Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

MOVEMBER

R. Coleman: Back in 1996, when I first came to this Legislature, there was a member of my caucus — her name was Dr. April Sanders — from Vernon. April was really big on making sure men woke up to the fact that they should be taking care of their health. She actually started a walkathon in Vernon on Father’s Day to raise money for prostate cancer.

As you go through the years and you’re younger, you actually think, “I’m impervious to some of this stuff, so I’ll just continue on living the way I do,” or whatever the case may be.

We’ve been growing, badly, facial hair for the last month, on this side of the House. Not too many people are coming up to us and saying: “I really like that mustache. You should keep that.” Most of them would say: “I can’t wait until December 1, when that piece of stuff on your face is gone.”

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It started with two guys in Melbourne, Australia, in 2003, sitting around. One of them had a mother going through breast cancer and was raising money for breast cancer. They thought they should do something for men’s health. So over five million people a day do Mo Bros and Mo Sistas to raise money worldwide for men’s health.

This is particularly closer to me than it was in 1996. Two years ago I went to the doctor in Victoria, and I was advised that I had one of the worst bladder infections the doctor had ever seen. That led to a series of antibiotics and some tests.

Then one night, at my home, I finally said to my wife: “You’ve got to get me to emergency.” I can tell you one of the things about prostate cancer, which you’ll find out if you ever get prostate issues, is frequent urination — or the inability, which is worse, because it can back up and poison your entire system. I had my first catheter that night. It was a relief, believe me. Over 1,800 cc’s came out of my bladder, and I went through some other issues.

I was about to travel internationally, so I had to do what they called a void test. I was put on some drugs and went back and forth to the doctor. The day I was leaving for Singapore to an international LNG conference, I went to the hospital, had a test and was told I was okay to go, because I had a void test. That, by the way, is filling your bladder with fluid, taking an ultrasound, going to the washroom and having another ultrasound to see how much you actually got rid of.

Halfway across the ocean, at the one time when the plane was in a really tough time, I had to get to the washroom. So I did, in spite of the flight attendant’s concerns. I managed, then, to go through this conference. Basically, it was a meeting, go to the bathroom, a meeting, go to the bathroom, a meeting, go to the bathroom….

I think you’ve got to be aware of this, as men. You should get your PSA done and the other. For me, it ended up in emergency again. Again in the middle of the night, I couldn’t go to the washroom. I ended up in emergency in a hospital in Singapore. I was given a couple of choices. One was to keep a catheter in me and fly, back and forth, through the connections, about 21 or 22 hours to get back to Canada. Or make the decision that I would have one of the best, fortunately for me, surgeons in Asia available to do an operation.

I had the operation in Singapore. I can tell you this. It is darn scary when somebody tells you: “You have a fast-growing growth on you — a fast growth, very fast, on your prostate.” They will tell you what the pathology is by email in a few days, after you’ve actually spent a couple days there. I was lucky enough to be recovered to be able to go back to Canada. I can tell you this. It really opens your eyes when you are in a position where you don’t know whether you can last a half-hour meeting before you have to go to the washroom because there’s something on your prostate and in your bladder that’s bad.

The operation was done by this doctor in Singapore who also, ironically, had done the same operation on the Prime Minister of Singapore. It was, in some ways, a valuable experience, but in more ways than anything, it was a magnificent relief.

[10:10 a.m.]

If you are having any trouble whatsoever as a male going to the washroom or going frequently, you need to go get some tests done. Get your PSA done. Get your digital tests done. I know none of us like that, but the fact of the matter is that it could save your life or change it in such a way that you’ll be healthier than you’ve ever been in a long time. The recovery is about six to 12 weeks, but me being stubborn, I thought maybe I could get it done in a couple and had a relapse for tiredness.

The beauty of this operation and what I went through, though, at that time was the word “benign.” Because the operation was successful and it was benign, the growth was not cancerous. It was just a benign growth that was actually affecting my prostate. Ironically, because of that, it may not have been able to be detected with some of the tests. But all of the tests together would have found it.

The important thing is this. If you’re a man or a woman, if you have a loved one that’s a male or if you’re a man yourself, take the responsibility and go do something about it. Because I can tell you this. I had my scare. I wondered whether I was going to get back to Canada. What choice I had to make with regards to an operation…. Because I knew that if I left in a catheter for that long, it could go septic somewhere over the ocean, and I would be done.

I was lucky. I was lucky to have the ability to get in and get it done. Ironically, if I hadn’t gone, I would have been in to a doctor later in that month to actually have the test with the scope going in to have a look.

I can tell you this. When you get back, you hug your grandchildren a little bit harder. You appreciate your wife and your family much more. And when you know how bad this could’ve been, after the doctors explain it to you, you actually think: “I’ve got to tell people about this.”

I was with Movember long before I got sick. Now my caucus has raised in excess of $100,000 for Movember in the past three years. It’s important that we understand that, for men’s health, we need to step up and educate our friends about how important this is for their life.

R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for sharing his personal experience.

I think, you know, you start Monday mornings.... People think this place is a raucous place, and all they see is what they see on TV. Then they see moments like that, which I think are touching and a reminder that we’re all human beings, regardless of what side of the aisle we’re on. We all have families. We all go through personal experiences. I think that him sharing that experience will probably help others as well. So I want to thank the Leader of the Official opposition for doing that.

The Leader of the Official Opposition shared a little bit about the founders of Movember, and to be honest with you, I have a small admission. I thought it was very much a North American movement. You know, when you say Movember, everyone knows. It’s not a small, little thing; it’s a very big movement.

When I started looking up the founding of how the Movember movement started, I was amazed at the point the leader just raised about these two young guys just sitting at a pub, having a beer, talking about cancer and about how their loved one had cancer — and just coming up with this idea.

Actually, I can just imagine these two sitting there having a beer, talking about how the moustache needs to come back and then using this notion to start a campaign. The original campaign was 30 people — they were going to try to find 30 people to give $10 each to grow their moustaches and help raise some money for prostate cancer. And from there, it grew.

It started off in Australia. It became a phenomenon in Australia. They actually had a second campaign as well. It was called: “Give prostate cancer a kick in the arse.” I’m not sure if I’m allowed to say that here, but I’ll say it, because it was a wonderful campaign. So the original campaign started off. They had a second campaign going. It became huge all over Australia, and then New Zealand picked up. My friends from New Zealand always say New Zealand picks up after Australia, but I don’t think that’s the case.

[10:15 a.m.]

In New Zealand, it became a huge deal. Then these young men moved over to Los Angeles and decided to launch a massive campaign. As of 2011, Canada was the largest contributor to the Movember Foundation, which is quite amazing, thinking 30 fuzzy lips are five million strong today.

I see some impressive ones in the Legislature today. I think the member for Shuswap wins hands-down as the best Movember I’ve seen so far. I think most would agree. No? I see some Movember folks over there not agreeing. They think theirs is the best.

We think about people who…. Many people have survived prostate cancer. We heard a story earlier from the Leader of the Opposition. But we’ve also lost some people. I think of Jack Layton. Regardless of your political views, everyone can relate to his experience. It touched many lives across the country.

I think that even from that moment, from his passing, there’s been change. This Hour Has 22 Minutes has launched a monument, a trophy, they give every year — the moustache award. I think one of the top-earning campaigns is a Jack Layton Movember campaign. People have galvanized around someone who has fallen and done so much. I still remember all the signs put up at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto. It brings back so many memories.

The other piece of this campaign is that they also extended it to mental health. People think of prostate cancer, but these folks saw an opportunity in this growing campaign to highlight mental health. Some call it a silent epidemic, and it’s all intertwined. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we have to speak about this more. It has to become normalized so that we don’t feel stigmatized about having these conversations, because that will save lives.

The wider mental health piece that they added to the campaign is also critically important. Movember campaign in Canada has started a big campaign and a study to look at it. The numbers around depression, for example, are heavy amongst women. But partly I think it’s because there’s a stigma associated with it. I could talk for an hour about this, but I’ll leave it here and wait for the Leader of the Opposition.

R. Coleman: The member for Delta North is right. There’s not just prostate cancer that faces us — depression but also a lot of other men’s health issues. We just need to actually take the time to maybe get a physical once in a while or follow up.

The reason the member for Shuswap is probably the best on this side of the House is because he doesn’t have the same amount of grey hair as we do. So as he grows this thing on his face, it’s actually visible. Only in high definition will you spot this on my upper lip.

The process, though, of going through that is interesting. When you talk to people, when you do Movember, and you do explain what it’s about, it’s actually also about this whole thing about public education and understanding. It is amazing that there are 20 partners in 20 countries, and Canada is the leader. I’m proud of this particular caucus I belong to because they’ve actually been in the top 10 raisers of money on Movember for the last four years in Canada.

I will finish with a little bit of a story. I have a number of grandchildren. I went to a hockey game a couple of weeks ago. The Vancouver Giants won. Good thing. It was in the Langley Events Centre. My young grandson Owen runs up to me and looks at me. He stares at my lip, and he says: “You’re growing a moustache, Granddad.” I say: “Yeah.” He says: “You look really old with that.” Helpful, Son. He then runs away, comes back a few minutes later and says to me: “You should colour that.” This is the five-year-old.

I was sitting holding my granddaughter, who’s six years old. We were cuddling the other day, and she was poking at my lip and asking me what happens next. I explained to her what was going on, why it was done and all that. She thought that was a good idea, and then she said: “But it’s got to go, Granddad. It’s too prickly.” It actually gives you an opportunity to have a conversation with all ages when you do something like this.

[10:20 a.m.]

I actually do think that aspiring, for me, goes back to April with the walk for prostate cancer back in 1997. But the reality is that it’s a personal journey you go through, and I would hope you wouldn’t have to do it. You can catch it early. Get your PSA done, do the right tests, and make sure you’re taking care of yourself, because the other result isn’t so much fun. It’s actually scary, and it’s personal, but it also reminds you that it can be anybody.

My first financial agent had a prostate cancer operation in 1997, which gave him another ten years. I’ve lost a number of people I know who died as a result of the complications brought on by one cancer leading into another.

This one is actually able to be handled if you get it early, so make sure you do. Take the time personally, not just for yourself but for everybody else you care about, to do this. I’m preaching because I’m the converted. But you should have been preaching to me a long time ago, maybe a few years earlier than when I actually decided that I would step up and learn about this.

Please take care of yourselves. Please make sure you get checked, and please support Movember. It’s important for men’s health in this country.

YOUTH RESILIENCY

N. Simons: I’d like to start by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for that statement and my colleague from Delta for his response. I think it was good way to start a Monday and puts us in mind of the importance of thinking about these things and talking about issues that are pertinent to all of us in one way or the other. And it reminds me that the Leader of the Opposition is part human as well. I do appreciate that very much.

The topic I’d like to discuss today is that of youth resilience. The topic, as such, is quite broad, and it can encompass a number of different aspects of young people’s lives in our society and in our culture. I thought I’d start just by going over some definitions of resilience that I came across in my little research that I was doing.

Resilience to some is the adaptation in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or stress — family relationship problems, health problems, workplace or money issues. It’s the ability to withstand or succeed beyond those particular issues.

Another definition is: it’s the ability to recover from setbacks, adapt well to change and keep going in the face of adversity. The ability to recover from illness, change or misfortune, and then the word “buoyancy” is also used. That’s an interesting concept — the idea of being able to get back to a place where you once were if tragedy or challenges occur.

The capacity to recover quickly from difficulties — a toughness, the ability of the substance or object to spring back into shape. It’s also a word that defines other than people. It defines situations or things other than people. It’s also the power or ability to return to form after being challenged with….

These are all definitions that basically talk about the ability to recover from a circumstance in a person’s life. It gives me thought as to whether or not one can be temporarily resilient, or if resilience is, in fact, something that one carries throughout one’s life. If you get through youth, then are you resilient? Can resilience actually also encompass working through or being in a difficult position?

I think about the young people and many of the social workers that I worked with. The resilience that I saw was remarkable. It did not mean that that resilience could be taken for granted. That resilience had to be nurtured. There had to be a circumstance in which resilience could be possible, so it’s not something that’s entirely of the person’s control. It requires a community around that person for resilience to be possible.

There are many theories of resilience, and it’s becoming more common to talk about resilience when we’re talking about youth mental health. We talk about mental health in general, whether mental health leads to resilience or learning resilience leads to stronger mental health.

[10:25 a.m.]

We know that as a society, we have some responsibilities to ensure that young people grow up in a way where they can recover from the mistakes that they are inevitably going to make. They can recover from circumstances that they may, unfortunately, be facing as a young person.

When we talk about children who are living on low incomes or in families with low incomes — or if we think of young people who live in a circumstance where there’s family violence or disruption or if we think about young people who live in war zones — we realize that for them to recover and to succeed, they need resilience.

Where do they get that resilience from? That’s, essentially, what thinkers, I guess — people who think about this all the time — have been focusing on as a necessary tool to teach, or to have schools or places where resilience is the foundational value of that institution.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which is one of the largest teaching hospitals in Canada, defines resilience. It involves being able to recover from difficulties or change, to function as well as before and then move forward. So the definition is about bouncing back. People who are resilient can cope with or adapt to stress and challenging life situations.

I think if we talk about our role as adults is to inspire young people to have confidence, and the confidence can lead to resilience. I remember telling young people strategies to deal with specific challenging situations in their life, to give them the strength and to know, as a professional, that you’ve allowed that young person to develop new skills to become more resilient. In fact, that is the definition of social workers doing their job right. You want to create resilience.

You can’t fix every problem, but you can certainly help young people overcome the problems that they face or to recognize that they’re not the first person with that particular problem.

I think that the essential building blocks of resilience, of course, are confidence, competence — and this is from the American Academy of Pediatrics — connection and ensuring that young people have the opportunity to connect with positive role models. They see other people finding creative solutions to challenges that they face.

One of the things that really is important for young people to have resilience is for them to experience the opportunity to be giving, themselves; to be generous; to be able to help other people helps them to know their place; and helps them to know that, at times, they’ll be the ones seeking assistance or seeking guidance and support. When they offer that to others, then they see it coming back to them.

I know that after my colleague and friend across the way has an opportunity to respond, I’d like to talk a little bit about some of the theories of resilience, including the theory from Dr. Martin Brokenleg, who is one of the leaders in the discussion around building resilience among young people.

J. Isaacs: I thank the member for speaking out on this important topic.

There’s no doubt that we face challenges at every stage of our lives. Adolescence, though, can be a particularly challenging and unique time. The stress that youth experience often comes from many sources, including schools and peer pressure, family dynamics, blending of cultures, physical appearance and the environment in which they live.

While most youth experience these common stressors, today’s youth have an additional and very significant stressor. Social media is creating new levels of stress. The content of social media, along with the frequency, can have a negative effect and may lead to increased anxiety and erodes one’s self-esteem. Of course, there are more serious stressors, such as mental health challenges, violence, substance abuse and physical and sexual abuse.

Youth stress is very real, and it can range from typical teenage desires, such as getting a driver’s licence, to having to deal with a life-altering change, such as the loss of a parent, divorce or facing an unexpected illness or injury. Resilience is the process of managing the stress, whether it’s preparing for a math test or dealing with severe emotional strain. It’s the ability to function through the stress and to rise above situations, even when faced with hardship and trauma.

[10:30 a.m.]

Resilience involves being able to recover from challenges or difficulties, to function well and move forward, to find that inner strength that helps one cope with challenges, to be self-assured and to move through adversity. Resilient youth learn from their experiences and are better able to manage their stressors. They’re able to adapt to stressful and challenging life situations and are driven to achieve goals. They are good communicators, have a strong interest in school, are dedicated to learning and are hopeful about the future.

When determining resilience, numerous researchers have concluded that how youth respond to stressors is actually more important than the stressor. Youth who are resilient are more likely to achieve positive and healthy outcomes and tend to thrive in life. They truly believe that their lives are important and meaningful.

Research also tells us that youth who are connected to positive relationships and are in an environment where they feel cared for are more resilient. Although youth is a time to find one’s voice and become more independent, it is important that youth feel connected to family or school or other adults that they can turn to for help and advice. They need to seek guidance when appropriate, make decisions on how to deal with their stressors and experience their own successes at handling their stress.

Youth who are resilient understand consequences, both positive and negative. Stressors are difficult to manage at the best of times, but it is especially difficult when support is absent. Not having a positive role model or mentor to turn to can often lead to negative outcomes: depression, anxiety and feelings of inadequacy.

We’ve heard the saying “It takes a village.” Well, there are many things that each of us can do to build youth resilience. First of all, be that positive role model, whether you are a parent, a neighbour, an employer or someone at the bus stop. Be a positive role model. Keep the lines of communication open and positive, and remember, listening is an art.

Encourage youth connections, whether it’s school, sports, music or volunteering in the community. Youth who are connected build strong relationship skills. Build self-confidence. Notice when young people are learning new skills and compliment them on their achievements.

Having these few principles can develop and build youth resilience. And these principles are not based on income or having money. In fact, many successful people come from humble beginnings, whether they rose from homelessness or have broken families. It is possible to rise above challenges. Changing behaviour patterns changes outcomes.

Building resilience will serve our youth throughout their lives. I encourage us all to be a part of the village and take personal responsibility to build youth resilience.

N. Simons: I really appreciate the words from my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and I thank her for those very good words about resilience. I look forward to working with her on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

We talk about resilience. There is a role for us as…. Sometimes we’re called leaders in our community. But there is a role for all of us, as the member has pointed out, and that is to ensure that we take every opportunity to provide the needed support for young people as they grow through life and as they make their mistakes and recover from those mistakes.

I think it’s important that we recognize that in the things that we have some control over as legislators, we can do some things to improve that resiliency, especially in the child-serving system. We can encourage young people to be successful when we have supports around them for their family, for example, and when they see that there are supports for their family — whether it’s about poverty or whether it’s about violence or the necessary structures around the community, whether there are sports opportunities or music or drama.

All the things and all the opportunities that young people have to connect in positive ways with others, I think, all lead to more resiliency. It’s almost like the padding around you. Once you learn to ride without the training wheels, then you’re stronger, but those training wheels may not have been unimportant at the time.

[10:35 a.m.]

We do, I think, need to encourage each other to remember the importance of the social structure and the society in which the young people grow. I was just going to mention Dr. Brokenleg and the Circle of Courage model, which identifies four essential values. Those are belonging, mastery, independence and generosity. Those four values and those characteristics of young people are essential to a young person’s feeling of self-worth and their ability to be resilient.

They need to belong and feel belonged, and we need to ensure that they have family and close people around them to be nurtured in that way. They need to have an opportunity to learn things and to become good at things and that they can feel some sense of independence over that. That independence enables a young person to realize that they have the opportunity to make decisions.

Again, I return to the concept of generosity. If we offer young people the opportunity to be helpful to others, they develop a sense of self-worth that’s independent in itself and that encourages them to find their place in life, and in fact, to just continue to be resilient.

Thank you very much to the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Madame Speaker for the opportunity.

WORLD AIDS DAY

R. Sultan: As we approach the 30th annual World AIDS Day and celebrate how far British Columbia has come, we should first acknowledge how far we still have to go in addressing the high prevalence of HIV among Canada’s Indigenous population, in ensuring women with HIV — who are 43 times less likely to be on HIV treatment where needed — are in fact accessing the treatment and support they need and in addressing the persistent rate of HIV infection among Canada’s gay youth.

This is also a time to recognize and reflect on the leadership this province and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, located within Providence Health Care and led by Dr. Julio Montaner, have provided the entire world. With support from all sides in this House, British Columbia has in fact shown the world how to fight one of the deadliest infectious diseases the planet has ever faced. AIDS-related deaths worldwide have been cut in half since 2005. Globally, we are winning, and the most important impacts started right here in British Columbia.

In 1996, after almost 15 years of AIDS ravaging the world, BC-CfE — the B.C. Centre for Excellence for HIV/AIDS — under Julio’s direction, led the development and implementation of HAART, highly active antiretroviral therapy, as the world’s first effective treatment for HIV. B.C. began saving lives right away. The world watched and copied. HAART became the gold standard for HIV care and truly changed the face of AIDS on a global scale.

There was more. Montaner noted HIV drug resistance was threatening the success of HAART, so he mounted a special effort at BC-CfE to ensure HIV drug resistance testing. He initiated new clinical programs to support adherence to treatment as a means to prevent the emergence of resistance, and he developed new treatment strategies to suppress even the most highly resistant HIV strains, designed specifically to address the needs of each individual patient — personalized medicine before it became popular in the rest of the world.

There was even more. In a global first, they proved, over there on Burrard Street, that sustained treatment was preventing the onward transmission of HIV. Julio planned to announce this finding at the 2006 International AIDS Conference with some 20,000 attendees. As news circulated, the concept was considered so controversial that HIV leaders around the world called Julio to dissuade him from presenting such a radical view of the AIDS pandemic, saying he would destroy all credibility and progress to date.

[10:40 a.m.]

Undaunted, Julio presented his findings, expanding HAART to all HIV-positive patients at the time of detection, whether or not they felt ill. Julio’s concept is now known as “treatment as prevention” — TasP. Julio and BC-CfE have shown a way to end the AIDS pandemic in B.C. and the world.

Treatment as prevention was a game changer. These made-in-B.C. solutions are supported by former UN special AIDS ambassador Stephen Lewis, former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the UNAIDS program and even Pope Francis.

In 2014, BC-CfE worked with UNAIDS to propose goals for HIV treatment worldwide to end the AIDS pandemic by 2030. Known as the 90-90-90 target, it proposed, by 2020, to have at least 90 percent of infected people aware of their status, at least 90 percent of them on HAART and at least 90 percent of those people with an undetectable viral load. If this target is met, we could see a 90 percent reduction on new HIV infections by 2030.

In 2016, the UN adopted this made-in-B.C. — let me repeat that: made-in-B.C. — target for the world of 90-90-90, which would see the end of the pandemic globally by 2030. B.C. will meet and exceed these targets. The rest of the world can get there, too.

Let me finish with a criminal matter arising. Thanks to BC-CfE, we now know that undetectable means untransmittable. Even Atlanta CDC now concedes this. People on sustained HIV medication are not transmitting HIV. However, in Canada, people living with HIV who are on sustained treatment and who have undetectable viral loads continue to be criminalized for not disclosing their status. Remember the findings. Undetectable means untransmittable. BC-CfE has helped lead and inform the debate over the criminalization of HIV.

As I said at the outset, we still have unfinished business. Stay tuned. Julio is on the case.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for taking us through so many important issues that arise when we think about World AIDS Day and we think about HIV and AIDS.

It made me think back to some of the research that I’ve done and that 30 years ago in this Legislature, legislators were debating whether or not people who had HIV or AIDS should be locked up or quarantined — should be taken out of the general population and put far away from everybody else because there was such stigma and so much fear.

A cabinet minister in those days argued: “We should take all those people and put them on an island,” as if that would somehow make their health better or the general population’s health any better. Of course, it wouldn’t have. It was just about stigma and othering people that were different.

We have come a long, long way since those days because of bravery, because of people putting themselves on the line to say no way to hatred, to misinformation and to fear and to say: “We are as equally deserving of health care as those without HIV/AIDS.” That’s the argument that they made, and it was one that the health system after many, many trials finally heard.

Sometimes it takes the darkest of days to find the brightest lights. Certainly, in my community in Vancouver–West End, there were many, many dark days. I have constituents I talk with who tell me the stories of going to the hospital seemingly every other day or at least every other week to say goodbye to somebody who was either dying or had just died. There was such a high degree of infection and the mortality rate was incredibly high.

[10:45 a.m.]

Now, 30 years ago, when this Legislature was debating locking people up, I was six years old. I had no idea about what was going on in terms of HIV/AIDS. As I grew, I started to notice that friends of my parents were getting sick or had been sick or had died. I didn’t know what the red ribbon meant. I didn’t know what was going on, but I knew that these people were just as deserving of care and love as everybody else. So it just came naturally. Over time, I realized they were othered because they were gay and because they were somehow different, when I just saw them as uncles, as friends, as people who you should care for.

Thankfully, because of people like Dr. Julio Montaner at the B.C. Centre for Excellence…. Thank you to the activists at AIDS Vancouver, people living with AIDS, a society now known as Positive Living B.C. Thank you to those that pushed the edge and said to the powers that be: “No, we cannot be forgotten. We are not going to be pushed into the margins to die.” Thank you to all of those who rallied, who raised a ruckus, who said: “We will not go gently into that good night. We will fight for that light.” Indeed they have. Many are still with us today, and I’m proud to count them as constituents, friends and heroes.

The United Nations declares December 1 as World AIDS Day this year with the argument of “My health, my right” — the idea that health should be a right. Thankfully, in Canada, because of leadership many decades ago, we do have universal public health care. But the United Nations says that we need to think further. We need to consider housing, poverty, income inequality, discrimination and access to justice also as barriers to health care, and I agree.

Right now folks who are struggling with HIV/AIDS are often those who have been pushed to the margins, often those that are dealing with addictions, with discrimination — living in poverty, in many cases. We need to look further at ways to address those challenges but also look at other solutions which are coming to the fore — things like PrEP, which will work for some communities to reduce the viral load and thus reduce the ability to transmit; things to stop transmission, like treatment as prevention, which has gone so well here.

While B.C. had, certainly, some of the darkest days and more hateful days towards people living with HIV and AIDS, we have some of the brightest lights, who are now changing the world and our ability to treat HIV/AIDS and putting the potential end in sight, where this is no longer a life sentence or a death sentence but is something that doesn’t have to ever infect you at all. Indeed, we can reduce the ability to be infected immeasurably — well, very measurably, in fact, as Julio Montaner has shown us. It just gives me such great pleasure to be able to reflect on World AIDS Day and how we can go from hardship to real heroism for a change, in the fight against….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Sultan: Thank you for those remarks. I would like to conclude by describing BC-CfE’s expanding mandate beyond HIV to viral hepatitis, addictions and public health system sustainability.

First, hepatitis C. Hep C has a death toll surpassing all other communicable diseases combined, including HIV and tuberculosis. BC-CfE’s pioneering and revolutionary phylogenetic testing tools can be adapted and used for other infectious diseases such as hep C.

Next, addictions. To stem the rising tide of opioid overdose deaths, BC-CfE has spearheaded a pilot Seek and Treat program targeting people with opioid use disorder. Those with the disorder have been modelled, using proven BC-CfE tools, to engage and bring them into care.

Next, sustainability. Julio’s team is also addressing the budgetary issue of public health care sustainability. BC-CfE’s 30-year history with HIV/AIDS lays the foundation for a model of budgetary sustainability using evidence-based research and bold action.

[10:50 a.m.]

Under Dr. Montaner’s leadership, BC-CfE is taking a broader view of the health care sustainability challenge by applying the treatment as prevention strategy to what they would call high-burden infectious diseases, such as hep C and diseases with a social contagion dimension, such as substance abuse, opioids and type 2 diabetes.

There’s already good news to report. Diabetes Canada has adopted the 90-90-90 target and the treatment-as-prevention strategy to tackle the type 2 diabetes epidemic. This is the first time anywhere in the world our made-in-B.C. treatment-as-prevention approach has been applied to a non-infectious disease.

BC-CfE has clearly had global impact, from advocating for our most marginalized citizens in the Downtown Eastside to pushing the world to create and fulfil targets to save lives and save money. As keynote speaker at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress, Julio recently delivered the following message: “A targeted disease elimination platform based on the proven treatment-as-prevention strategy can have a tremendous impact on saving lives and saving costs.” That is a very encouraging message a few days before World AIDS Day.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Dean: I’m honoured today to rise to talk about a subject matter that has been an area of my volunteering, my professional work, my research coordination and my advocacy for three decades: domestic violence. It gives me the opportunity to pay my respect to so many women and their families who have suffered such needless tragedies.

Imagine a children’s playroom full of excited kids. A five-year-old boy is playing. He grabs the Barbie doll, and then he finds the sword. He takes it, and he repeatedly stabs the Barbie, then discards her, throwing her across the room. That’s not surprising to observe because this is the communal room in a women’s transition house. He was acting out what he had witnessed at home — domestic violence and abuse that had traumatized him and his younger sister all their young lives.

Every year about 362,000 children are living with domestic violence in our province. More than 3,000 women with nearly the same number of children are living in shelters and transition houses to protect themselves from domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a pervasive social issue that causes harm and injury to women and children globally every day and every year. In 2006, Kofi Annan declared it a problem of pandemic proportions. It slices through socioeconomic classes and is present in every community. It is exacerbated by inequality and discrimination.

More than half of all women in B.C. have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. That’s more than one million women in our province.

Every year in B.C., there are more than 60,000 physical or sexual assaults against women. That’s more than 1,000 a week on average. Almost all of them are committed by men. From 2004 to 2014, domestic violence claimed the lives of at least 113 women in B.C., an average of ten women a year.

There are many groups of women who are at an increased risk of violence, and it’s exacerbated by these characteristics, including immigrant, refugee and visible minority women; young women; women with disabilities; lesbian, bisexual, transgender, two-spirited and queer women; women in zones of conflict; vulnerable senior women; Aboriginal women.

The vulnerability of Indigenous women and girls in our community has now reached the extent that it is a recognized provincial and national crisis. By September 2010 in B.C., the Lieutenant-Governor issued an order-in-council establishing the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Later, in September 2016, in response to calls for action from Indigenous families, communities and organizations as well as international voices, the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls was launched.

Now, the effects on women and families are very well documented — not only the injuries and fatalities but also mental health issues, work absenteeism and suicidal ideation. For children, the impacts can greatly affect educational success, healthy relationships and personal identity. The impacts on the economic — justice, health and social services — are all well known, and they’re really immense.

[10:55 a.m.]

No amount of violence in families is acceptable, and the safety of women and children is the priority for our communities. To quote the 2012 publication of 33 years of reports by the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia: “We know what needs to be done. The challenge is to do it.”

We know that to keep women and their children safe, we need a range of services, systems, policies, resources, expertise and accountability. We know that the devastating impacts of domestic violence need to be reduced through direct supports and services. We know we need strategies that prevent domestic violence and that build a zero tolerance to gender-based violence and sexualized violence across our society.

Our government is committed to making a difference. Our province has counselling and outreach services as well as transition houses and a dedicated help line. Supports and services include 94 Stopping the Violence counselling programs, 55 outreach programs, 86 Children Who Witness Abuse programs and 11 multicultural outreach programs.

Transition houses support more than 830 spaces, with 250 short-term shelter spaces in transition houses and safe homes for women and children affected by violence. These women and children need our specialized response and justice systems to respond more effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault crimes. B.C.’s interagency case assessment teams and domestic violence units are critical.

Cultural change is also a critical element to any prevention program, and it’s important that everyone in our province feels able to speak up and that they can say something to help stop violence. And we need to get to the root of why many girls, women and transgendered people end up in abusive situations. We need to address these vulnerabilities, as we are, through education, tackling poverty and reducing the marginalization of women.

Remember the five-year-old? Well, he was in a supportive environment, and his children’s support worker immediately reached out to him and helped him and his sister and his mom get to safe housing, protection and services to help them live a violence-free life in the long term. It’s only through these services and working together that we can end violence in B.C.

That is why I am so grateful to those who have the courage to speak out against violence and to all of those front-line workers who support victims, who help them heal, who build collaboration, and for the work that community-based victim services organizations in B.C. do each and every day.

J. Thornthwaite: November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The #saysomething campaign goes from November 24 to December 21. Last week I spoke about a family friend who’s a survivor of sexual violence. So this is an issue that is close to my heart, and it means a lot to me that I’m able to stand here today to talk about this.

It’s a timely discussion, as December 6 marks the 28th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal. A lone shooter walked into an engineering classroom, separated the men and women and then, claiming he was fighting feminism, shot all nine women in the room, killing six of them. On December 4, Capilano University’s women and gender studies department will be holding an event to honour their memory.

We often view gender-based violence as something happening to someone else, someone we pass on the street, but it doesn’t happen to anyone we know. If we did know, we wouldn’t stand for it, right? We would never stand by silently and let a fellow human being live through abuse and violence. Unfortunately, all we need to do is read the news to know that there are thousands of women coming forward daily with their stories of survival. This is a deeply rooted problem in our culture, and we haven’t been doing a very good job of speaking up and out against it.

If there are many women speaking out in Hollywood, politicians to newscasters, imagine how many other women are sitting in their living rooms at home or at their desks at work saying: “This happened to me too. But I don’t have a million-dollar salary to protect me when I’m fired from my job for speaking out about what my boss did at the Christmas party last year.”

My daughter recently shared a TED talk with me by Jackson Katz. It was an eye-opener. We often think of domestic violence as a women’s issue, when, in fact, it is a men’s. As Katz said: “If you call domestic violence a women’s issue, it gives men an excuse not to pay attention.” Men have been erased from a conversation that is generally based on the actions of them.

[11:00 a.m.]

Victim blaming is a bad habit we have in our society, especially so in sexual and gender-based violence. We need to stop asking women why they were wearing that, why they were at that bar, why she went back to her husband after he hit her for the third time. We need to start asking about the actions of men before we ask a woman what she did to deserve it.

One of the most powerful things men can do with us, as women, to change the culture of complicity is: if a man hears his friend make a sexist joke or comment towards women, shut it down. By being leaders of change in their own social circles and allies of the women around them, men can start to change the culture so that today’s young boys can stand up against violence against girls and boys.

We should be speaking out against sexual, domestic and any sort of assault because women are people. It doesn’t matter if they are my daughter, your daughter, your sister or my mother.

I want to close with a quote from Martin Luther King: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for those strong recommendations about how everybody can take accountability. Thank you for reminding us, as well, about November 25 being International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It marked the start of the UN’s 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence campaign, which aims to increase awareness about gender-based violence and encourage people to work together for change.

Also fast approaching is that date that was mentioned: the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, on the sixth of December, marking the anniversary of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, where 14 students and staff were killed just because they were women.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We have come a long way since then to better protect women, and there’s still more work to do together. This year the UN’s theme hashtag, #myactionsmatter, is a call to action that asks everyone to take concrete steps to question, call out and speak up against acts of gender-based violence.

Recently public attention has shone a light on what statistics have long confirmed. Women in Canada and around the world continue to face disproportionate and unacceptable levels of violence each and every day. This is preventable, and it can be stopped. As I have often said, we don’t need another 33 years of reports or preventable tragedies and harm to know what we need to do.

In response to this all-too-familiar reality, #myactionsmatter asks the question — and today so do I: what will you do?

Hon. D. Eby: By leave, I call parliamentary 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.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 15 — HYDROELECTRIC POWER
AND ENERGY RATES

M. Bernier: For Motion 15, I move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the importance of hydroelectric power to keeping energy rates low for B.C. families.]

I appreciate bringing this motion forward today. I think it’s quite timely when you look at what’s happening right now in British Columbia and the fact that we do have, already, some of the lowest hydroelectric rates in North America.

I had the privilege of travelling around a lot of Canada and the United States in one of my previous roles as the Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Literacy. When I travelled around, I saw some of the other jurisdictions in Alberta, Ontario, Washington, Idaho and Oregon.

We have other jurisdictions in North America who look at British Columbia with envy. They are doing that because right now they are trying to figure out how to get off of carbon-emitting power generation, such as coal, in a lot of places, or natural gas, which they’re using, actually, as a transition to get off of coal. Or places that are still, which is very highly capital-intensive, having nuclear power generation, and they’re looking at going to natural gas as a transition.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s unfortunate that a lot of jurisdictions need to actually be going to carbon-burning power generation, but the reason why they do that is they don’t have the opportunities like we have here in British Columbia for hydroelectricity. There’s a reason why we have B.C. Hydro, and that’s because of those opportunities, which is why we have some of the lowest power generation in North America.

You look at our heritage assets that we have in B.C. because of good political decisions that were made generations ago to ensure that we have clean hydro power in British Columbia and not the alternatives that other jurisdictions have to look at. In fact, 98 percent of the power that we have in British Columbia is clean, green power. That is actually offset.

About 25 percent of our power is offset by alternative generations — power sources such as run of river and wind. Those are part of the overall portfolio that has been helping to keep our power generation cheap and affordable. But we can’t kid ourselves. That comes from the heritage assets, the large projects, that have been built in B.C. in order to have that cheap power. We forget how blessed we are here in B.C. because of that and the decisions from the past governments.

In fact, I want to correct the Premier, who last week said: “When it comes to due process, every major hydroelectric project built in British Columbia since the beginning of time is a result of going to the BCUC commission for a decision.” Well, I want to correct the Premier on that on the record, because that is completely not factual. In fact, all the other…. The Premier should know that the Utilities Commission was brought in, in the early ’80s. Decisions were made before that.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the fact that I’m getting heckled on this.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, actually, it’s not corrected, in fact. I know we’re not supposed to make political comments, really, during this time. If I was making a political comment, I’d be saying how it’s reckless, irresponsible and not factual for the Premier to say something like that, like all his other comments. But I won’t say that at this time.

What I want to talk about is why we need to have cheap, affordable power in B.C. We want to promote growth. We want to promote industry. We want to promote opportunities. Businesses have chosen British Columbia because of our historical cheap electrical rates. The last thing we want to do is send us in a spiral downwards, where we’re not going to have jobs, not going to have opportunities and not going to have businesses wanting to invest in British Columbia because we won’t be able to guarantee that certainty of cheap electrical rates.

We know that whether it’s a mill, a mine or a pulp mill, they’re very energy-intensive. They’ve chosen, in part, to set up in British Columbia rather than other jurisdictions because of our cheap electrical rates. The last thing we need to be doing is to actually set us into a position where our hydro rates go to the point where, once again, people are going to flock out of British Columbia and not want to invest here.

That’s why this motion today is really important. This is not a partisan motion. This is something I think we will all agree on, because we want to see British Columbia grow. I encourage the members opposite, during their comments, to explain how they agree that having cheap electrical rates is going to grow British Columbia — and making sure that we’re making decisions to have that in the future.

R. Leonard: I’m just not sure why the member opposite would like to draw attention to his previous government’s record, which has shown a distinct lack of interest in keeping energy rates low for B.C. families.

In fact, I think we need to have a hard look at what the previous government did to drive rates up for B.C. families. Hydro rates have increased 87 percent since 2001, most of that happening since 2008. Let’s compare that 87 percent increase to the rate of inflation in B.C. over that time — 26½ percent. That means our hydro rates have increased 3.3 times the rate of inflation. That doesn’t sound like a dedication to keeping hydro rates low.

[11:10 a.m.]

How did we get to this place of such escalating energy costs? First, let’s have a look at the Liberals’ 2002 energy strategy. That’s where the previous government mandated B.C. Hydro to buy, not produce, its own energy, giving rise to independent power producers.

The most popular production was still a form of hydroelectric power. But let’s be clear. Privatization did not drive costs down for British Columbian energy consumers. The whole scheme has been characterized by the privatization of profits, leaving the public body, B.C. Hydro and the B.C. public with all the financial risks.

Diversification, consideration of other energy sources and conservation are smart things to do. But any wisdom is lost in the muddy waters of the previous government’s poor processes.

B.C. Hydro’s forced commitment to IPP contracts are 40 to 60 years long, indexed to protect against inflation, and currently IPPs’ energy costs are coming in at $88.90 per megawatt hour, on average, while B.C. Hydro’s legacy of hydroelectric assets cost a mere $7.14 per megawatt hour. B.C. families have been experiencing energy rate hikes thanks to these contracts, which represent only 22 percent of the energy and production in B.C. but are a full 75 percent of our energy costs.

The previous government also proved that at the heart of their decisions were political interests, rather than the best interests of British Columbians who rely on B.C. Hydro for their energy needs. The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent body that was set up by W.A.C. Bennett to make sure the monopoly of B.C. Hydro served the best interests of British Columbians.

The British Columbia government that is now sitting on that side of the room ran roughshod over the safeguards of the BCUC, first with the directives of its clean energy and self-sufficiency plans and later, as it avoided criticism and controversy, by simply exempting billions of dollars of B.C. Hydro projects from review, starting with the billion-dollar smart-meter rollout, not to mention the northwest transmission line, the ten-year rate plan, which started in 2013, to raise the rates by 28 percent over the first five years and, of course, Site C.

British Columbians are paying the price of the decisions of the previous government, who demonstrated no regard for whatever consequences might fall out of their unreviewed decisions. It’s a fools’ game to leave the expertise and independent eye of the BCUC out of any equation to determine what works to keep energy affordable for British Columbia. British Columbians deserve better than to have a government that rolls the dice at our expense. The previous government did that, but this government won’t be so irresponsible.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion on keeping energy rates low and on hydroelectricity. It gives me even a greater pleasure to stand here representing my riding of Peace River North, which is, of course, home to the Site C clean energy project, as well as, really, a powerhouse in this province regarding energy.

Interjection.

D. Davies: My colleague from Peace River South argues that a little bit.

With two already operational hydroelectric dams, abundant resources of all types and probably almost the happiest people on earth, jurisdictions around the world envy British Columbians because of our abundance of hydroelectricity. It is clean. It is reliable. It is renewable. When you look at other jurisdictions around the world, and even within Canada, we see that many are reliant on other less desirable sources of energy, such as nuclear or coal.

Solar, wind and other renewables do play an important role in our future. But the technology is just not there yet to support our entire growing economy and to provide a reliable source of power to British Columbians when they need it the most. These are, of course, during peak hours, when we’re all at home cooking around dinnertime, or wintertime, which, in the north, has surely set in right now. We rely on making sure that we have that reliable power source when we need it.

[11:15 a.m.]

What better source of this power than hydroelectricity? When you look at the history of our province, British Columbia has proven that the environment and the economy are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, our environment has been protected and preserved by an economy that places a premium on reliable, renewable and clean energy such as hydroelectric.

So 2017 marked the 50th anniversary of the W.A.C. Bennett dam. The legacy of this dam and the vision and hard work of the former B.C. Liberal government is the reason why consumers in this province pay the fifth-lowest electric rates in North America, contrary to the member for Courtenay-Comox’s recent comment just a few minutes ago.

The Bennett dam was built 50 years ago, when the population of British Columbia was just 1.8 million. Today our population is now 4.7 million and will be continuing to grow. There was no talk back in the 1960s about how the Bennett dam could or would provide more electricity than what was needed for the day then. The Bennett was built for future generations, for people like you and me, to encourage expansion of our economy.

Now it is our turn to plan for the future. It is our turn to make sure that we keep our electricity rates low for the next generation of British Columbians, and we can do this. That’s why it’s difficult for people to understand why the current government is agonizing over Site C. People can’t understand why a green party would oppose a clean source of power that helps lower greenhouse gas emissions.

We all agree that the time has come to transition our economy to move away from fossil fuels and focus on renewables. We know that this is not going to happen overnight. This transition will need to be managed. But how can we convert automobiles and commercial trucks to electricity without the capacity to generate more?

Before making a financial decision on Site C, the NDP cabinet is going to be briefed by a number of experts. One of them is Mark Jaccard, currently at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser. Mr. Jaccard used to be the head of BCUC, and we already know what Mr. Jaccard is going to say. He’s going to be telling the Premier and his cabinet that SFU and other studies have confirmed that the demand for electricity will almost double today’s levels.

Mr. Jaccard will also tell cabinet that if we are to meet our targets and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 to 70 percent in the next three decades, we can only do that with the power that is generated by Site C.

The Premier and the Energy Minister keep repeating the phrase that it will be a difficult decision. It’s not. The prospect of shutting down Site C at a cost in excess of $4 billion and the laying off of thousands of workers is completely unnecessary and makes no financial sense today or when our children look back on the decision that’s going to be made.

The only dilemma is purely a political one. We have a minority government that relies on the goodwill of the Green Party, and despite strongly opposing Site C, the leader of the Green Party has already indicated that he will not bring down the government over this decision. The Premier has already given assurances that the decision will be made before the end of the year. Let’s hope that he can rise above politics and proceed with the project that will generate clean energy for 100 years. Wouldn’t that be a legacy for our future?

D. Routley: As I looked at this motion, I was struck by a question. This motion, coming from the former B.C. Liberal government, now opposition…. Is this a motion of hypocrisy or a motion of irony, since this is the government that put B.C. in a position where, no matter what decisions are made, future generations are going to be saddled by the effects of decisions that that government made for political benefit ahead of the public interest?

Everything is a consequence of a decision. All our decisions have consequences in life. All the decisions taken in this House have consequence. The decisions that rates of energy or any rate for a publicly provided service is the consequence of previously made decisions.

The previous speaker from Courtenay-Comox spoke about 87 percent inflation of hydro rates compared to 26.5 percent overall inflation rates. That is a consequence of decisions taken by that former government, the B.C. Liberal government, who, in fact, put B.C. behind the eight ball right from the very beginning with the run-of-the-river gold rush that they created. All of these decisions have consequence.

[11:20 a.m.]

It used to be that B.C. would fill up its dams all night long and buy power off the grid at a much-reduced rate, then run the dams full-powered all day at the highest rate they could sell. Even though we were a net importer of electricity, we made over $1 billion per year in profit doing that until that crew came in. And they saddled B.C. Hydro not only with debt but also with obligations to purchase power that are now handcuffing that corporation.

Now, legacy dams. The previous speaker has praised the legacy dams. Of course, they are our B.C. advantage, but they did not come without consequence. In fact, one side of my family was dislocated from the Arrow Lakes by the flooding of their community for those dams. So a very heavy price was paid for those dams, a very heavy environmental price. But that price was paid in the past, and we are now benefiting from it. That should not impact the decision we make now. The decision we make now should be made for today and the future.

The B.C. advantage was always low rates, but how do we maintain that when we inherit a corporation that has been used as an ATM, a cash machine, by the previous government to balance its budgets? That is what we’ve inherited. Rather than being the Crown jewel of public corporations, which it always was, it is practically in a state of…. Well, it’s in a state of disrepair. I won’t speculate on what that means.

What should have happened? Well, what should have happened, clearly, is that there should have been a comprehensive plan for B.C. that wasn’t just put in place to create a gold rush for private speculation, for insiders of the previous government. What should have happened was a comprehensive look at how the future would best be served with the utilities, with the capacity of B.C. Hydro leveraged in the public interest to invest in renewable energies, to invest in future modes of delivering energy.

Instead, B.C. Hydro was excluded from that by the previous government. They said, “No, the public corporation can’t participate in the future,” essentially, and only the insiders of that previous government could benefit. So that’s what happened.

There is a consequence to that. The consequence is higher rates. The consequence is loss of autonomy for this province to make its own choices going forward for everything from child care to education to health care to transportation to, in fact, energy. The basic advantage of B.C. Hydro and B.C.’s advantage in our economy was frittered away. It was, essentially, dismantled by the decisions of the previous B.C. Liberal government, and that is the consequence that we deal with now.

The future economy, our climate goals are imperilled. Generations of British Columbians will pay the price for this, no matter what decision is made on Site C. That is what happens when governments make the basic, essential failure of putting their own political interests and ambitions ahead of the public interest. That’s the story of B.C. Hydro under the B.C. Liberals.

We plan to fix it, but it’s no easy task, and it will take a long time. It will take the generation of energy of all British Columbians pitching in — not half excluded or you’re not a part of it. This government will do things differently. We will bring people together for the solutions, rather than divide them.

S. Gibson: I’m very pleased today to speak in support of the resolution on behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding, recognizing the importance of hydroelectric power for our families and our entire province in providing clean, dependable energy — and such a critical resource over the history and the legacy of our province.

Yes, it’s true. We have one of the lowest hydro rates on the entire continent. I’m proud of the record that our province has of keeping those rates so incredibly low and passing that along to families and businesses.

Demand for electricity keeps growing. In fact, some projections show…. As was noted earlier by my colleague, the projections are significant, and we have to keep up with that. In order to meet this growing demand and in order to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s important we increase our capacity for generating hydroelectric power.

[11:25 a.m.]

Now, the Site C clean energy project has seen billions of dollars’ worth of investment and would provide sustainable, reliable power for our citizens for the next 100 years. That’s 100 years, a century, of clean power.

Site C has seen continual study over the years, rigorous study and consideration, to get us to the point today where we understand its viability and its importance. In fact, I would suggest, it’s one of the most reviewed projects in the history of our province.

I want to add, too, these benefit-sharing agreements in place with the local First Nations will be a real asset to those folks and build up those communities and add vibrancy and strength to the folks that have been here before we came as immigrants and to those who came so many years ago to this beautiful province.

There are over 2,000 people working on the project, feeding their families and contributing to our province, and most of those are British Columbians. How tragic it would be to discard all of this investment, all of this work. I think it would be truly appalling.

Indeed, under this government, this NDP government, in coordination with the Greens, this appears to be a distinct possibility. After a rushed six-week review, this government is seriously considering abandoning this project as a viable option — discarding an enormous investment of money, of time and effort, of hard work — for so many British Columbians. It would mean discarding opportunities today and in the future.

Now, I come from the Abbotsford-Mission riding, in the Fraser Valley. We have a stake in this project — thousands of residents. In fact, there are 200,000 residents in the Abbotsford-Mission area — vibrant agriculture, many industries valuing clean energy power for our very fast-growing Fraser Valley communities. Yes, agriculture depends on clean energy. We have many greenhouses in our community and many other agri-related businesses, processing. These all depend on clean energy, and they’ll be depending on it for many years to come.

Interestingly, I’m advised that I have 15 constituents that also depend on this project. They’re actually working there regularly, looking after their families — ten in Abbotsford and five in Mission. That’s pretty exciting to realize. Their families are depending on this project to continue.

Now, as an MLA for a vibrant agri-province, I’m really hoping that this project will be approved. The energy provided by Site C will contribute so positively for generations to come. So all of these factors should be, I think, considered very closely by the government, with the realization that Site C is an important energy plan for the coming energy sustenance of our province for years to come.

I want to affirm my support and support the resolution and that of my colleagues and say let’s get on with Site C.

R. Glumac: Today we’re speaking to a motion that seems to establish a correlation between hydroelectric power and low energy rates. Well, let’s explore this a little bit.

What does this motion say about the cost of that hydroelectric power? Let me see. Ah, nothing. Interesting. It simply states that hydroelectric power, any hydroelectric power, built at any cost, is implicitly good for B.C. ratepayers. So let’s look at a few examples of recent hydroelectric power generation opportunities that have come to us.

In August, the province purchased the remaining two-thirds interest in the Waneta dam for $1.2 billion. This dam produces an astounding 2,680 gigawatt hours of energy per year. This purchase is extremely beneficial to B.C. ratepayers.

[11:30 a.m.]

After the lease of that two-thirds of energy expires in 20 years, there will be enough cheap energy available for B.C. ratepayers to power 270,000 homes. I think that in this case you could say, yes, Hydroelectric power does have an important role to play in keeping energy rates low for B.C. families.

Let’s look at another example. The 1964 Columbia River treaty required that B.C. build three dams. One of these dams, the 240-metre-high Mica dam, was overbuilt with storage capacity that was 70 percent greater than the Columbia River treaty requirement. This extra storage capacity was leased to the Bonneville Power Administration, and that lease expires in 2024.

In 2024, B.C. will have the ability to generate approximately 3,000 gigawatt hours of energy per year, enough to power 300,000 homes, and the cost to acquire this generation capacity is minimal. I think in this case, you could say yes, hydroelectric power does have an important role to play in keeping energy rates low for B.C. ratepayers.

These two examples seem to agree with the motion. That’s nearly 6,000 gigawatt hours of energy that’s going to become available. But can we really say that every hydroelectric project will keep energy rates low for B.C. ratepayers? Some, yes. But there are many things to consider when you’re making a decision about hydroelectric power.

What is the forecast demand for energy? How much energy is being produced already, and how much will be produced in the future? What is the cost of that energy? It’s a lot to consider. It’s almost as if we would need some sort of independent body to give advice on something like this. A commission, maybe, of some kind. Maybe a utilities commission. Well, wait. Actually, we have this in B.C. It’s called the B.C. Utilities Commission, oddly enough. It was created in 1983 under Premier Bill Bennett.

Since that time, the beginning of time, every single Hydro project has been reviewed by the BCUC until 2010, when the previous government decided to exclude over $12 billion, and growing, of Hydro projects from oversight: the smart meters program, the northwest transmission line, Site C and the 2013, ten-year rates plan, which increased rates by 28 percent over its first five years. No oversight by the independent energy commission could lead to mistakes for families in B.C. that they will pay for, for generations to come.

Perhaps we could amend this motion to state that the B.C. Utilities Commission has an important role to play in keeping energy rates low for B.C. families. Because we can certainly find examples where hydroelectric power is a great way to keep energy rates low, but we cannot make that as a general statement. We need to be guided by information, make decisions guided by information, not ideology. Information will help us to ensure that B.C. families do not have to pay excessive rates for years to come.

M. Morris: I was listening intently to the members opposite commenting on B.C. Hydro, the rates and some of the different scenarios they laid out. I have to comment on the member for Courtenay-Comox talking about the rates going up 87 percent from the time our government came in, in 2001.

The metaphor that I use for that is, back in the 1990s, in the late ’80s, we provided a vehicle that was fully functional and running. It was one of the best vehicles that you could imagine, but it had to be maintained. The NDP government of the 1990s decided they weren’t going to change the oil in that vehicle, and they weren’t going to put new tires on that vehicle, and they weren’t going to do the proper maintenance on it.

[11:35 a.m.]

As a result of that, by the time that B.C. Liberals came into government in 2001, it was worn out. It needed significant investment in order to bring it up to the current standards. That’s the state that we found the B.C. Hydro in at that particular time. We put a tremendous amount of money in it. We reinvested in it. We modernized it, and it’s one of the best-operating hydro systems probably on the continent and, who knows, perhaps in the world. It’s a fully functioning system that provides British Columbians with cheap power.

How do we know it’s cheap? We’ve heard different references to cheap power from the members opposite and from this side of the House. I went on line. Hydro-Québec have done studies on this on a routine basis, and I just pulled up their 2017 study where they looked at the various hydro rates from around the world, actually, and North America. I was looking at how B.C. compared to other jurisdictions in the country.

I was looking at it, and B.C. fares pretty darned good. You know, our hydro rates are probably third in the country, in comparison to what other provinces pay. The provinces that have the lowest rates for electricity in Canada — believe it or not — are those provinces that have invested in hydroelectricity projects — Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba.

Those provinces are offering some pretty competitive rates in comparison to everybody else. We go from a high, for an example, in Toronto, of 16 cents per kilowatt hour, down to a low of seven cents in Quebec per kilowatt hour. British Columbia’s sitting around ten cents.

We look at some of the rates in the United States. For an example, in Boston, in 2017, the rate’s 28 cents per kilowatt hour; San Francisco, 31 cents per kilowatt hour. In Nashville, Tennessee, it’s down to 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

Overall, despite…. I don’t know where the member for Courtenay-Comox got the 87 percent figure. I’m sure she probably researched it, but even in considering that 87 percent increase, B.C. still has some of the lowest rates across the country. There’s a website I came across when I was looking up this stuff, and it gave me the opportunity to compare my hydro bill with every other province in Canada. It’s quite an in-depth website. I went through it to make sure that it took into consideration the different tax structures and the different rate structures that each of the provinces have.

I fed the material from my November bill into this system. My November bill had me paying $288.78. Pretty high, but I run a geothermal system in my house. I heat 4,000 square feet with a geothermal system, so that price represents all of my heat and lights for a 4,000-square-foot home.

Alberta came out showing that I would be paying $252.14 based on their scheme. Quebec, which has some of the lowest rates, $243.65. Then we go to Manitoba, $313. New Brunswick was $335. Newfoundland was $353, and Nova Scotia was $343. Ontario, $410; P.E.I., $398; and then Saskatchewan, $376. Overall, British Columbia has some pretty decent rates that are easy to live with in comparison to some of the other jurisdictions that we have around the country.

I just want to refer to a quote here from another website, worldatlas.com….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. D’Eith: The member for Peace River South made the motion that “this House recognizes the importance of hydroelectric power to keeping energy rates low for B.C. families.”

Now, while claiming, “We’re keeping electrical rates affordable,” in the past five years before the last election, the B.C. Liberal government actually transferred millions of dollars from B.C. Hydro to reduce the direct taxpayer-supported debt. From 2012 to 2017, some $1.2 billion in dividends were extracted from B.C. Hydro. At the same time, the government subsidized the price of hydroelectricity by forcing B.C. Hydro to increase its debt, pushing rate increases into future years and weakening the Crown corporation.

[11:40 a.m.]

This deliberate damaging of the B.C. Hydro’s financial health could have been prevented by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The B.C. Utilities Commission is the independent agency of the government of British Columbia responsible for regulating rates and standards of service quality. One of the commission’s primary responsibilities for the past 37 years has been to regulate British Columbia’s electrical utilities. Part of the BCUC mission is to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable and non-discriminatory energy services, at fair rates, from the utilities it regulates.

One of the principal duties of the commission was to improve the annual budget and rates of B.C. Hydro. This check and balance was eliminated in 2012, when the B.C. Liberal government sidelined the Utilities Commission and took direct control over rate-setting at B.C. Hydro.

Now, the B.C. Liberals smoothed the hydro rates by creating massive deferral accounts, abusing their purpose and allowing huge debt to accumulate in the Crown corporation. Notwithstanding that, the B.C. Liberals increased rates by more than 70 percent since 2001. Not only did the previous government hurt our utility; they made life less affordable for B.C. ratepayers. Using B.C. Hydro as an ATM machine to help pad the B.C. Liberal budgets, forcing B.C. Hydro to take on more debt and keep rates artificially low, put political ambition above the health of the important Crown corporation and the interests of B.C. citizens.

What about Site C? The B.C. Liberals claim that this project is in the best interests of B.C. residents, despite blocking the independent utility from looking at it to see if it is in the best interests of B.C. ratepayers. In fact, the motion is interesting, coming from the B.C. Liberals, considering that they refused to allow the BCUC to review the viability of the Site C hydroelectric dam and to get a determination from the BCUC as to the projected rates for families should the dam project proceed.

Our government has brought back the independent Utility Commission to look at the best interests of families while it comes to major decisions regarding energy projects. We ordered an independent review of the Site C project by the Utilities Commission to ensure that we make the right decision for B.C. families and keep hydroelectric rates affordable. That’s what should have been done in the first place, if that side of the House truly wanted to do what was best for families and keep rates low.

Now that the BCUC has reported on Site C, our government will deliberate on the findings in order to make a very difficult decision — one forced on the people of British Columbia by the former B.C. Liberal government. Instead of keeping energy rates low for B.C. families, the B.C. Liberal government mismanaged B.C. Hydro, and the hydroelectric projects may lead to significant increases for generations to come.

Our government will work with B.C. Hydro to improve its financial position, and we will respect the independent authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission moving forward. This is how we will ensure that hydroelectric energy remains affordable for B.C. families.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

T. Shypitka: As members of this House work to improve the quality of life for all peoples of this province, we must ensure that basic necessities aren’t a burden. Members on this side of the House believe that if you work hard for your money you should be able to keep more of it.

One of the ways to ensure that this happens is to keep hydroelectricity bills low so that families don’t have to choose between keeping lights on at night or feeding themselves. Unlike many other countries and states and provinces that receive the majority of their power through coal- or gas-powered energy plants, much of B.C.’s power comes from hydroelectric-powered energy plants.

Due to this province’s vision of the past, 98 percent of our electricity is generated from clean, renewable resources. In our climate plan, we on this side of the House committed to moving this number to 100 percent. How great is that? It is one of the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly methods of generating power. All of this was made possible thanks to strong leaders who had a long-term vision, saw the benefits of hydroelectric power and invested early.

In addition to producing renewable, green, firm, cost-effective energy, hydroelectric projects have provided our province with a wealth of good-paying jobs and skills opportunities. These jobs, in turn, have supplied many British Columbians with the stability that they need to settle down, buy a house and reinvest in communities across our province. First Nation communities have seen some of the highest unemployment rates in the province shrink tremendously due to these projects. Up until recently, Site C was one of those projects. Offering countless opportunities and economic advantages, it provided B.C. with a new source of clean, reliable and firm energy.

[11:45 a.m.]

Site C has undergone extensive and comprehensive reviews since 2004. B.C. Hydro has spent close to eight years of due diligence processes before even proceeding with Site C. Additionally, there are multiple court decisions at various levels that confirm B.C. Hydro meaningfully consulted with First Nation groups. Yet somehow the near decade of groundwork that has been put into this project is now being outweighed by a six-week study launched by the government of our present day.

The implications of cancelling this project would mean a 10 percent rate hike for British Columbians and billions of dollars spent with absolutely nothing to show for it. Now, just today, we’re learning that this hike could be as high as 12.1 percent. This doesn’t sound very affordable to me.

I don’t believe that stopping projects like this is the best course of action — especially, taking into consideration that we should be making B.C. a more affordable place to live, not less. Members on this side of the House have gone on at length about right and wrong decisions. I understand that right and wrong can be twisted either way, depending on how you look at any given situation. However, objectively speaking, I can say that handing out 2,300 pink slips to workers at Christmas isn’t even remotely close to a righteous choice.

Those that would suffer the most from the cancellation of Site C are people who are just simply trying to make an honest living and feed their families. There have been layoffs and uncertainty recently. There’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding workers, industry and First Nation involvement. Many of these men and women had hopes of beginning their careers as electricians and engineers and you name it. But instead, their dreams have been stifled by delays, reviews and politics.

Last week we had the opportunity and the honour to listen to the governor from Washington. We were all brought into his conversation about new economies and new industries. He mentioned one up in Moses Lake. BMW is putting in a big carbon fibre plant — the largest in the world, as a matter of fact. The Greens on the other side could barely contain themselves at this news of this new economy.

However, the board of directors of BMW said that the reason is, and I’ll quote. The reason why they put it in Moses Lake to begin with was “drawn by the cheap and renewable hydro of Eastern Washington.”

This is the new economy. It is part of our old economy. So if we are to progress as a province, B.C. needs leaders who are willing to not just promise a better life but to provide a means to get there — to have a vision and to stick with it even though it is unpopular to some. This is what leadership is all about, and this is why we’re all here. This is what our forefathers have provided this province, and this is what I implore our leaders of today to do as well.

A. Kang: To respond to the resolution, I would like to consider the merits of both hydroelectric power and the method of keeping energy rates low for B.C. families, separately.

I’m disappointed that the member for Peace River South did not choose to introduce a resolution that is more straight to the point, perhaps one that reads: “Be it resolved in the House that this House recognizes the importance to keep energy rates low for B.C. families.” There’s nothing more important to me than making sure that families can afford to live in B.C. and continue to pursue the opportunities that this province has to provide.

Instead, the member for Peace River South has already decided for us what he thinks is the best way to keeping energy rates low. That’s the same mentality that the previous government had when it exempted a $12 billion project from the oversight of British Columbia Utilities Commission, which is the independent watchdog for us ratepayers.

The purpose of the B.C. Utilities Commission is to review energy-related matters and evaluate projects’ financial impact on ratepayers, instead of letting our own biases interfere with our decision-making process. We should rely on BCUC’s expertise and base our decisions on facts and numbers.

Since the B.C. Liberals predecessor, the Social Credit Party, first set up the BCUC, every energy-related project went through the review process, until the previous government decided to do otherwise. The result of neglecting numbers and facts was soaring electricity rates. These rates have risen 87 percent since 2001, and most of the increase has been since 2008.

[11:50 a.m.]

We are in a comparable situation to Ontario. In the last ten years, electricity rates in Ontario have gone up by 108 percent, while ours have gone up by 87 percent. The rate hikes have cost 75,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

B.C. businesses have also raised their concern about the rising rates. Not only did the rate hikes impact our industries and businesses, but it also hurts our families, who feel that it’s getting harder and harder to live in B.C. The previous government did nothing — allowed electricity rates to soar and watched the rates hike and hurt everyday people, people who are already struggling to pay rent and put food on their tables.

Two years ago the Ontario Auditor General discovered that Ontarians paid $37 billion more, over nine years between 2006 and 2014, due to poor government planning. The same thing is happening in B.C., where ratepayers are paying, grudgingly, for the poor planning of the previous government. The previous government’s abuse of deferral accounts and hiding debt would have caused a 28 percent hike over five years for families. Now this government has to clean up the mess.

It’s true. Our hydroelectric investments in the past have allowed us to benefit from affordable electricity. Our reliance on hydroelectricity also reflects that. More than 80 percent of our province’s electricity currently comes from hydro. But our world is different now.

Hydroelectricity has many benefits. It’s clean. It’s renewable. It’s reliable, and it can help with flood control and irrigation. But it also has unintended impacts on farmland, private land and wildlife. These should all be considered for any given hydroelectric project.

To keep energy rates low for B.C. families, we should also consider all of the options that we have. Lazard, a financial advisory and asset management firm, issues a levelized cost of energy analysis annually. The report shows that once wind and solar photovoltaic achieve economies of scale, they’re actually some of the most inexpensive methods of electricity generation. So why limit ourselves to hydro?

In addition, there are also many other ways that we can lower our electricity bills, including energy conservation and energy efficiency measures. We can do small things like investing in energy-efficient light bulbs. What we will find is that our energy savings will pay off our initial investment. There are so many things that we can do to lower energy spending for B.C. families, and we should not be limiting ourselves to one framework of thought.

Whether it’s looking to wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectricity or any form of energy, the bottom line is that projects need to be reviewed by BCUC to evaluate the project’s financial impact on ratepayers and to make sure that rates are kept low for B.C. families.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to speak in support of this motion that recognizes the importance of hydroelectric power and keeping rates low for B.C. families. But before I go further, I would like to correct some of the contradictory remarks made on the other side of the House.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission… It was very confusing to me because he was criticizing the former government for increasing rates and, then, at the same time, criticizing the former government for increasing deferral accounts. If the former government had not increased the deferral accounts, British Columbians would have paid much more for their electricity. And why is that?

Interjection.

T. Redies: Well, then the member for Maple Ridge–Mission must believe that British Columbians should be paying more for their hydro rates than what they did. Because you can’t have it…. It’s one or the other, and the member for Maple Ridge–Mission seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Now, I would also like to say, too, that there is a reason why Hydro has had some difficulties in terms of managing all of these various issues. In the 1990s, the B.C. NDP, which was the government in power then, froze rates for many years, and that created a real deficit for Hydro to come out of when the B.C. Liberals came to the government in 2001.

Another correction I’d like to make for the member on the opposite side of the House. He talked about the previous government taking out $1.2 billion in dividends. In fact, the B.C. NDP, during the 1990s, took $6 billion out of B.C. Hydro.

[11:55 a.m.]

I think the members from the opposite side of the House should really look at their history and facts before they start criticizing the former government for their management of B.C. Hydro.

Now, this debate…

Interjections.

T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

…comes at a crucial moment, obviously. We know that the provincial government has to make a decision on Site C. Fifty years ago, Premier Bennett arrived at a difficult but courageous decision to construct dams on the Peace River. Since that time, succeeding generations have enjoyed clean, reliable and renewable energy that has helped build our province.

Now we find ourselves at this crossroad. Cancellation of the project would result in a $4 billion write-off and an immediate 10 percent or more increase in hydro rates. I’m not sure how that is going to be affordable for British Columbians.

On the other hand, a decision to proceed with Site C would help us reduce our carbon footprint and aid in the transition of our economy from fossil fuels to electricity. For example, the conversion of automobiles and commercial vehicles to an electricity-based transportation system will not happen unless we have projects like Site C. Solar, wind and other potential sources of electricity will play a part in the future, but the technology is insufficient without the storage capacity and firm energy of Site C.

The current government has already confirmed that, as of last June, Site C was proceeding on schedule and within budget. However, this hastily organized review of the project has delayed the project and generated considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty will undoubtedly drive up the costs for the project if continued, as suppliers will build in a cost for working in a highly charged political environment.

Political posturing has already cost British Columbians an additional $610 million so far. The Allied Hydro Council of British Columbia, which has represented unionized B.C. Hydro dam construction workers since 1961, has also questioned the validity of the BCUC report, and that was before the $800 million in mistakes that were found by B.C. Hydro in BCUC’s model last week. They question the logic of writing off billions of dollars, which will have to be collected through hydro bills, just to start over for better alternatives to Site C that currently, today, don’t exist.

Even Mark Jaccard, at Simon Fraser University, who ran the BCUC from 1992 to 1997 under the NDP government, supports the project. Mr. Jaccard will be briefing cabinet on Site C, and he will tell them that the future demand for electricity will be taken up almost immediately once the project is completed.

We can take some comfort from the fact that the Premier has promised that the government will render a decision by year-end, but the evidence we have before us is no longer based on economics. The most recent answers by the BCUC to the government’s own questions quite clearly show that Site C, in almost every case, is the best option. And that’s before they correct the substantial mistakes, totalling $800 million, to the benefit of Site C, that have been found in the BCUC models.

Now it’s purely a political decision. I hope that the government makes the right decision for British Columbians, going forward.

T. Redies moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.