity of B.C. have been heightened as a result of removal of limits on political spending by parties in the 60-day pre-election period. As a result of this change, political spending by parties and candidates is unconstrained and reinforces the power of big money right before the formal election campaign begins.

[1010]

Most of the political donations to the governing party in this province come from corporations and wealthy individuals, but the concern about big money cuts both ways. This side of the House is also criticized for accepting donations from unions. The citizens of this province regard the prevalence of big money on politics as creating a situation in which political decision-making, either directly or indirectly, can be unfairly influenced.

You don’t have to believe….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the member opposite for his remarks today and for bringing this discussion to the House.

Personal integrity, to me, is of the highest importance. It helps define each of us as human beings, and it speaks to our character. It is a very important measure of a person’s reputation among those with whom he or she interacts and is perceived by the populous, in general.

Those of us in public life are especially prone to the barbs of folks who we have never met and who only know us through our political lives and make judgments on us, whether they’re negative or positive. Each of us here, who put our names forward to serve in public office, put ourselves under a microscope. We may not like it, but we accept it all — in part, because of the position we hold.

We are all at the mercy of the public opinion court. I can accept somebody disagreeing with my point of view or with our government’s policies, but I will not allow my personal integrity to be called into question. Integrity is generally defined as a steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Recently I heard some of the members opposite accuse us on this government side of having no integrity. Well, I take that accusation incredibly seriously. I find it appalling and insulting to be a target of such a blanket indictment that has no basis or fact or reality, especially when it comes to me.

Those accusations, whether the members opposite realize it or not, tarnish the reputation of all of us: those in government; those in the opposition; the independent members; unfortunately, even you, hon. Speaker; the Clerks; and everyone who works in this wonderful institution.

If we work in this House and don’t have integrity, the Legislature does not function. It is as simple as that. It is my firm belief that everyone in this House has integrity. There isn’t a member in this assembly that didn’t come here with the highest integrity. We were each elected because the voters felt we could be trusted. They believed in what is such an important trait — integrity.

Allow me to say that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It is very easy to get worked up about monetary contributions that the B.C. Liberal Party receives, as though it is some great sin. But the opposition isn’t immune from accepting large donations. For example, the BCGEU gave the opposition $1.4 million between 2005 and 2013. The B.C. Federation of Labour, $1.3 million; CUPE, $1.2 million; the Steelworkers’ contribution, $1 million.

“When the party takes positions on issues of importance to labour unions and does not consult with allies while in opposition, it is fair to ask if they would in government. More importantly, it adds to the perception that the party only views the labour unions as an ATM. The only time our views are heard is when they are attached to a cheque.” I really resent that.

But there’s something that has transpired, and it’s come forward. If you’re a member of one of these unions and you don’t belong to the NDP as a supporter, a portion of your dues is going into the bank account of a party that you don’t support. Is that right? Should people or an organization or a political party’s integrity be challenged when this happens? I’ll leave that question for all to ponder.

Let me restate the obvious: spending money is no longer a guarantee to win an election. Just take a look at what happened with the federal Conservatives in this country in our federal election.

Yes, we all accept donations. Do we really want our campaigns to be funded solely on a taxpayer basis? Do we want the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars spent that way? I doubt it.

It is my firm belief that, in this House, every member believes in honest government, a respectful exchange of ideas, moral principles, honesty and fairness. That is integrity.

In closing, my father always said: “Take the high road. The view is always better.” It’s something I do each and every day.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all the hon. members that private members’…. It’s non-partisan.

G. Holman: I thank my colleague, the member for Penticton, for his remarks.

With the greatest of respect, I believe the member has missed the point we are trying to make on this side of the House. This is not about personal attacks or impugning any particular member’s integrity. This is about the rules that are in play — or not — that govern ethical behaviour in this House. That’s the point. This is not about personal attacks.

[1015]

The point is, on this side of the House, we’re prepared — and, in fact, have proposed and are ready to do so before the next election — to put rules in place that will do away with political donations from large organizations like corporations and unions. That is the point here that I’m trying to make.

I have also acknowledged in my remarks that this concern does cut both ways. Of course, this political party does receive, just as the Liberals, donations from those large political organizations. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we’re prepared to change those rules right now to take big money out of politics.

You don’t have to believe independent organizations, such as IntegrityBC, who’ve drawn a straight line from corporate donors to government contracts and lax enforcement of laws protecting the environment and workers. As one National Post columnist, Brian Hutchinson, observed regarding the suspicions of the electorate about integrity in politics, where there is smoke, there is fire. In B.C., there is plenty of smoke.

We need to be doing everything we can to restore faith in the integrity of the political process, and that means removing the perception that big money has undue influence on government decisions, regardless of political stripe and on a completely non-partisan basis. We need to say “yes” to integrity politics right here and right now.

As I’ve said, actions speak louder than words. We owe it to our citizens and ourselves as elected officials to move beyond rhetoric and to put in place rules to enforce the highest ethical standards — rules that represent the best practices in this country. This side of the House is prepared to do just that.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN B.C.

J. Martin: On behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack, I rise to speak on the subject matter of emergency preparedness in British Columbia.

This is really all about a team effort. It takes the contribution and organization of several different levels of government along with numerous organizations involved in emergency preparedness. The work emergency management B.C. and other organizations do is truly spectacular. When a disaster does occur, they work under incredible stress, and they are tasked with making everything run as smoothly as possible under the circumstances.

Being prepared for an emergency is one of the most important things one can do for themselves and their family and their community. It’s best to make the plan now before disaster strikes. As we witnessed with the devastation in Fort McMurray, disaster can strike at any time. In British Columbia, we face the possibility of a number of natural disasters, depending on the time of year. Wildfires, earthquakes, flooding, drought — those are just a few.

Emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility. It begins with every individual and is shared by every level of government. As we recently have seen in Alberta, it takes a massive effort to smoothly and efficiently organize a response when faced with such circumstances. Here in B.C., emergency management British Columbia is responsible for leading the management of provincial-level emergencies and disasters. They support the other authorities within these areas of jurisdiction.

EMBC is expert in leading the management of catastrophic disasters of provincial significance and impact. They are effective in supporting other responsible authorities in their mandate to mitigate and to manage emergencies and disasters as they occur. EMBC works with local governments, First Nations, federal departments, industry, non-government organizations and countless volunteers. It takes an awful lot of organization and leadership to build these relationships and work with so many different organizations and stakeholders, and I applaud each and every one of them for their exceptional work.

EMBC works with all of these organizations through the different emergency management phases of mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. As well, EMBC engages with provincial, national and international partners to enhance collective emergency preparedness. EMBC has responded to a number of emergencies and disasters with its many, many partners.

[1020]

A few of the significant activities in the past year include providing support for wildfire evacuation orders and alerts and cross-border contingency planning for the Washington state wildfires, support for local governments and First Nations during flooding season, facilitating cross-government response for the English Bay oil spill and enhancing the timeliness of the provincial emergency notification system.

Wildfire prevention is an important aspect we need to speak about. Nearly half of all wildfires each year are caused by careless human activity. The B.C. Wildfire Service has put a renewed emphasis on wildfire prevention, public education and enforcement. During fire season, they provide up-to-date information on evacuation alerts and orders, road closures and air quality advisories.

In addition, earlier this year we introduced new Wildfire Act and Wildfire Regulation fines to take a tougher stand on irresponsible behaviour that contributes to increased wildfire risks. In some cases, we have tripled the fines.

We introduced the strategic wildfire prevention initiative in 2004 to help local governments and First Nations reduce the risk of interface wildfires where urban development borders on forests and grasslands. We’ve seen the devastating images of people fleeing Fort McMurray and how quickly the flames can reach the edge of a forest and people’s homes.
[ Page 13108 ]

As of the end of April, about $78 million has been allocated to the strategic wildfire prevention initiative. This is administered by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

Another initiative is the community wildfire protection plans. As of end of March, 290 community wildfire protection plans have been completed by local governments and First Nations, and another 55 are currently in progress. These plans identify areas at risk and prescribe fuel management projects to address those risks. These may include conventional harvesting, prescribed burning, improving the spacing between live trees, removing dead trees and cleaning up low branches, needles and other debris that could potentially fuel a fire.

As part of Budget 2016, we have invested $85 million to create the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. This new society’s efforts will focus on wildfire risk reduction to complement the ministry’s existing forest stewardship programs and wildfire suppression capabilities. This work will help to mitigate the impact of wildfires on our communities.

Earthquake preparedness is another important area that EMBC continues to work on. EMBC continues to place the B.C. earthquake-planning file at the top of its priorities. It outlines anticipated response and recovery activities following a catastrophic earthquake.

A new B.C. earthquake immediate response plan was completed last May, with attention now focused on sustained response planning. This includes leadership, integration, logistic system framework and mass care strategies.

When a disaster hits, no one knows how long till they can return to their home. EMBC’s disaster financial assistance program helps individuals and local governments recover from uninsurable disasters. We have one of the most effective disaster recovery programs in the country. We are proud of its consistent, timely response. Most residential claims are paid within six weeks and some as quickly as two weeks.

I wish to thank all of our first responders, firefighters and staff at EMBC for everything they do to help to keep British Columbians safe year in, year out.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to respond to the member’s comments. Emergency management and emergency preparedness are critical issues in the province of British Columbia. The member just indicated that he wanted to thank all those involved in the issue of emergency preparedness — the firefighters, the first responders, emergency management B.C. — and I agree with that. They do need to be thanked. But it’s not just our personal thanks in this chamber. I think one of the best ways to thank them is to ensure that emergency management B.C. has the tools it needs to do the job properly.

As we know, disasters in this province are not just earthquakes, which are often the focus, but floods and fires. One only has to look at the reports that have come out in last few years, particularly the Renteria report and the Auditor General’s report, to realize just how much work needs to be done.

According to the Renteria report, there needs to be a systematic and cultural change because of a long history of apathy, when it comes to earthquakes in this province, in the need to be prepared for earthquakes.

We have seen how the government initially said a number of years ago: “Oh, we’re going to deal with this. We’re going to seismically upgrade the schools in British Columbia that need to be seismically upgraded. It’s going to be done by….” I think at the time it was by 2015, but that got pushed back and delayed. When the announcement was made, people were given false hope.

[1025]

Government needs to understand that when it comes to emergency management and emergency preparedness, the public expects that when announcements are made and commitments are made, they are followed through on, that they are not delayed.

For example, we’ve heard some comments around fires and what’s happened in Fort McMurray. I see the member smiling, and good for him. We don’t want to see that happen here in British Columbia.

But many of the issues around being able to prevent fire and those disasters was contained in the Filmon report, which was produced after the Kelowna fires. It recommended that we deal with the outstanding issue of cleaning up the interface on the forests and communities in this province. There were announcement made, with great fanfare, by the government, but since that time, in 12 years, only 10 percent has been done. Only 10 percent.

So it’s all well and good to stand and say we’ve got all these great things in place and that it’s a shared responsibility. But too often what we’ve seen is that shared responsibility means, “Oh, we want something from the feds, and you and your community need to be prepared for two or three days until help gets there,” when the reality is that the key lead must be at the provincial level. A lot more needs to be done. Some steps have been taken, but a lot more needs to be done. That has been identified in both the Renteria report and the Auditor General’s report and in the Filmon report.

One of the key areas which we have still yet to see come through, in terms of government policy changes which have been identified and the government has yet to commit to, is that there needs to be significant increase in the authority granted to emergency management British Columbia. That is a critical change that has still yet to take place. I’d be interested to know when that change is going to take place — to hear that from the government. I’d be interested to know when the other 90 percent of the forest interface is going to be cleaned up, because in the 12 years that it’s taken to do the 10 percent, the stuff that was done 12 years ago is going to be needed to be done again. That’s a real problem.
[ Page 13109 ]

We need to make sure that we stick to our schedules around the seismic upgrading of schools and that our dikes are maintained in the proper way that they need to be.

Yes, we need to thank our first responders. Yes, we need to thank those involved in emergency management B.C. Yes, we need to thank those communities who are engaged and the volunteers that prepare the plans and the planning that needs to be done.

But most of all, we need to follow through on the recommendations identified in the Filmon report, the recommendations identified in the Renteria report and the recommendations identified in the Auditor General’s report. They need to be completed — not half-measures.

With that, I await the response from the hon. Member.

J. Martin: Thank you so much to the hon. member for those comments. If I may take a couple of moments to speak a little bit about emergency preparedness.

Everybody is encouraged to practice fire drills and earthquake drills so that when faced with an emergency situation, they know what to do. When overcome with fear and stress, it’s easy to panic, but if one has gone through the motions before, it’s easier to do it again.

As part of their public education component, EMBC plays a central leadership role in the Great British Columbia ShakeOut. This event takes place across British Columbia, where we all practice “drop, cover and hold on.” Also, it’s a good time to remind everybody to have an emergency kit prepared.

There will be a provincially led full-scale major earthquake and tsunami response exercise held in the Port Alberni region from June 7 to 10. Called Coastal Response, this exercise will bring together participants from all provincial ministries and agencies, multiple levels of government from various jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S., emergency first responders, public safety volunteers and non-government organizations like the Canadian Red Cross. Quite the undertaking.

And, of course, our search and rescue volunteers. These people are incredibly well trained. There are over 80 ground search and rescue groups in B.C. consisting of over 2,500 volunteers who donate more than 100,000 hours of their time each year. They respond to over 1,400 incidents every year. An astounding 95 percent of subjects were found or rescued within 24 hours of a volunteer search and rescue group being activated.

These volunteers provide an incredibly valuable service. They save countless lives each and every year. I want to, again, reiterate my thanks and support to all our search and rescue volunteers for all they do.

[1030]

Emergency management B.C. works hard to make sure we are prepared when disaster strikes. They continue to improve their plans and enhance such things as their notification systems. It takes an enormous amount of organization and cooperation with all governments to make sure we are prepared.

We can always do more; we all know that. That is why we grow our economy. It’s so that we have the resources and the financial capability to invest in emergency preparedness. Thank you so much for this opportunity, hon. Speaker.

GETTING TO YES ON TRANSPARENCY

D. Routley: I’d like to ask the House: what does it mean to get to yes on transparency? It means developing a culture of openness and accountability. It doesn’t mean doing anything within and without the law to avoid scrutiny.

The freedom-of-information law, introduced by the NDP government in 1992 and adopted unanimously by this House, is meant to be a regulatory backstop to a culture of transparency. Instead, we have seen a steady and deliberate undermining of freedom of information and, consequentially, democratic integrity.

The information of government belongs to the people of B.C. The information of what our government has done, how it was done and who decided is essential to a functioning, effective democracy. We have to see it to judge it. The FOI laws of the province have been weakened many times by government’s amendments, and the provisions stretched to favour secrecy over openness.

Even with the law, openness ultimately depends on a spirit or a culture within government that encourages and insists on transparency. That culture, to develop and take hold, requires leadership by example, from the highest offices of government. Instead, we have seen repeated examples of the highest office — the Premier’s office — engaged in deliberate attempts to avoid scrutiny, to avoid the cleansing sunlight of transparency.

From the use of private email and messenger services that are exempt from freedom of information to the deliberate destruction of documents and the purposeful effort not to create a paper or electronic trail, the Premier’s office has been leading the way down towards a culture of secrecy. They don’t want you to see it, so they don’t write it down. If they happen to create any document that shows what they’ve been up to, they do anything in their power to destroy it, to delete it or to triple-delete it.

Now, it would be one thing if this sorry state of affairs had developed silently without notice. But in fact it is quite another thing. It is quite another thing to have successive Information and Privacy Commissioners write stacks of reports that have, in common, condemnation and rebuke for the highest offices of the provincial government.

It is quite another thing to have select standing committees every six years make the same recommendations, only to see the most critical and essential recommendations ignored. It’s quite another thing to ignore the voices of authority and expertise that are calling for substantive, corrective action to preserve the integrity of public pro-
[ Page 13110 ]
cess and the confidence and faith of citizens that their government is in fact their government.

Of course, this issue does not reside in a vacuum. It is occurring in the larger context of a loss of faith in the integrity of government — one scandal after another — and the refusal of the government to get big money out of politics. Eighty-six percent of British Columbians agree that there should be a ban on corporate and union donations. They also believe that their Premier should be free from influence from large corporate donors.

We in the NDP official opposition happen to agree with them. We have put forward no less than five private members’ bills to eliminate corporate and union donations. We are committed to make that change when we are elected.

Taken in combination with a governmentwide culture of secrecy and avoidance of transparency, people are becoming cynical about the influence that big money has on public policy. We can see the millions of dollars in donations. We can see the policies that favour donors. We can’t see the paper trail of how those decisions were made or who made them. So we have a long way to go to re-establish any faith in the integrity of government.

As the transparency of government is blurred and blindfolded, the backstop of FOI law becomes the point of conflict. To repair the damage done to faith in government’s integrity, we need to significantly toughen and expand FOI law. But more than that, we require the shift in culture that begins and ends in the Premier’s office.

[1035]

Start by getting big money out of politics. Start by making it illegal for the Premier or any MLA to take top-ups to their salaries from anyone. This is a crisis in B.C. politics. The people must have confidence that the government and their public interest are not for sale to the highest donor. This will require more than tinkering around the edges of FOI law. This will require an authentic and comprehensive commitment by government to altering their own culture. This will require leadership from a Premier who has been at the centre of these scandals.

The people of B.C. have a high expectation that their government will be their government, and their government will hear their voices and respond. The government could begin that process by banning big money in politics, by taking significant, concrete steps to honour the recommendations of committees that have reviewed FOI law every six years and to finally listen to the essential themes of the reports that have, one by one, condemned the government’s record when it comes to freedom of information.

This is a requirement for the integrity and well functioning of government in British Columbia. Every single British Columbian has an interest and a stake in this issue. This government needs to take more seriously its obligation to transparency.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all of the members, again, that private member statements are non-partisan.

D. McRae: Today we rise and speak on transparency. Members opposite, members on this side of the chamber, I’ve had the privilege of serving the British Columbia Legislature for seven years now. While our province is 145 years old, I have witnessed traditions and practice continue to evolve even in my short time here.

The world is modernizing. There is no doubt about it. If you asked me five years ago what cloud storage was, I wouldn’t have known. Data storage on things like flash drives and external hard drives were probably out of price of many British Columbians. While Wi-Fi was definitely there, now we’ve moved on from Wi-Fi. We’re talking about new technologies called Li-Fi. As technology moves forward, we are also talking about moving forward and evolving the political process.

I know we’re talking about a non-partisan effort in this chamber today. I’m sure that the member opposite in his final minutes will talk about the changes, because I’ve also had the privilege of watching the evolution of transparency in this chamber. For example, when I came here, LAMC — and for those at home who don’t know what LAMC stands for, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee — was not a public meeting. It was done in private. Where is it done now? Well, the Speaker of the House now has it done in public. Why? So we can all see it. It is not done behind closed doors.

When I got here, constit expenses were kind of secretive. You didn’t actually have to post anything. I thought that after 138 years that was kind of odd. Well, I’m pleased to say, under this term of government, we have now made it that we post on line, and both parties agreed that this is a great idea. Again, it’s an example of that continual evolution.

But we haven’t stopped there. B.C. was the first province to create a site like Data B.C. That’s a catalog of 3,000 data sets that is available to the general public. It’s an opportunity to see data that government houses — things like birth rates, carbon emission statistics, information about schools. It’s an opportunity for British Columbians to easily access more information. Who did it? This side of the House.

What else have we done in the last couple years? Well, the minister and deputy ministers — their travel expenses are now posted on line. For the first 130, 140 years in British Columbia’s history, it was unknown. It was very secretive. It had to be FOI’d. But now, it’s available to all.

We also now…. What do we do? If a person makes an FOI request, once that individual has been given that information, they get to enjoy it for 72 hours as their own personal knowledge. But after that 72 hours, what have we done? We’ve made it open to all British Columbians. It’s posted on line for all to see. It’s shared by all people.
[ Page 13111 ]

We’ve also made sure that the resources of those who oversee freedom of information are a bit more strong. How did we do that? We’ve doubled the budget for the Information and Privacy Commissioner since this party has come to power.

We’ve also created a Merit Commissioner. Most people don’t know what the Merit Commissioner does, but they ensure transparency in public service hiring. I must say, in my seven years in this chamber, I’m always impressed with the calibre and skill of the civil servants that I’ve had the opportunity to work with. In the very least, either it’s purely coincidental or it works together, hand in hand, but I’m really impressed with the quality of talent that we have working for the citizens of British Columbia.

[1040]

We also created a lobbyists registry in 2002. Just recently the Minister of Finance announced that we’re proactively releasing information about — oh, say — directly awarded contracts. Ministers, their deputy ministers and their assistant deputy ministers — their calendars will now be posted on a regular basis. And a public servant will be attached to each ministry to make sure that when FOI requests come in, they’re able to handle the request and then guide people through that process.

As well, we’ve taken a very old piece of legislation, the 1936 Document Disposal Act — well before my time — and we’ve modernized it with the Information Management Act, which comes into effect this year.

The member opposite, to his credit…. I agree with him that the 1990s is not just a black hole of despair. There are also some positives that come out of. For example — and he is so correct — when the NDP brought in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 1992, that was important. I’m really pleased that it did come in. It was said: “Let’s review it every six years.”

In 2010, when it was reviewed, how did it do? Well, 34 recommendations were made, 28 were acted on and completed, and the other six — most of them are either in process or underway or being considered.

I’m really pleased to see…. I must compliment the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, because I thoroughly enjoyed my last year’s work on the committee where we worked on the 2016 review. It was an example of non-partisanship and great work by all committee members, where we actually put forward a number of recommendations to ensure that British Columbia, again, evolves to become the most proactive and one of the leaders for freedom of information, because every six years we must revisit it.

So 39 recommendations were made — recommendations that were submitted to the committee by the general public from across British Columbia, passionate British Columbians. They expect — and I’m pleased to see that we have seen in five years the evolution going forward — that these 39 recommendations will be the road map for government to act. It’s a continual evolution of this process, and I’m proud to be part of it.

D. Routley: I thank the member for Comox Valley. I agree with the member that we experienced a very positive year working on the committee to review the act. I know that we work and have a collegial level of discussion and interaction, and we share a view of how government ought to work. That view is reflected in the fact that the report the member and myself contributed to is calling for some progressive change that has been long coming and has yet to be delivered by the government.

But we are vastly different in our view of the government’s record on this issue. This is not a simple partisan dance. This goes to the very heart of why we are here, what we are here to defend. The member talked about the evolution of process. Well, what I’ve seen, Mr. Speaker, respectfully, is a devolution of the process around freedom of information. We saw extension of the limits by more than 40 percent when the government went from a 30-calendar-day limit to a 30-working-day limit. That is not evolution.

We’ve seen the government remove penalties for failing to observe freedom-of-information law. That is not evolution; that is devolution. We’ve seen fees put up as obstacles. We’ve seen exemptions expanded and stretched beyond their original meaning. That is not evolution; that is devolution.

In any civil society and any functioning democracy, the faith of citizens is required. It is not optional, nor is it a switch that the government can flick on and off at its convenience. You don’t, as this government has done, eliminate penalties and then claim to be delivering accountability. You don’t embark on a campaign of undermining, avoiding and weakening transparency laws. The examples are many: the quick-win scandal, where private emails were used to avoid FOI detection; and the triple-delete scandal, where, across government, it was shown that ministers and top-ranking bureaucrats were instructed to a culture of deleting and destroying documents that were politically sensitive and potentially embarrassing for government.

We’ve seen the examples where big money appears to have affected public policy. There’s the Burke Mountain land sale, where a large donor to the government’s party donated almost $1 million and then promptly bought a property from government worth $5.6 million for a paltry $150,000. We’ve seen major forest companies have their fines of up to $6 million be vetoed. It’s no coincidence, I believe, that that very corporation had made large contributions.

[1045]

TOURISM IN B.C.

L. Throness: Well, it’s a great privilege to come before the House today to talk about a very positive topic, a success story about tourism in B.C. I want to talk about some large numbers provincially and then focus on some
[ Page 13112 ]
issues in my own riding about tourism, examples of the provincial success.

The economic benefits of tourism extend into every region of the province. In 2010, tourism employed 127,000 people in B.C. That’s a lot of people. And 18,000 businesses, most of them under 20 employees, were employed in this industry. It generated $13.4 billion in revenue. That’s a lot of revenue, and that included $1.2 billion for provincial coffers. That buys a lot of health care, a lot of roads, a lot of whatever the people of B.C. need. This is a very important industry to B.C.

In 2011, the government launched a five-year strategy for tourism called Gaining the Edge. It was a five-year plan leading to this year, to 2016. There were five parts to this strategy, far too complicated for me to go into now. But in broad terms, the goal was to grow tourism in every region of B.C. from a total in revenue of $13.4 billion to reach $18 billion in revenue by 2016. That’s a 5 percent growth every year, and that’s a tall order. That’s a very aspirational goal.

How did the plan work out so far? In 2012, tourism revenue grew by 2.6 percent; the next year at 3.4 percent; in 2014, by 5.1 percent. The total revenue in that year, in 2014, was $14.6 billion in revenue. The numbers for 2015 and 2016 are not in yet. The direction looks good. Tourism, for instance, was up by 15 percent in just the first couple of months this year, so we hope to come close to that goal when the numbers for 2015 and 2016 finally come in.

Now I want to turn my attention to describe some tourism opportunities in my own riding. It is remarkable how our government has stood behind tourism and supported and boosted tourism in my own riding. Let me give you an example: Harrison Hot Springs. The village is one of 13 resort municipalities in B.C. Under the resort municipality initiative, it receives financial help every year to help beautify the town and make it more attractive to tourists.

They have done wonders. They’ve completely redone the whole beachfront. They’re working on redoing the esplanade, the road in front of the beach. I was at a ceremony for the completion of part of that. This year they’re putting in new restrooms and doing a whole bunch of other things to make Harrison a more beautiful place. The RMI has helped Harrison to flourish.

Another example. There are about 14 historical attractions in B.C. Barkerville is one of them. Two of those attractions are in my riding. Both of them are first-rate attractions. Kilby Historic Site alone has about 30,000 visitors every year. This year the government kicked in a significant amount to help them put in new campsites to help to make that historical attraction more self-sustaining.

Yale Historic Site is another one. They’re going to build a new attraction with some money that the government was able to find for them. Both of these sites are going to be more sustainable, even more attractive to tourists this year, because of that.

There’s a society called the New Pathways to Gold Society that has been going for about a decade. They help to build promotions in the Fraser Canyon. They have just received $500,000 from our government to help them to move forward on many of their projects.

Among other things, they’re working on refurbishing the historic Alexandra Bridge, which used to be part of the Trans-Canada Highway. This is at least a $3 million project. It’s an expensive project. If anyone knows of a source of funds for this…. Of course, they’re searching for funds, and I’m keeping my eyes wide open, as well, for them.

I could talk about other things. Our support for the Station House in Hope, which is currently under renovation, partly with our help. That’s going to be a first-rate tourist infocentre in an area where 40,000 cars pass by on several different highways every day. They pass by Hope, and that will be a tourist infocentre for them.

I could talk about the many trails we’re funding. In the Experience the Fraser initiative, both north and south of the Fraser River, we’re building trails. I was out at Hemlock Valley for the announcement of the new Hemlock Valley Resort development, which is a 60-year plan to build out 6,000 hectares of recreational property. I could talk about agritourism. It’s a fast-growing business in the Fraser Valley.

[1050]

With growth also comes growing pains. Within a couple of hours’ drive from my riding, there are 35,000 quads and motor bikes. They like to come to the closest wilderness area near to them, near to the urban areas in the Lower Mainland, which is the Chilliwack River Valley.

We have many thousands of visitors that like to come to our great outdoors, and they’re welcome to do so, but this also brings problems, particularly with noise and garbage on Crown land. This is a difficult issue across B.C. because 93 percent of the land in B.C. belongs to the Crown.

We’re working on all these things. Garbage, in particular, is a real problem. If the government were to simply set out dumpsters to allow people to dump garbage, effectively making illegal dumping legal, it would actually attract more garbage. People would make a special trip out there to dump their garbage, and it would make the problem worse.

I like the solution of the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society, which is a wonderful group that mobilizes hundreds of volunteers for several days every year to pick up garbage, and I like to help them whenever I can. A little bit of help in a provincial program to groups like this, volunteer groups across the province, would go a very long way. And I’m always an advocate for more conservation officers, too, to help to enforce existing laws.

Regarding noise issues, as all-terrain vehicles proliferate in B.C., on our many thousands of kilometres of Forest Service roads and trails, I would like to see some kind of a provincewide institutional solution — a tem-
[ Page 13113 ]
plate or a program to deal with noise issues as we attempt to strike a balance between the right of people to the use and enjoyment of their own property, to their peace and quiet, and also the right of people to use Crown land, which belongs to all British Columbians. Whatever solution, it will be made easier by our government’s decision, last November, to require the licensing of all ATVs, and that will make policing easier.

Finally, I want to talk about Cultus Lake Provincial Park, one of our most popular parks in B.C., with well over a million visitors every year. On some days in summer, the narrow road leading out to the park was blocked by a Bailey bridge over the Vedder River. Here again, the government has been part of the solution. We have approved an infrastructure grant that will help build a new bridge.

I’ll continue with my remarks in a moment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d like to thank my colleague for introducing an important subject, tourism, and how we’re supporting or could be supporting tourism better in this province.

I think it’s important, when we think about tourism, that we think about the stakeholders. I look forward, next week, to joining the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. at their annual summit, where we can learn even more from those that ensure that their hotels, their bed-and-breakfasts and campsites are incredible places to visit and also that locations like Hells Gate, in the member’s constituency, are there as attractions for tourism.

But not just that. How are we marketing the province? How are we ensuring that we have good access to the province? When I think about tourism, I think about one of the most useful marketing phrases we’ve had in B.C.’s history to invite people to B.C.: “Super, natural British Columbia.” I think about our slogan, our provincial motto: “Splendour without diminishment.”

Then I think about what I hear from tourists and what I hear from tourist providers, tourism operators, these days. And the concern they have…. We are an incredible, beautiful province, and we are an incredibly beautiful place to come and visit, and we’re certainly seeing that with more visitors. What they’re worried about is that we’re not doing enough to protect that incredible splendour. We’re not doing enough to ensure that “Super, natural British Columbia” remains natural, remains a super, natural place to visit.

A recent Auditor General’s report points that out. When it comes to how we deal with mining, for example — one of the big industries in B.C. — the Auditor General says that we’ve had a decade of neglect, in terms of making sure that mining is done in such a way as not to damage the environment.

A recent study by David Boyd points out that you’re more likely to receive a library fine for returning a book late in Vancouver than you are for polluting the environment in B.C. Think about that. A place that we market based on our incredible natural beauty — and it’s easier to get fined for having an overdue book than it is for actually breaking the law and damaging the environment that we rely on.

[1055]

Where does this come home? Of course, we think of Mount Polley, we think of Likely, and we think of the tourism operators there, who I’ve continued to communicate with and continue to point out that their beautiful lake was damaged due to neglect, damaged due to a government that does not protect our natural assets.

Where else has this shown up? Well, when we think about 30 percent of the scientists and mining inspectors and forestry inspectors being laid off and the challenge that can pose to ensuring that our forests are healthy, that our wildlife is healthy…. I know that the current Solicitor General, former private member, had a very good report out recently with some important feedback about how we could be doing more to protect our wildlife. In fact, the minister of natural resources said: “Well, there’s no more money for it.”

That we feel when our tourists tell us, “You’ve got a beautiful place, but we visited a park” — or visited a natural area, as the member opposite was talking about — “and it’s full of garbage, full of pollution, full of damage.” People have wrecked the riparian areas, harmed fish habitat and so on.

But when you ask: “Where’s the enforcement…?” Well, with one enforcement officer for an area the size of France, it’s pretty difficult to enforce the law when the government has no desire to do so, and that makes the problem worse.

But it’s not just out in the natural areas; we see it in our urban areas too. Unfortunately, my local business improvement association has had to tell me time and time again about tourists complaining to them about the sheer amount of homelessness, the sheer amount of street disorder that comes when we let mental illness, addiction issues and homelessness get out of control, as, unfortunately, has happened over this last decade.

Tourists coming in from countries where they don’t have the same wealth we do ask the very legitimate question of why we don’t deal with mental health and with ensuring that our citizens are able to get off the street like they do. I don’t have very good answers, because I, too, agree with them. We need to do much more to make sure our communities are welcoming and show our best face — not show that we don’t care about those who are most marginalized.

Other issues that the tourism industry bring up with me. The issues of ensuring that they have dedicated formula funding, as they used to have. Industry leadership, formula funding, so we can grow the pot to market our province even better.

We need to go all in for tourism, and that means dealing with a whole host of issues — air access issues, trans-
[ Page 13114 ]
port issues, ferry issues…. The list goes on. Tourism has a great opportunity for success in our province. We just need to go all in to make sure that it does so.

L. Throness: I appreciate the remarks by the member for Vancouver–West End about preserving our environment for tourism, and I want to talk about Cultus Lake, in my riding, in that regard. As it grows ever popular, there’s a problem called eutrophication, which could occur at Cultus Lake. A study has been done that shows that the lake is in jeopardy from the input of nitrogen from several different sources, including the septic systems that are around that lake. Local residents would like to put in a class A sewer system to service all areas around the lake, and I’m very much hoping that B.C. Parks will become a part of that. They have a class C septic system right now.

If there is evidence that B.C. Parks is part of the problem, I’m hoping that our government will come to the table to talk about being part of that lake-wide solution to put in a class A waste water system — to make sure that we can preserve the beauty of Cultus Lake, instead of it becoming laced with algae, which, of course, would starve aquatic life of oxygen and also make the lake unattractive for tourists.

Cultus Lake is a beautiful environmental resource. It’s a wonderful place for tourists from around the world to come and visit, but it’s also an important economic driver for all of B.C., so we need to preserve it for generations to come.

To close, tourism in B.C. is growing like it never has before. To promote it, our government has extended the 2011 strategy called Gaining the Edge for another three years. We have a number of goals in that strategy. We’re competing with the whole world. We found that people can go anywhere these days. Why should they come to B.C.? So we’re focusing on advertising in key markets.

We’re focusing on getting the entire industry to work more closely together. We’re going to provide more world-class, once-in-a-lifetime experiences that will draw people from all over the world to B.C. And we’re going to be more competitive. Our strategy for the past five years is clearly working, and in coming years, we’re going to make tourism even better in super, natural B.C.

Hon. N. Letnick: I call private member’s Motion 14.

[1100]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent is required to proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 14 — B.C.’s Skills
for Jobs Blueprint

(continued)

G. Heyman: Let’s look at some facts about energy in British Columbia.

Fact: the joint review panel for Site C said: “The proponent has not fully demonstrated the need for the project on the timetable set forth.”

Fact: the joint review panel’s report predicted that in the first four years of production, the Site C dam would lose at least $800 million because B.C. Hydro would generate more power than the province needs at a cost far above the market price.

Fact: “The panel concludes that demand management does not appear to command the same degree of analytic effort as does new supply,” or, as panel chair Harry Swain said in an interview: “Have we really pushed conservation and efficiency as far as they can go?” And the answer is no.

Fact: Harry Swain also strongly criticized this government’s failure to evaluate alternatives and submit the Site C project to independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

He said: “There are alternative sources of power available at similar or somewhat higher costs, notably geothermal power. These sources, being individually smaller than Site C, would allow supply to better follow demand, obviating most of the early-year losses of Site C.” He then went on to call the failure to explore geothermal and other renewables “a dereliction of duty.”

Our PowerBC plan is a better plan, and we’re prepared to submit our plan to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review so the public can be assured that we are making the right decisions about energy in British Columbia.

We all know that the cheapest power is the power you don’t use. We also know that as a result of this government’s action, B.C. Hydro was ordered to scale back their demand-side management plans from option 3 to the far less ambitious option 2.

Energy efficiency retrofits spur job creation in the construction and manufacturing sector all across B.C. They reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. They will save homeowners energy costs while increasing the values of their homes. Retrofits — and this is important — create twice as many jobs as new construction. In fact, according to B.C. Stats estimates, retrofits generate 1,300 to 1,500 direct and indirect local jobs for every $100 million invested.

Our PowerBC plan would realize these employment benefits with a two-part retrofit plan, beginning with investing in public buildings and then implementing a
[ Page 13115 ]
comprehensive residential, commercial and industrial energy efficiency retrofit program.

There are many benefits. There are benefits to ratepayers. According to the Columbia Institute, the average energy efficiency retrofit will reduce a detached home’s energy use by 26 percent.

There are environmental benefits. According to the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, a successful residential home retrofit program could reduce energy consumption by 4,000 gigawatt hours and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes over 20 years.

PowerBC would go on to maximize our existing hydroelectric dams. For instance, we would install the sixth turbine in Revelstoke, which would generate 500 megawatts of new capacity and create 390 person-years of skilled-trades employment. That’s 45 percent of the capacity of Site C for merely 5 to 6 percent of the cost.

We would also allow B.C.’s clean, renewable energy sector to grow. We have tremendous opportunity in this sector to both install and export renewable energy technology, fostering good-paying research, engineering and trades jobs. A report issued late last year showed that wind energy costs had fallen 58 percent in the previous five years, and the price of U.S. solar power has dropped a whopping 70 percent since 2009.

[1105]

B.C. currently has four operating wind farms. According to B.C. Hydro, we already have enough firm power to support four times the installed capacity as well as the capacity that is about to come on line with Meikle.

We can do better. We should allow British Columbians to benefit from dropping prices and improving technology, getting the best bang for the buck.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, we have to clarify the motion. It was moved as Motion 14. It’s supposed to be Motion 15. House Leader, could you please move Motion 15?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m happy to move Motion 15.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper. Is consent granted?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

An Hon. Member: Nay.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The ayes have it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, we need unanimous consent, so I’ll ask again. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with Motion 15?

Leave not granted.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for two minutes.

The House recessed from 11:07 a.m. to 11:09 a.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We have received unanimous consent for Motion 14 so we are going to proceed with Motion 14. The member for Vancouver-Fairview already has spoken on that.

[1110]

D. Barnett: Our government is in the midst of growing the economy, creating jobs and powering the future, using clean energy and ensuring that conservation plays a significant role. That’s why our government and B.C. Hydro are investing to support our future energy needs and economic growth.

B.C. has enormous untapped clean energy resource potential, including wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, run of the river and biomass. B.C. is a leader in clean energy, and we moved to develop new renewable energy resources much earlier than other jurisdictions.

The Clean Energy Act requires that at least 93 percent of British Columbia’s electricity be generated from clean or renewable resources, and as of this year, 97.9 percent is indeed from clean or renewable resources. This is a record that is the envy of other jurisdictions across North America. For example, Saskatchewan just announced a plan to move to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.

Independent power producers have been providing power since the late 1980s. They supply around 25 percent of B.C. Hydro’s portfolio today. In 2001, they supplied only 4 percent. According to Clean Energy B.C., projects currently under construction represent 2,850 construction jobs across B.C., including 700 jobs held by First Nations people in many small, remote communities.

The NDP has been clear that they oppose this $50 billion industry. For some reason, they seem opposed to the 25 percent of electricity generated in B.C. that comes from independent, renewable companies and the thousands of jobs that come with them. When the Leader of the Opposition ran for the leader of the B.C. NDP for the first time, he wanted to place a moratorium on the private renewable power industry. Hansard recorded him calling it “junk power” in this House in 2010.

The NDP also failed to invest in B.C.-based power projects when they were in office in the 1990s. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway was NDP Premier Glen Clark’s
[ Page 13116 ]
eyes and ears on the B.C. Hydro board when they decided to invest millions of taxpayer dollars on a failed power plant in Pakistan, the only new power development the NDP invested in while in office.

In addition to building Site C, B.C. Hydro is maintaining and growing its IPP portfolio with contract renewals and new clean energy supply contracts. Our government established the innovative clean energy, or ICE, fund to support promising clean energy technology projects in areas like bioenergy, solar, hydro, wind, ocean wave and tidal energy, smart grid and energy management, waste-to-waste, waste-to-energy, energy storage and conservation.

The ICE fund receives funding through a 0.4 percent levy on the final sale of specified energy products, natural gas, fuel oil and grid-delivered propane. Successful ICE fund partnerships have included universities, First Nations, municipalities and many emerging clean-tech companies across the province.

Our first choice to meet new demand is always through conservation, and by law, B.C. Hydro must meet 66 percent of this future demand for energy through conservation. In fact, energy generated in B.C. is almost completely clean and renewable. That’s 97.9 percent. As a free enterprise government, we’re proud that we have been able to do this while maintaining some of the lowest hydro rates in North America.

[1115]

Deputy Speaker: Members, this must be Monday morning, I guess. Let me make it clear again. We are now speaking on Motion 14. Motion 14 reads: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the accomplishments and success of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.”

That’s Motion 14. All members who are speaking on that motion, continue to speak in the context of that motion, please.

K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying that and the evolving motions that we are speaking to this morning.

I want to talk about what’s happened with B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint but how we can produce an even better opportunity by bringing PowerBC into this province and showing how many jobs PowerBC will actually generate as opposed to what B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint has created, which has been a very sad reality for job creation in this province.

I want to talk about the part of PowerBC that would actually be a huge win for job creation in this province, and that would be an energy efficiency retrofit program, which is a win-win for all of B.C.

Energy efficiency retrofits will spur job creation in the construction and manufacturing sector all across the province — not just in one part of the province but across the entire province. As well, they’ll reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and they’ll save homeowners energy costs while increasing the values of their homes and while increasing job creation in the province.

There are two benefits to PowerBC which go with job creation. It’s in two parts — a two-part retrofit plan. Number one, we will be investing in public buildings. We will combine energy efficiency retrofits with much-needed seismic upgrading of all of our schools, hospitals and public sector buildings. Energy retrofit experts agree that it makes sense to do this work at the same time. And we will implement a comprehensive residential, commercial and industrial energy efficiency retrofit program using on-bill utility financing.

Let’s drill down on some of the particulars of this, such as job creation benefits. Energy efficiency retrofits create twice as many jobs as new construction. According to provincial economic multipliers compiled by B.C. Stats, retrofits create 15.93 direct jobs and 2.58 indirect jobs per $1 million in increased economic output. In comparison, new construction creates only 6.46 direct jobs and 3.54 indirect jobs per $1 million in increased economic output.

Let’s see what B.C. Stats says about dam construction or electric power generation, transmission and distribution, something that the Liberal government seems to value quite highly. Well, that only creates 2.93 total direct and indirect jobs per $1 million in increased economic output.

Another is the oil and gas sector, which is another sector that this government is promoting. It creates only 1.91 total direct and indirect jobs per $1 million.

By retrofitting buildings and homes, this creates far more employment than any other sector. Building efficiency is a job creator, and other jurisdictions agree. A study found that just a 27 percent increase in energy efficiency in Europe by 2030 would result in two million new jobs. Another study estimates that retrofitting just 40 percent of the United States building stock would result in at least 600,000 additional long-term jobs.

Retrofit jobs are located where people live, close to home in every community across B.C. — not in just one part of the province but in every community. How great for people to actually be able to stay home, or stay close to home in their region, come home at night, be part of their family’s lives, involved in their communities, and not live in a camp thousands of kilometres away from their home.

You know, we need to look at what kinds of jobs that retrofitting will create. It’ll create jobs for many people across the province. It will create jobs for many types of different tradespersons, and we have people that are ready to go out and do these jobs across the province. We have skilled tradespersons who are just waiting for the opportunity to do retrofitting across the province.

There are, of course, environmental benefits as well as the creation of jobs. So we need to say to people that
[ Page 13117 ]
this is the type of job creation that this province should be looking at. It’s environmentally friendly. It will help to lower energy consumption. It’ll drop CO₂ emissions. It’s just a huge, untapped opportunity to create more sustainable communities through this building efficiency.

[1120]

More efficient buildings can generate economic benefits by the jobs it creates, reduce environmental impacts and improve people’s quality of life. These are all benefits that come to this province through PowerBC — something that we should all embrace.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, it’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about how we can increase jobs in B.C. by meeting our energy needs.

B.C.’s 2010 Clean Energy Act requires B.C. Hydro to find 66 percent of any new need for energy generation from efficiency and conservation. It is interesting that in 2010, the NDP voted against the Clean Energy Act, and yet now it touts the virtues of meeting electricity needs through conservation. Conservation is essential, which is why we are doing it. We have one of the most ambitious programs in North America.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I thank the opposition for following our leadership by borrowing our ideas. Unfortunately, they failed to include ideas on growing B.C.’s economy. We are already doing everything proposed in the opposition’s energy plan in terms of conservation, retrofitting, energy efficiency, upgrading existing hydroelectricity assets and investing in renewables.

In partnership with B.C. Hydro and FortisBC, our government offers programs that can help B.C. homeowners, businesses and industrial customers find energy savings and reduce their electricity and gas bills — for example, the home rebate offer that offers homeowners rebates of up to $6,000 for a variety of energy-efficient upgrades. The rebate offer focuses on reducing water and space heating costs, such as heating, hot water systems and installation. Homeowners that complete these upgrades can reduce their bills by up to 30 percent — a significant saving for families.

B.C. Hydro is investing $2.4 billion a year for the next ten years on upgrades and infrastructure to continue to provide affordable, reliable power, keeping electricity costs low to support our growing economy. This creates jobs. We continue to produce new ideas and initiatives for conservation and renewable energy, whereas after working on PowerBC for two years, the energy plan that the NDP have is offering nothing new. They have simply repackaged what B.C. Hydro is already doing.

In August of 2015, Site C began construction on the north and south banks, developing roads and reservoir bush clearing. Construction of the permanent camp is now underway in partnership with Peace River Hydro Partners. They have begun hiring labourers, equipment and machine operators and truck drivers, creating jobs for British Columbians. More jobs will be added as the project progresses.

Working on the Site C project is more than just a job. It is an opportunity to be part of a legacy project for our province that will provide clean, reliable and cost-effective electricity for more than 100 years. Site C will provide enough energy to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes per year.

In addition to Site C, we continue to value other energy sources, such as wind, solar and run-of-river power. And this creates jobs. These sources can be intermittent, depending on the wind blowing, the sun shining and on water flow levels.

Hydro power continues to be a reliable source of clean energy that produces no greenhouse gases and is good for the environment. As Alberta transitions away from coal-fired electricity plants by 2030, B.C. is prepared to help them transition to a greener future.

Visiting Iceland two years ago, I was inspired by their capacity to embrace geothermal power and pipe it hundreds of miles away to heat homes and businesses. It might seem idealistic today, but B.C. has many innovative people who may be inspired by projects like this.

We’re lucky in B.C. to have some of the lowest rates in North America with energy generated that is completely clean and renewable.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. I have heard speech after speech after speech so far, and these speeches are all being directed to Motion 15. Motion 14 is the motion before the table.

[1125]

It says as follows: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the accomplishments and success of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.” That’s been four in a row now where we’re debating the 449-word-long so-called power plan, the PowerBC position, which is a backgrounder of 420 words.

I would urge that this House continue to debate the motion before us, not a hypothetical motion that may come back next session.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member, for clarifying it. We are speaking on Motion 14. Everybody will continue to debate Motion 14.

R. Austin: I’m delighted to stand in this House and speak to Motion 14: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the accomplishments and success of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.”

I’m going to speak about a part of the province which, over the last ten or 12 years, has seen what can only amount to a massive depression, followed by a rise in economic activity, mainly because of one large project. I’m going to speak to this motion in light of what hap-
[ Page 13118 ]
pens when you live in a part of the province…. Actually, the vast majority of this province is such that they rely on these large projects. But it’s not a good thing, and I’ll tell you why.

We have many, many years of people fleeing the communities. We have families leaving. It puts a huge stress on our school system because as kids leave, that makes it very detrimental for the schools to be maintained. And then, all of a sudden, a project comes along. People flood into the area. Jobs aren’t necessarily given to the people who locally live there, because they haven’t been able to get the training in time to actually be able to go and apply for those jobs.

I’m speaking of a part of the province where the project I’m speaking about was the new build of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter. It created a temporary boon for our economy in the northwest. I was chatting yesterday to the owner of the taxi company in Terrace. Since that project has ended, his business — by the way, he has 32 employees who drive for him — has gone down by 40 percent in one year as a result.

We have to be thinking much stronger, with a lot more thought, about how it is that we actually create jobs in British Columbia so that it is spread out evenly and all communities get to succeed.

This motion speaks very, very specifically around an idea that the government has to try and take the post-secondary education system and manipulate it specifically for what industry requires. But here’s the problem. Over the last year and a half, many, many people in my neck of the woods, in northwest B.C., have gone to Northwest Community College. Why? They have been encouraged to come and get specific skills for trades. Fantastic. Sounds good.

The problem is that there has not been an allocation of people who, once they get some training in the classroom, go out and actually do the work and get the hours required for them to get the skills required to go and get a ticket and then be employable — not just locally for a project that might come but to go anywhere in British Columbia or, indeed, in Canada.

Unfortunately, it has been an abject failure. What we have now in northwest B.C. is tons of young people who have gone to school and made that commitment, very often subsidized by all of us as taxpayers. That’s a good thing that we subsidize our post-secondary system. But the fact is that we have given hope to a whole group of young people, saying, “Here are all these jobs. Here are the specific qualifications you need to become a tradesperson,” and at the end of it, there are no apprenticeships.

I think that if you’re going to be doing things like this, you have to ensure that when a big project, or any project, is coming into British Columbia, particularly from a large investment, we absolutely guarantee that there are apprenticeships tied. It’s not just a question of having resource revenue and the taxes. We need to actually sit down and figure out: if you’re going to come and bring an investment to British Columbia, how many jobs are you going to create by having us ensure that we can have apprenticeships?

That is the reason why we’ve been speaking about PowerBC. It is an important part of the skills blueprint in British Columbia, because PowerBC would spread jobs throughout the province to every community in this province.

[1130]

Instead of simply thinking about a megaproject, as the people on the other side are talking about…. Again, a megaproject would temporarily create jobs for power that we don’t actually need. We would be subsidizing the ratepayers of British Columbia and, instead, building new power all around the province of B.C., using the skills of young men and women all over B.C.

People wouldn’t have to go and live in camps. People could stay in their communities. People could get training locally at all the community colleges.

I’d like to make this last point: if we were able to use public dollars to actually fix our public buildings instead of paying carbon offsets, we would be in far better shape.

R. Sultan: I’m glad to deliver some impromptu remarks on a topic that I cannot think of being more core and central to the hearts and objectives and political strategies of the party opposite. It must be very uncomfortable to speak to the motion when the jobs performance of this province is so superlative, not only looked at in its own magnitude but in comparison to other jurisdictions across Canada.

I just now looked up the Statistics Canada data on employment growth in the various provinces in the last year. It’s about 3 percentage points in terms of the total labour force working in B.C. — more than 3 percent. Ontario was less than half of that. This was a shocker. In the last 12 months…. Oh, one more. Nova Scotia eked out half a percent. All the other provinces had zero to negative growth in employment over the last 12 months.

This is really an astonishing variation, between what British Columbia has been able to achieve and the performance in almost every other province in the country. It is indeed an uncomfortable situation. Our friends on the aisle opposite have to somehow come up with some disparaging remarks.

Now, I notice Irene Lanzinger, who I think is a wonderful advocate for the cause, has given a speech in the last day or two talking about the fact and conceding: “Well, there are an awful lot of jobs. But what we need are high-quality jobs.” Well, who could deny that? That’s a motherhood statement, and we would all endorse what Irene had to say.

Of course, the good news is that this government, through a very intense training project that’s been going on, it seems, endlessly…. I can’t begin to count all the
[ Page 13119 ]
suggested tweets I receive from the Minister for Labour, not just daily but even hourly, talking about the jobs plan.

As one of the resident cynics, I thought initially: “What’s this all about?” Well, somewhat to my surprise, it’s worked. The jobs plan has worked. The training is paying off. Certainly, to respond to Ms. Lanzinger’s plea for higher-quality jobs, this government has had a flat-out effort — a maximum, full-speed-ahead, throttle-to-the-stops attempt — to get people to extend their trades training.

Let’s not just turn out more lawyers; let’s turn out a few electricians and steelworkers at the same time. That is in fact where our province is heading. Of course, it’s propelled in part by the focus on some very large traditional-style megaprojects, including LNG and Site C.

The employment growth is also remarkable in the tech area — which is not exactly cutting down fir trees on Jervis Inlet, which I used to do for a living. It’s very much in the residential sector. The whole construction sector, in fact, is about one-quarter of the entire British Columbia economy at the present time, and these tend to be higher-paid jobs. We have both heavy construction and local construction working in tandem to provide an awful lot of employment activity.

I think this government has put its money where its mouth is, as it were. It has delivered on the jobs front to an astonishing degree, which has made the rest of the country sit up and take notice, and I commend them for it.

[1135]

Our population is expected to grow by over a million over the next two decades. These new British Columbians will generate a lot of commercial activity, and they will need a lot of infrastructure. Fortunately, this government has had the foresight to invest heavily in infrastructure, starting with B.C. Hydro.

Unfortunately, 15 years ago this government inherited an electrical generating and distribution transmission system which had been suffering from years of low maintenance and low investment. Now is the catch-up period. Yes, it has pushed the financial ratios around somewhat, but it has been necessary to reinvest in this grid, as one example of the success of the jobs plan.

M. Mungall: I am happy to rise to speak to Motion 14. For those who are watching at home, Motion 14 is: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the accomplishments and success of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.”

Now, for those who’ve been watching this last hour at home, they might have known that a little bit of a kerfuffle happened earlier on in the hour. They were anticipating that we would be speaking to a different motion. That is not the case, due to the particular views of one member in the House, and that’s fine. That’s how things proceed often here in the Legislature. You’ve got to stay on your toes.

In speaking to B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint, I was listening to members opposite. I appreciate the member from West Vancouver, who was just talking about it, admitting to being the resident skeptic in his caucus, especially around the B.C. jobs plan. I’m glad that, perhaps being a member of the governing party, it was a little bit more open to seeing successes in that jobs plan.

But I would argue and put forth that that jobs plan has not been as successful as promised. We need only to look at some of the promises around post-secondary education, promises that we would be increasing our international student numbers here in the province of B.C. quite substantially. I believe it was about doubling those numbers. We have not achieved those, and we were supposed to do that by 2015.

One other promise that we’ve seen and heard from this government was 100,000 jobs in the LNG sector by 2015. Well, that has definitely, definitely not happened. In fact, all the promises around LNG and all the jobs that were supposed to come with that have not materialized at all. I think that reflects on the type of management that we see coming from this government and the promises that they make without being able to back it up with actual substance.

On our side of the House, we do have a jobs plan that would be backed up by substance, that would meet the test, the checks and balances, the reviews from independent agencies like the British Columbia Utilities Commission. We’ve put our plan for jobs, which counters the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint, into a plan that we call PowerBC, because we are specifically looking at the energy sector. Much of what the governing party is also doing is looking at the energy sector when it comes to their blueprint for jobs.

What we look at is the opportunities for energy efficiency in a retrofit plan. The reason why we’re looking at that is because this is what the statistics are telling us. According to provincial economic multipliers compiled by B.C. Stats, retrofits create 16 direct jobs and three indirect jobs per $1 million in increased economic output. In comparison, new construction — this is brand-new construction — creates only six direct jobs and four indirect jobs for $1 million in increased economic output.

So if we actually took B.C.’s resources and started looking at a broad-scale energy retrofit plan — looked at our schools, our hospitals, our public buildings where people go and get their driver’s licence….

[1140]

If we start looking at that all across British Columbia and how we can create jobs with the assets that we have, through energy retrofitting alone we could create many more jobs than the current job plan that we see coming from this government.

As well, if we decided — like we suggest in PowerBC — to look at renewable energy opportunities for British Columbia, we would be able to create more jobs. For example, in building a portfolio of clean energy power projects in B.C. with a capacity of just 800 megawatts,
[ Page 13120 ]
we would create $4.3 billion in GDP and 45,200 full-time-equivalent person-years of employment in construction alone.

The opportunities are clear. I think we need to move on to a better plan than what this current government is offering.

V. Huntington: The member for Nelson-Creston referred to a kerfuffle that we had earlier in the House. The kerfuffle is not so much to do with which motion we would be speaking to. It is, at its heart, whether or not independent members of this Legislature are permitted to participate on Monday morning private members’ motions and debate.

It has been quite clear to both members — the member from Oak Bay and myself, the member for Delta South — that the House leaders have not yet come to grips with the previous Speaker’s ruling about participating in private members’ motions. We have been denied an opportunity — in my case, to bring forward Motion 9. I was denied that opportunity to bring this forward in the House to debate. Now the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has been denied the opportunity to even participate in a debate on a motion on the floor.

At some point, the Government House Leaders have got to come to grips with the fact that we have a right to be participating in debate on the floor of this House. And if we have to, as members, ask the Government House Leaders to find a mathematical opportunity to speak, then we will go that far.

Meanwhile, the ruling said that we should abide by the House Leaders’ decisions. But if the House Leaders’ decision is to constantly say no to any request we have to participate in this debate, then the Speaker’s ruling becomes totally moot. So I ask the Speaker: will he, again, consider the issue at hand, and that is the right and the privilege of independent members of this House to participate in this debate?

I don’t expect us to participate today, but I would like a further ruling on our independence and our right to participate and how the Speaker intends to ask the Government House Leaders to come to grips with this particular issue.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you for your point of order, but the point of order that you raised is not valid. I would strongly recommend that the independent members continue to have their discussion with the Government and Opposition House Leaders to clarify that issue, on how to deal with it.

Today we are now going to deal with Motion 14, as it’s on the floor.

V. Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it was a question of privilege, not a point of order.

Deputy Speaker: My comment stands — the same for a motion of privilege.

Also, Member, keep in mind, if we are going to raise a point of privilege, there is a proper forum to do it. You have to reserve your right to do it, and we will respond to it at a later point.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

A. Weaver: On this topic, I would reserve my right to raise a point of privilege with respect to comments made in this House earlier by the member for Nelson-Creston.

[1145]

Debate Continued

M. Hunt: It’s my privilege, and I welcome this morning’s continued debate on Motion 14, which is dealing with the accomplishments and success of B.C. skills-for-jobs plan. Part of those skills and part of those jobs are certainly found in the clean energy sector. For the benefit of my constituents in Surrey-Panorama and, in fact, for all British Columbians, I think it will be a useful task to compare, contrast and highlight the differences between our government’s vision for the future compared to the NDP’s plan.

I would like to start off by saying that we in British Columbia are very fortunate to have access to an abundant supply of hydroelectricity. We are unique in Canada and, in fact, the rest of the world to benefit greatly from renewable and clean energy sources and the jobs that they create, both directly and indirectly, including Site C.

As the Premier quite rightly points out, in 2015, China approved future construction of 155 coal-fired power plants just to try to keep up with the demand of that rather large economy. This is a dirty, non-renewable source of electricity and a major emitter of greenhouse gases. The pollution created by coal-fired power plants in China should not be viewed in isolation. Eventually, those coal emissions drift and contribute to climate change.

Hydroelectricity, by contrast, is a very efficient way to produce power, and the emissions factors are extremely low compared to thermal sources such as coal. I’m very interested to take a hard look at the opposition’s plan, and I note a PowerBC plan, which is supposed to create new jobs in British Columbia. I was sincerely interested to see the kinds of creative alternatives the opposition had in mind.

I was expecting a very thorough analysis and had set aside a fairly large block of time for what I thought would be a hefty policy document, but I discovered it was only 630 words of text. I think that’s rather thin gruel. How could the future plans of the province of British Columbia’s jobs and energy needs be contained in such a summary document?
[ Page 13121 ]

Then I understood there was a backgrounder “Aha,” I thought. “I’ll check the backgrounder. The backgrounder must be a more substantive document.” No, it’s only 423 words, and most of that was a repetition of the 630-word document. I was really hoping to discover a much more detailed plan, so I was rather disappointed to find out that this pamphlet was really only an aspirational pamphlet.

It mentions good things like energy conservation, retrofitting, energy efficiency, but all of these are things that B.C. Hydro is already mandated to do. “So where’s the beef?” I ask. What’s the substantive difference here between the government’s plan and the opposition plan? Well, it appears to be predicated on only one thing: the cancellation of Site C and not much more than that.

I decided to do a little research of my own. At the last convention, the hon. member for Juan de Fuca went to great lengths to oppose Site C. According to news articles that appeared in the Tyee last November, the opposition leader explained that it was so important to say no. “I don’t want to say no, because we have water in British Columbia and holding that water is an extraordinary advantage. But we don’t need it today,” said the member for Juan de Fuca. “We shouldn’t be proceeding with Site C today.” Again, that’s a quote from the opposition leader.

Now, that’s exactly what I call forward thinking on job creation, isn’t it? A long-term plan should be much longer than a simple, one-day analysis. A comprehensive, long-term development strategy to accommodate British Columbia’s future economic growth should be much more farsighted than that. We’re expecting the population of British Columbia to grow by at least 1.1 million people over the next two decades. Simply thinking about our energy needs in terms of our current consumption is pretty nearsighted. In fact, it’s really not powering B.C., and that’s why we are working with Site C.

As a matter of fact, as you go on and look through their document, it’s interesting. They record a wonderful business that we have in Surrey that’s called Endurance Wind Power, and they make use of the fact that we should be doing more of this. Well, they’re right, except that the problem is that the comparators that they’re using in other countries…. The countries listed are the United States, California specifically; Germany; and the U.K. Each one of those has more expensive electricity.

[1150]

S. Fraser: I’m pleased to take my place in the debate on Motion 14 now, dealing with the skills-for-jobs blueprint, following the previous speaker. It’s all very interesting.

I would submit that there are good projects and bad projects. You can create jobs with good projects or bad projects. You could also create jobs if you hurled $9 billion out of the windows of this place, probably create a lot of economic activity. That does not necessarily mean it’s a good thing.

There’s been no due diligence on the Site C project. It has not been scrutinized by the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was prevented from being scrutinized by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Without a shovel being put in the ground, the budget for the project has ballooned. It’s grown by more than $1 billion. The Auditor General announced that he’ll be reviewing the information that was before the cabinet in making the final investment, yet they’re pushing ahead.

The government is pushing ahead with a megaproject because the other megaprojects that they promised in the last election as part of the “Wearing the hardhat for the Premier” campaign slogan process…. Those projects have not materialized at all.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We moved on to a project that has not been scrutinized properly and that the government and B.C. Hydro have not done their due diligence on.

I’m the aboriginal affairs critic. Jobs are important for aboriginal communities. Young people — it’s the largest demographic of young people growing up in the province today. So jobs are critical and important.

But it’s funny. When I went up to visit with the Treaty 8 Nations, several times in the last year, I met with Roland Willson, chief of the West Moberly First Nation, and other chiefs in the area. At the airport, waiting for a taxi, I was amazed at the number of people that were speaking other languages. It was a wonderful melting pot of cultures. I talked to a gentleman from Russia, and he said: “Oh, yeah, we’ve got lots of companies up here doing a lot of work.” These are workers from Russia, also from Spain and, of course, also from Alberta.

The taxi driver that picked me up — this was late at night — was working full-time again as a taxi driver. Her husband, a heavy-equipment operator — a British Columbia heavy-equipment operator — was out of work, and he wasn’t getting work.

Again, there are ways and means to do jobs. You know what? Every time we’ve built a dam in this province, there have always been project labour agreements. It doesn’t matter who the government is. This has been an understanding. This government decided not to. So we’re not seeing the benefits derived from a big project, even a project that is as badly conceived of as this one.

The jobs are not necessarily going to British Columbians, and without the project labour agreements, we’re not seeing the amount of apprenticeship programs that should come out of projects — any projects that come out in this province.

We’re not seeing any long-term benefit for the people of British Columbia. That’s a problem. I would submit, also, that it’s a problem when you build a project that’s not necessary, that’s not the best project and that hasn’t had the scrutiny and the benefit of the B.C. Utilities Commission’s oversight while B.C. has a significant surplus of power.
[ Page 13122 ]

It will not require any further power, according to B.C. Hydro’s own calculations, till 2029 at the earliest, a full five years after B.C. Hydro’s initial estimates. In spite of this surplus, hydro rates are expected to rise by 30 percent over the next five years.

Not only in this discussion on skills and jobs are we not getting the skills and jobs. We’re doing something that is not actually necessary. What we need are good jobs all over the province. PowerBC does exactly that.

Retrofitting, as has been mentioned by some of my colleagues earlier, creates a huge number of jobs. For every $1 million, it creates 16 direct jobs and three indirect jobs. Let’s compare that to dam construction, which is where the government’s going. Only three jobs total, direct and indirect jobs, are created for a $1 million investment. That’s three jobs compared to, well, actually, 19 jobs under retrofitting.

[1155]

PowerBC provides jobs for British Columbia. It will into the future, not just in a one-shot project, and it will all over the province. Then, further investing just a fraction of that moneyinto new projects, energy efficiency projects, will make this province a great leader in that process.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to join the debate on the skills-for-jobs blueprint, and I want to do so in the context of a meeting I attended a few weeks ago. It was the annual apprenticeship dinner at Chilliwack Secondary School, and Hope Secondary School was also represented there.

It was a great time. There were about 200 young students who were apprenticing in skilled trades — everything from welding to cooking. We had a great time.

I was the speaker at that event, and I told them that when I was young, the situation was very different from where they are today. When I was young, in the ’70s, there were lots of people of my age around. There were scads of young people chasing the few jobs that were there. It was hard to find a job, and it could be very discouraging.

That is very different today. Young people today will be faced with a very different reality. There are three great sources of jobs that we are looking at in the coming years. First of all, 700,000 British Columbians are going to be retiring from the workforce by 2022. There are only 4.6 million people in B.C., and 700,000 of them are going to retire. All those jobs will have to be filled.

Because of the policies of our government, there are jobs all over the place, in the Lower Mainland, being created because of the burgeoning economy that’s caused by our government.

Thirdly, because of the initiatives our government is taking with regard to Site C and LNG and things like that, we are expecting another 100,000 jobs from projects like that. In that regard, I want to call your attention to a news conference that the Premier held recently with the Ironworkers of B.C.

Local 97 represents about 1,800 men and women in the ironworking industry. They’re highly skilled. They have Red Seal certification. They have global mobility. They built many of the bridges and towers in our cities. They held a news conference with the Premier outside the Legislature, and they expressed their support for Site C and LNG and jobs in the mining sector.

I want to quote Ironworkers business agent Doug Parton, who said: “All we want to do is go to work. Simple as that. You can draw your conclusions from that. We support people that support us and put our members to work.”

In a media scrum following, that same day, Doug Parton had more praise for what our government is doing for jobs on major projects. He said this: “The ironworkers heavily support industry as far as LNG, Site C dams, mining, stuff like that. That’s our bread and butter. Those are things that put our young people to work and create a strong tax base.”

Students today can be very happy that we are in government and not the people across the way. There would be no need for a skills-for-jobs blueprint if they were in power.

Almost all of these jobs, I reminded the young people, will require high school and will require skills and trades training. What we are doing today is we’re helping by making sure that 25 percent of all advanced education funding will go to high-demand occupations in the future. We’re encouraging young people to find their fit and to consider trades and technical training.

Let me bring it home to what’s happening in my riding. We have a trades and technology centre that is second to none. We were taking a tour of our welding program with Rolf Arnold, and Rolf Arnold said that in the welding program there, there are about 40 bays for teaching young welders. He said that a company came in and hired the entire class. That’s the exact type of thing that we need to see.

Seabird technical college….

Madame Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

L. Throness: Thank you, Madame. Speaker.

At Seabird technical college, they’re training all sorts of young people, so our skills-for-jobs blueprint is working.

L. Throness moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada