Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

HOUSING

R. Sultan: Housing is the most important issue of the day for my constituents and, I believe, for yours. From the extremes of those who sleep on a cozy goose-down pillow in Point Grey to that rough person who beds down on the concrete median at the intersection of Pender and Georgia as I drive home from the evening’s engagements, who has concrete as his pillow…. Yes, he does. We all need some place to sleep. But a roof over one’s head has been getting harder and harder to find.

Our government is full of ideas on how to stimulate supply by taxing demand. The logic of that is somewhat hard for me to follow. Perhaps we’re all listening too much to the university professors whose real-world experience seldom extends beyond Sasamat Street. Suffice it to say the combination of the speculation tax, a souped-up property transfer tax, an education tax and further discouragement of foreign investment is proving a bit hard to digest. But I’m not really here to use private member’s time to debate taxes. I’m more interested in how we can best stimulate actual housing supply.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Housing is an important example of a free market driven by supply and demand. Its profile is shaped by central bank policy, geography, demographics, consumer confidence and many other factors, including huge reservoirs of offshore capital seeking safe haven. The scary thing is that this market, as we all know, is playing with the very lives of the human beings involved. Housing is a fundamental need in our society, and how we arrange our affairs to provide it or not provide it can drastically alter the fabric of our society. That’s why we need to ensure that we always have the supply of housing necessary to fulfil our needs.

The key to ensuring a prosperous and healthy society, I would argue, is to have affordable housing supply — with “supply” in capital letters. How can we get more supply? Well, we might ask the suppliers, who know more about it than all the professors and politicians put together. Experts such as my friend Anne McMullin from the North Shore suggests that we could:

(1) Incentivize housing supply through targeted tax incentives, such as PST rebates for purpose-built rentals.

(2) Legislate maximum delay times permissible in municipal permitting and approvals. We legislate maximum delay in our provincial regulatory affairs. Why not in municipalities? In Vancouver, it can take four years and 25 separate steps to navigate the approval process.

(3) Focus on transit-oriented development where taxpayer transit funding is tied to housing density targets. No more transit lines through low-density, single-family-zoned neighbourhoods.

(4) Exempt all of the new taxes on all development sites purchased for construction of any housing, rental or not, market or non-market, as savings which will be passed on to homebuyers.

[10:10 a.m.]

If we do not make increasing supply more possible, housing won’t be there when we need it.

By the way, about 233,000 trades jobs rely on construction and real estate development, making it our largest industry. Tom Sigurdson of the building trades unions emphasized this point to all of us during his rounds last week. Let’s keep supply growing and healthy.

M. Dean: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano as well, and yes, we will be talking about supply. Housing affordability does affect us all, and for too long, B.C.’s housing crisis has actually been ignored. Everybody has been affected, from homeowners to new buyers and people renting. Renters have seen vacancy rates drop and prices rise dramatically.

I’ll tell you about a single mom in my community. She’s got three kids. She was given notice on her family home. This happened last summer, so she went house hunting. She went to view an alternative rental property. There were 17 other families there looking at that property. She left straightaway. She knew she wouldn’t be able to compete with them.

The market has been building. It’s been building small units for speculation and parking capital. Our land has been used as a stock market. That’s why our government is setting out a 30-point plan that commits to long-term solutions to curb speculation, crack down on tax fraud, support renters and create that supply — to build the homes that people need.

Local governments have actually been putting out more supply than ever before, but of course, that has been taken advantage of as a commodity, not building homes for British Columbians. Already, we’ve invested in homes for people, including 1,700 new affordable housing units and 2,000 modular homes for the homeless.

Let’s look at supply. We’re making the biggest investment in housing affordability in B.C. history. This will help build homes, create jobs, build community capacity and enhance economic development in communities. We’re going to work in partnerships. We’re going to build the homes in every corner of the province that people need. We’re working with all levels of government, Indigenous peoples, non-profits and the private sector to streamline the creation of affordable homes.

That’s why we’re creating a new housing hub office at B.C. Housing, and that will bring everyone together to facilitate building affordable homes. It will develop partnerships to find, use or redevelop available land in communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. These partnerships include working with the non-profit sector, faith groups, for-profit builders, all levels of government and others to develop or redevelop available land and buildings so that we can increase the stock of available and affordable homes. This new housing hub underlines the importance of partnerships and the coordinated effort it’s going to take to address housing affordability.

We’re also told by local businesses — nine out of ten business owners — that the housing affordability crisis is impacting their ability to recruit and retain good workers. In my community, I hear from chiefs of police and fire departments across my constituency that they can’t recruit the necessary professionals for our core services because they can’t afford to live in our communities.

Our 30-point plan includes 14,000 rental units for the missing middle. This includes skilled workers, teachers, the service sector, nurses and carpenters, who our communities need and without whom our communities and our economy suffer. We’re building for the vulnerable as well.

It’s not only about planning and building new stock. It’s also about taking care of what we have and making sure that that is not lost. Our plan includes $75 million in funding to make sure that existing and in-build stocks are kept in the sector and are available for British Columbians who need them.

We’re also investing in the construction of 1,750 units of social housing for Indigenous people across B.C. — again, developed in partnerships. We’re making the first significant investment in two decades in housing options for women who need a refuge from domestic violence.

After decades of post-secondary institutions asking the government to support and enable them to build student housing, our government is finally allowing colleges and universities to borrow to build much-needed student housing, and we’ll help finance 5,000 new student housing beds.

[10:15 a.m.]

In turn, this will free up rental housing in our communities — increasing stock, increasing capacity and therefore making it more affordable for British Columbian families. We can’t fix the housing crisis overnight. But we can act now, and we can plan and work in partnerships together for the future.

R. Sultan: I thank the member opposite for her comments. It’s clear that all of us in this chamber are concerned about housing. Our Finance Minister should be concerned also. The province receives well over $1 billion a year from this sector. Our federal government receives $1.6 billion, and municipal governments $1.1 billion in British Columbia, and that’s not the full story.

Unique to this industry is the payment of developer fees and various levies, which give an additional $1.1 billion in revenue to municipalities, including nearly a quarter of a billion annually to the city of Vancouver alone. In total, at least $5 billion in tax revenue is generated for all levels of government. If $5 billion is somehow disappearing one day, our Finance Minister will have some additional concerns — no question.

How are we doing just in terms of sheer supply? Across Metro Vancouver, there were just 80 new, move-in-ready units available in the fourth quarter of 2017 — 80. Contrast that with Statistics Canada’s suggestion that we could be adding as many as 20,000 persons each quarter to our population, on average, over the next 25 years. That’s a long-term forecast, of course, but the striking contrast between a supply of 80 and a potential demand of 20,000 is noteworthy. My note is: should we laugh or cry?

Meanwhile, the total of new, unsold multifamily homes for purchase across Metro Vancouver — including presale, under construction and move-in-ready apartments and townhomes — has fallen 74 percent from Q2 2013. That’s a decrease of 95 percent from the five-year average of move-in-ready units.

Question: why is housing supply down by 95 percent? Well, about 85 percent of Metro Vancouver is zoned for single family. That means high-density housing — most useful to renters, for example — is only permitted on the remaining 15 percent of available land. If we’re to find a solution to the rental housing crunch, I suggest we might begin by looking there.

MUSIC EDUCATION

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure for me to be able to talk about music education, and in particular, I’m going to talk about music education in our public elementary schools.

I would acknowledge my friend Tom Kellough, who’s a music teacher on the Sunshine Coast and was, at one point, an accompanist for some concerts that I was in. He’s a wonderful pianist.

B.C. schools provide a consistently high standard of instruction in the core academic subjects. However, the delivery of music instruction in B.C. is not consistent and varies widely, even within school districts.

Recent research and development in neuroscience and the psychology and sociology of music education provides strong evidence that music is an important part of a comprehensive, quality education. The research shows that we are musical beings, born with innate musical skills. The study of music and making music engages, connects and develops many parts of the brain. Musical learning positively affects cognitive development and has been conclusively shown to be associated with generally higher academic achievement.

Age seven is a critical time to introduce song and dance. Significant brain development occurs in early and middle childhood, and by age seven, children begin to hear and process music the way adults do.

Making music helps human beings form lasting bonds of commitment and trust. Ensemble work is the ultimate kind of teamwork, where everyone is engaged in the play, and everyone always carries the ball.

[10:20 a.m.]

Music has the power to evoke, embody and express emotions. Music classes offer the identity-developing adolescent an emotional outlet, an opportunity for self-expression and discovery of their emotions and feelings in a safe and supportive environment.

Music students work seriously and interactively within clear timelines on complex problems, reaching beyond mediocrity to achieve more than they could do on their own. Music classes instil responsibility, commitment, perseverance and self-discipline, which boost self-esteem, self-confidence and self-knowledge.

The B.C. teacher regulation branch recognizes secondary music, but it doesn’t recognize elementary music as a teaching specialization. There are windows of opportunity in a child’s development, and certain musical skills can be acquired only when those windows are open. Elementary music classes are perhaps more important than secondary music classes.

Like a plant, if the roots aren’t fed, the plant won’t flower. We would not expect students to transition easily into grade 8 math without any elementary foundations in mathematics. Yet we expect secondary students to elect a subject in which they have little or no experience, and we expect them to flourish.

The B.C. Music Educators Association published an inquiry report in June 2013, which recommends that at least 60 minutes of elementary music instruction per grade per week be mandated through the province, with the option of adding more time with the discretion of the school administrators. The report also recommends that the teacher regulation branch accept elementary music as a specialized teaching area, thereby encouraging post-secondary institutions to offer a degree, major, concentration and/or diploma program in elementary music.

Just as an aside, I’m happy to say that school district 46 on the Sunshine Coast is committed to offering music classes taught by music specialists to all elementary students, at a minimum of 60 minutes per week in the K-to-3 age group and a minimum of 30 minutes for grades 4 and 5, while most receive more; and that all grades 6 and 7 students receive 100 minutes per week of beginning band. It’s Supt. Patrick Bocking’s intent to hire a fifth full-time elementary music specialist next year to help provide more flexibility in scheduling and in meeting these district guidelines.

The world needs creative problem-solvers who understand and appreciate how to work collaboratively and cooperatively for the greater good. In 2018, given the evidence supporting the inclusion of music in a comprehensive, quality program of basic education, we must give consideration to the current state of the delivery of music instruction across B.C. and adopt the recommended actions of the 2013 music educators program quality teaching report. A government aiming to offer B.C. students the very best education possible within its means should consider the value and importance of music in education and take steps to match the standard of excellence across the curriculum by including music.

Let me add that the district band in school district 46, made up of students from the lower Sunshine Coast, recently performed at the Surrey jazz festival. This performance resulted in an invitation to the MusicFest Nationals. I hope that between now and then, the concert band members will audition for the jazz band so that they get an opportunity to travel together.

The class called musical theatre recently put on a successful production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and that class is grades 6 to 12. What a great course to help the students make the transition into high school.

Music education breaks down barriers. It brings people together from different age groups, different generations and different walks of life. And the importance of music education can’t be overstated. I look forward to my colleague’s response.

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the statements around music education. Certainly, I am a firm believer in music education for our youth and all the way through, as a life learning tool. In my own background, my family has been very musical in the past. Both my brothers and sisters — ironically, not myself — are all very accomplished with the violin and as pianists, in their own right, and my own children have been fortunate to excel in violin and piano as well.

[10:25 a.m.]

So I can see the value firsthand of the importance of music education. But not every household has the ability to seek out the private lesson or the group lesson setting in a private building, although I think the demand for those services we see across this province speaks very much to the want of families and kids and youth in our communities to access this type of educational opportunity by seeking out these opportunities at very large music schools in after-school hours.

However, I agree that in-school instruction is important in terms of capturing all and making sure that it’s one connection point for all kids within a classroom, to have a common connection and discover where, maybe, some talents — which they didn’t realize they even had — are.

Certainly, when I reflect back on my own school career, as limited as I was in music, there was still that elementary school band, which you could go and play a saxophone in, or a flute or any of those types of instruments. Even in my own instruction, with teachers that I had, I still remember a male teacher, when we were in grade 6 and 7, who, although incredibly off-key with his own singing style, managed to have a group of grade 6s and 7s singing even more off-key. That is where we developed some very interesting takes on “Eye in the Sky” by the Alan Parsons Project.

It was a way to bond together and, by demonstration of that story, is something that sticks with you for life. You remember those types of things as a class. When I bump into old classmates, we even laugh about those various music sessions. It wasn’t the highest level, maybe, of music instruction possible, but it was still a teacher going above and beyond to make sure that the effort was made so that the class could see that instruction.

Any efforts to try to change a curriculum that, I believe, was changed about 20 years ago would be a step in the right direction. Certainly, there are still many teachers out there that take it upon themselves to make sure that that instruction is happening.

My own children, coming through not that long ago — they’re now 19, 22 and 25 — were fortunate enough to have teachers in elementary school that did something as simple as having a ukulele band, a very low-cost option where all those kids were still learning how to read music, how to play some chords. The singing was sometimes a little questionable, but there was a lot of fun, and there was always a year-end concert with just the ukuleles. The amount of songs that they were able to play with the ukulele was quite phenomenal.

Again, that took a teacher willing to step up, willing to do it and wanting to make sure that the value of music education was still taught to their kids. Any concerted effort to make sure the curriculum stresses that — and that we have good, solid music education throughout our system, especially for the primary grades — would be most welcome. It certainly would build upon a whole lot of different strengths, let alone all the studies that have shown how it helps with your mathematics- and science-based learning as well, when your mind is tuned into — pardon the pun — music education.

With that, I will take my chair, but I’m sure that everyone on this side of the House, too — I can say very confidently — fully supports and understands the importance of music education within our school system to all, to make sure that they can have the best success possible, touching into all of their various educational pursuits at the same time.

N. Simons: I was just talking about how music sometimes breaks down barriers and brings people together, and I feel a deeper affection for that side of the House after my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson told us the story of remembering choral productions — I don’t know if he’d have called it that — opportunities to get together and sing. Just the fact that he remembers it as a young person when he runs into people that shared that experience, I think, speaks to the quality of music education.

I think it’s a good time to thank music educators in this province. I’m a little biased. My family — uncles, aunts and parents — were all involved in music education in one form or another. I’ve actually been a teacher of music as well, and it’s always a pleasure for teachers, also, to see the success of their students, whether it be in music or not.

Just having developed a skill, a mastery of something, I think, is an important achievement. I think back to my first cello teachers and how they’ve influenced me more than just musically, in terms of being a person who recognizes differences in our society and the successes that we can have, when we come together, in erasing those differences.

[10:30 a.m.]

On the Sunshine Coast, in Powell River, there’ll be PRISMA, which is Pacific Region International Summer Music Academy, where people from around the world come together. They may not share a language, but they sit next to each other and play the same notes, and then they realize that they’ve got something very much in common.

I think music can serve to bring communities and cultures together and actually break down barriers. We’ve seen international efforts. When countries are getting closer together, they start with cultural exchanges. Often it’s sports exchanges as well. But just the value of music and music education can’t be overstated.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the way, and I thank Madame Speaker for the opportunity to talk about music.

INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

A. Olsen: I’m SȾHENEP. I grew up in the WJOȽEȽP village of the WSÁNEĆ people. I’m the son of Sylvia Snobelen and TSAYWESUT, Carl Olsen; the grandson of Don and Phyllis Snobelen and ZICOT, Laura Bartleman, and TELQUILUM, Ernie Olsen.

When my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I met the incredible team of Indigenous language warriors at the First Peoples Cultural Council on Friday, my Uncle STOLȻEȽ, John Elliott, was there. He told us that SENĆOŦEN, the language of the WSÁNEĆ, was given to us from the Creator. It was a gift from the Creator. It gave us our law and showed us how to live in a good way in our territory.

It was how we communicated with everything around us. It was that way since forever in WSÁNEĆ. But, as we know, things changed in our territory. A dark cloud has hung over us. The law was broken. SENĆOŦEN was attacked.

In the summary report of Sen. Murray Sinclair’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it states:

“Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow a group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of that targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred, and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.”

This was the most destructive work of the residential schools and Indian day schools. These schools beat, abused and neglected Indian children. The goal was to systematically destroy every connection to what they saw as savage, godless cultures. An essential feature of this work was to remove Indigenous languages.

The identity of a people is closely related to our territory, our home, and it can only be described using our language, our words. Across our province, most of our history has been captured and maintained through words; that is to say it is an unwritten history.

The theft of our languages weakened our culture and left our communities exposed to new kinds of trauma. The trauma is felt by everyone in every one of our communities. It is felt by every one of our relatives. It has challenged even the strongest. The trauma of a ministry official tearing a newborn baby from her mother’s nipple, to prop up some despicable baby industry that has been quietly operating since the Sixties Scoop. You know, we don’t want to lose our children. We don’t want our babies stolen from our communities.

The trauma of lack of adequate housing and government policy that limits the ability to get proper housing — housing that is full of mould and overcrowded. You know, we don’t want to be the most homeless people in our society. The trauma of a seemingly endless list of suicides: our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, our cousins, nieces, nephews, aunties and uncles — losing faith and feeling hopeless. You know, we don’t want to feel hopeless. We don’t want to take our own lives.

The trauma of incarceration and a lack of justice. Murderers and abusers of Indigenous people walking free while the same story in a different town has a different result. Meanwhile, the prison population is overwhelmingly Indigenous. You know, we don’t want to be imprisoned.

[10:35 a.m.]

We don’t need more police or a forceful approach to address the deep-seated social ills that have come from our trauma of being displaced from our homes, taken from our parents and grandparents, stripped of our language and our identity, becoming a foreigner in our own home. The attempts to cleanse British Columbia of more than 30 Indigenous languages did not entirely succeed. While many languages and dialects are extinct, last uttered from the lips of passing elders, many have been rescued from the edge of extinction by modern-day linguistic heroes.

Indigenous people are resilient, our leaders are strong, and we have survived a deep trauma. These heroes worked through the pain of their experiences. They overcame punishment and humiliation and never forgot the words our ancestors used to describe our territory, our way of life, our connection to our home.

Government inherits decisions of the past. We inherit them when we swear an oath to serve and protect the honour of the Crown. Frankly, there has been so much to dishonour it. As Senator Sinclair said: “The government spent so much time trying to exterminate our language and culture, it’s important it take the time to re-establish language and culture as a foundation for the future.”

It is within this context that I celebrate the government’s transformative investment in the restoration of Indigenous languages. From my perspective, it is the most substantial step taken so far in our long journey of reconciliation.

I have witnessed the overwhelmingly positive impact of the restoration of language. Our own language, SENĆOŦEN, was nearing extinction, and our grandparents worked to preserve it. We now have a thriving SENĆOŦEN immersion program at ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ School in WJOȽEȽP. Our youth are coming alive, reconnecting with their ancestors and their history, their territory and culture through language. It is exactly as Senator Sinclair suggested. It is a foundation for the future.

Finally, this provincial government has deployed different tactics from the past. Today I celebrate our government for starting from the beginning and recognizing that providing the resources for Indigenous people not only improves the lives and well-being of our relatives but indeed the lives of all British Columbians.

B. Ma: I want to begin by thanking the member for Saanich North and the Islands for putting into words what I can only begin to appreciate as someone who is not indigenous to these lands. The passion that he has brought to this discussion cuts through the misunderstanding around the importance of Indigenous languages in a way that I could never. So I will add what I can to support his words.

There was a suggestion made some weeks ago in this place that we should take the money that the provincial government has committed to investing into the revitalization of Indigenous languages and redirect it into policing for First Nations communities. I will be frank. When I heard this suggestion, I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed for the member who had said it. I was embarrassed for myself as someone who perhaps might have thought similar thoughts out of ignorance. And I was embarrassed for our society.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I say this not to disparage the member. I believe that the comment came from a place of compassion, from someone who has had harrowing experiences that he had to endure in his former life as an officer of the law, which leads him to believe what he does. I respect his experiences and his personal perspective.

My fear is that the argument that is being used to defend his statements, which so many settlers, like me, might not know better than to agree with, means that there is still a level of ignorance around the importance of revitalizing Indigenous languages that cannot be left to stand.

I don’t speak an Indigenous language so I will use an example in my traditional language to share with the House today. My English name is Bowinn Ma, but in Chinese, it’s Ma Bo Wen. Ma literally translates as “horse,” which is the family name, and Bo Wen literally translates to “plentiful script.” But what it means can be roughly translated as “ocean of knowledge” or “broad scholar.” It means someone who has a broad understanding of many things and someone who has the wisdom to use this knowledge in a good way.

[10:40 a.m.]

It represents what my parents and grandparents had hoped I would become as an adult. In English, my name is just a name, a series of sounds used to identify me. But in my traditional language, those two simple syllables are a culmination of all of the hopes and dreams that my family have had of me since my birth — aspirations that could never truly be translated properly across cultures in as succinct a way.

You see, the revitalization of Indigenous languages is not simply an exercise in translating words. It’s the beginning of the healing of cultures, through which an expression of world view emanates. It speaks to a person’s core identity. Ideas, values, feelings, aspirations, hopes and dreams are communicated in ways that sometimes cannot be done in any other way. It’s about grounding a person; tearing down the walls of isolation; reconnecting them to their ancestors, their community, their family, their environment, their Creator and, indeed, even themselves.

The positive impact of this cultural healing is real, and it is documented. I want to share with the House today what a young Squamish woman had said to me about this topic. Her name is Taylor George-Hollis, and she says:

“The revitalization of Indigenous languages is vital to keeping our spirit alive. Speaking Squamish, I am aware that my ancestors hear me clearer than speaking English. The Squamish language, my language, is tied to the land, water, air and all beings. I look forward to the day I share the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh sníchim and Nuu-chah-nulth with my future children, as it shows that through our resilience, love and passion for our children, we are not assimilated peoples.”

There is an urgent need here when it comes to walking the talk on a road towards reconciliation. It starts with recognizing that, as settlers, as benefactors of colonialism on this land, we were the problem for these First Nations. Our ways were the problem. Government’s use of law enforcement to tear children away from their families and prevent Indigenous peoples from accessing their language and culture was the problem. Our ways will continue to be the problem if we do not learn from this.

I stand firmly by our government’s decision to invest $50 million into the urgent revitalization of Indigenous languages. Chen Kwen Mantumi.

A. Olsen: We know the power of language. This place knows the power of language well. We’ve weaponized it. Government is built on words. Political careers are built on just a few well-placed, well-delivered words. Effective election campaigns are carefully constructed on a platform of words that convey a compelling message. To a great extent, words and language are our business. It is a perilous business, as we all know, because years, months, weeks, days, hours of perfect execution can be undone in just a split second of a careless utterance.

We all remember, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” or “I’m not a crook” or “Yes We Can.” Powerful orators have inspired millions of people to rise up through their words, the pauses between them, their pace and the stories that inspired us, that make our heart race or our blood boil or that give us the calm, contented confidence in their leadership.

Take our language from us, take it from the people in this place, and what do we have left? We have nothing. If our society, our law, our understanding of the world around us is built on our language, then the most destructive thing that one people can do to another is to steal it away, to attempt to purge it, to cut our tongues from our mouths.

It may not be visible to everyone in this place, but language revitalization is happening. It’s having a tremendous impact in our Indigenous communities. As STOLȻEȽ says: “Our language, SENĆOŦEN, was given to us by our Creator. It was our law. It was the way we communicated with every living thing in our territory.”

[10:45 a.m.]

In WSÁNEĆ we know there is a different way. The restoration of language is working, and we’re eager to share it. I’m not naive. I know there are problems. I’ve lived amongst them my entire life. But we are optimistic. We are excited. I raise my hands to this government for recognizing it and investing in it. HÍSWḴE SIÁM.

CREATIVE ECONOMY

B. D’Eith: Recently we discussed the importance of the creative industries in British Columbia. It was very clear that supporting the $5.23 billion per annum creative industries of film, television, music, digital, gaming, books and magazines is critical to B.C. jobs and the B.C. economy. The Budget 2018 commitment to the creative industries through their new tax credits, increased funding to B.C. Arts Council and Creative B.C. is fantastic and necessary. But today I wish to talk about the broader issue of the creative economy.

Now, what is the creative economy? This concept was actually proposed by John Howkins in 2001, in his book The Creative Economy, which he updated in 2013. In this, there’s a new definition of economic systems. Instead of looking at land, labour and capital, value is based on novel, imaginative qualities. This concept applies not only to the creative industries but applies to the whole economy. In fact, some observers suggest that creativity itself is a defining characteristic of the 21st century global economy.

The British Council, the U.K. version of our Canada Council, has an entire section devoted to the creative economy. They’ve embraced this new view of the economy. John Newbigin, who is the chair, says that: “The creative economy not only requires new and rapidly changing skills; it requires a completely new approach to education in which collaborative learning and mutual respect between the traditional disciplines of arts, science and technology will be crucial.” He goes on to say that it’s not arts versus science. It’s a diversity of perspective that produces the best results.

Now, one powerful piece of evidence that he brings forward is the U.K.’s Arts and Humanities Research Council Fuse project in 2014. They looked at 450 creative digital media businesses in Brighton, England. Basically, in this, they found that businesses in which employees from arts and humanities worked as equals with employees from science and technology backgrounds actually grew faster than companies in which one dominated the other. The greater degree of integration between arts and science disciplines, the greater the company’s growth.

In fact, the report concluded that Brighton’s creative design and IT firms grew faster than the local economy and ten times faster than the British economy as a whole. But the fused businesses grew more than twice that speed, and super-fused firms grew faster still.

Not only did this demonstrate the value of maintaining a balance between different skills, it illustrated the truth that a diversity of skills and perspective is, as of itself, an important element in building a successful creative economy.

Now, some people bristle when you suggest that STEM should be increased to STEAM to incorporate the arts, but in this context and when you’re looking at the creative economy and the British research, it’s really the cross-sector and cross-disciplinary work that needs to be encouraged.

This also speaks…. We had a previous speaker in terms of music and its importance. It certainly speaks to maintaining arts, music and culture in our schools.

Now, what does Canada look like? In an article, Creative Economy Employment in the U.S., Canada and the U.K…. Based on the definitions used in the report, Canada’s creative economy is comprised of 2.2 million workers, including 534,000 creative workers in the creative industries, 815,000 creative workers in the non-creative industries and 893,000 non-creative workers in the creative industries. The point here is that there is an integration.

One would hope that the Canadian government would recognize this. In fact, in September 2017, the federal government created Creative Canada. Of course, this policy framework that they put together shows a wonderful commitment to the creative industries, broadcasting, arts and culture, but does not really embrace the broader creative economy in the way that Britain has through the British Council.

For example, while the Canadian framework talks about creative hubs, they focus on the creative industries and arts but don’t take the next step towards cross-sectoral collaboration. That is really the essence of the new creative economy.

What are examples of this cross-sectoral connectivity? Well, we just recently had Mining Day at the Legislature, and it featured a number of B.C.-based clean and high-tech companies currently active in the mining industry, including our Carmanah’s solar-powered solutions and Victoria-based LlamaZOO Interactive 3D communications.

[10:50 a.m.]

This is an example of how a gaming company was able to use its technology for a traditional sector in the B.C. economy. From their website, a leading example of LlamaZOO’s work is MineLife VR, a 3D virtual reality platform for the digital twinning of a mine, from exploration to reclamation, used to consolidate and communicate mine data, such as drill holes, mineralogy, ore bodies, infrastructure, facilities and tenures, layered on high-resolution, geospatial data.

Now, if you understand what that meant, I think you’re awesome. But the whole point is that they’re using this amazing technology to help the mining industry. So this is the creative, the digital and the traditional together.

We live in a digital age, an age where knowledge and creativity drive the economy, so continued technological innovation in all areas of the economy is crucial. B.C. has the opportunity to be a leader, not only in the creative industries, but also in applying creativity to the existing sectors. That’s why I’m very excited that the minister announced, on March 1, the Innovation Council is now being turned into Innovate B.C.

The Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology said:

“‘Innovation is the lifeblood of a successful economy…. By making Innovate B.C. a single point of contact for entrepreneurs and businesses across B.C., we will ensure that people get the help they need to create good jobs and benefit from the opportunities of an emerging economy.’ Innovate B.C. will make recommendations to government on how best to create science, technology and innovation policy that promotes the commercialization of B.C. industry.”

In order for the B.C. economy to stay strong and sustainable, we need to embrace the creative economy that drives the 21st-century global economy. We need to ensure that our post-secondary programs foster creativity across all programs. We need to encourage cross-sector and cross-disciplinary work across all sectors, and we need to make sure that traditional industries work with non-traditional industries. Cultivating our creative minds in B.C. will ensure that B.C. thrives in the new global economy.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to speak in response to the member opposite in what is starting to become a weekly tradition for us on the creative economy. Our government was a huge supporter of the creative economy. We undertook many initiatives to support it, and we often ensured that these initiatives served a dual purpose.

One such example is the Our Living Languages exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum right across the street. I’m sure the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who just recently spoke on Indigenous languages, would be interested to learn that the exhibit first opened in 2014. It was part of the effort to preserve 61 dialects of the 34 First Nations languages in British Columbia.

Last week was International Women’s Day, and in honour of that day, I would like to speak on women in film — specifically, B.C. women in film. First, I would like to speak on Women In Film and Television Vancouver. WIFTV is a member-driven, not-for-profit society. Their main objectives are to further the artistic and professional development of women in the Canadian screen-based media community and to recognize and promote the artistic and professional contributions of women in the Canadian screen-based media community and in the community at large.

WIFTV’s first major endeavour was the producer’s workshop series, a three-year educational program aimed at increasing access to information about funding to increase the number of Indigenous productions being created by women. This launched the careers of many of Vancouver’s female media creators — meaning producers, directors and industry managers — and initiated the creation of the Producer’s Workbook. In 2010, they published the fourth edition of the Producer’s Workbook, which is now used as a curriculum resource at the Vancouver Film School.

Last Saturday night, I attended the third annual Women in Entertainment International Women’s Day awards and fundraiser. There, they recognized the mentors and trailblazers in our entertainment community and also gathered to celebrate our best and our continued communal push for progress in screen-based media. Women’s voices have never been stronger, and the industry is talking about real issues, real talk and real momentum.

[10:55 a.m.]

During the evening of celebration and joy, we remember also that a rising tide lifts all boats. It was therefore also a fundraiser for the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre, a low-barrier shelter and safe space for our women. Certainly, the film industry gives back to all sorts of organizations. Honoured that night were leaders of several unions, who serve the entertainment industry and act as mentors for women in the industry. I’d like to recognize Susan Butler-Gray from IATSI Local 891; Marnie Wynnyk, Teamsters Local 155; Lee Anne Muldoon, ICG 669; Linda Darlow, UBCP-ACTRA; and Rachel Talalay, DGCBC. I’m very honoured that I was there to help them celebrate.

In my riding is Capilano University’s Nat and Flora Bosa Centre for Film and Animation. I’ve had the pleasure of attending numerous presentations there. Our leader attended in his capacity as Minister of Advanced Education a year or so ago. Cap U is home to the largest full-time, four-year production-oriented film degree program in western Canada, and the award-winning 6,662-square-metre LEED gold-standard facility provides every tool necessary to create a production, both live action and animated, from idea to final releasable production.

The project was first announced in 2009, with a $30.2 million combined contribution from the federal and provincial governments under the knowledge infrastructure program. Through their philanthropic leadership, Nat and Flora Bosa donated $6 million in 2011 — the largest private donation in the university’s 43-year history — to support the centre that now carries their name.

Since then, as I said, I’ve been proud to attend many events and productions at this world-class facility. I’m proud that Capilano University is one of the most prominent film schools in Canada and that our creative industries are doing so well here in British Columbia.

B. D’Eith: Thank you for the comments from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I do share her love for the creative industries and the support. But again, we’re talking today about the creative economy, which is really a bigger discussion.

One of the things that I’d love to see…. I just went to Garibaldi High School. They’re going to compete in a robotics competition this week in Victoria. What I thought was really telling was that nearly half of the robotics club was also in the band program. I thought this was a really good example of how creative people — because this a very creative endeavour, putting these robots together — and how, actually, the music and the science work together. It also goes to the earlier discussion we had about the importance of music in schools.

Another example of that. When I was the executive director of Music B.C., we did a project with Science World which was technology and music and how they work together. That was a great exhibit, but what really was interesting was the scientists on that panel — nine out of ten of them were also musicians. I think that really also speaks to that. You look at someone like Einstein, for example. He frequently played classical music as a brainstorming technique, and Einstein’s second wife said that the music actually helped him with his theories.

Another example. I went to the Mission Historical Society, and their biggest challenge, actually, is that they’re digitizing everything — their pictures. Actually, one of their biggest needs right now is creativity on the tech side, which I never would have thought of.

It’s about thinking outside the box. I think with our sectors of agriculture, forestry and mining, we have to look at what creativity can bring to that. The University of the Fraser Valley, for example, has an agriculture technology diploma. I thought this was really interesting, because what they focus on is innovation in agriculture, education and technology. That’s where the future is.

We look at things like forestry, with engineered wood products. Engineered wood products are actually a very interesting technology, again, using creative ingenuity to show how we can sustain and grow our traditional forest industry. We’re very excited about how creativity and the creative economy can help drive our traditional industries.

We need to ensure that our post-secondary programs foster creativity through all programs, including STEM programs. We need to continue to encourage cross-sector and cross-disciplinary work across all sectors so that we can take advantage of our amazing pool of creative talent. We need to work with traditional non-creative businesses to use creative workers to make their industries more effective.

[11:00 a.m.]

Embracing the creative economy will help B.C. stay strong in the global 21st-century economy, in order for us to meet our environmental commitments and stay competitive in the world.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Motion 9 that’s on the order paper in the name of the member for Nechako Lakes.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 9 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 9 — TRADE AGREEMENTS

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships with its neighbours and the benefits of diversifying trade through supporting Canadian Free Trade Agree­ments.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is an important motion to bring forward for this Legislature, I think, for us as a province but also for my riding of Nechako Lakes. When I think about activity in my riding, whether it is farming, whether it is mining or whether it is forestry, everything is reliant upon our ability to have trade and the ability for us as a province to be able to exchange trade goods with our neighbours and abroad.

More importantly, when I think about trade and what it does, it brings a positive investment climate. People look at wanting to invest in this jurisdiction if they know that there are good relations and the opportunity to be able to trade and move goods.

When I look at the approach that this government has taken…. In particular, I think about the softwood lumber agreement. The first thing that they did…. They went down to Washington on a junket to talk about it, yet what came from it? Absolutely nothing. The softwood lumber agreement and the softwood lumber relations right now between British Columbia and the United States are not doing well. As a matter of fact, there are no prospects at the moment for any kind of agreement between us and the Americans, which is very troubling.

Beyond that, why should we do trade? In trade, it’s about helping people. It’s about creating jobs. It’s about supporting families. It’s about improving quality of life.

I want to go back and look at some quotes from the members opposite; in particular, the now current Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister. In the Nelson Daily News back on April 27, 2009, here’s what she said: “When talking about free trade, it’s not the people who benefit; it’s the corporations. It’s not about communities; it’s about corporations.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is about how we support people and families, not corporations.

She went on in the same article. She said: “It provides us with no incentive to protect or recruit and encourage professionals to stay here in British Columbia.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. If corporations are creating jobs, if they have the opportunity for trade to be able to drive investment, that attracts professionals and individuals here. And it speaks to misguided thoughts and policies on behalf of the current government that’s in place.

Trade missions, of course, are an important part of that. I’m glad to see the current government went on a trade mission, but the current Jobs, Trade and Technology Minister, from an NDP news release back on August 14, 2013, dissed trade missions: “At this time like this, it’s only responsible to look critically at all spending decisions, particularly trade missions that come with such a steep price tag.”

Is this the philosophy that we currently have? You only need to look at what’s happening next door and the relationship we currently have with Alberta. This day, today, they are currently debating whether or not to carry on with further trade actions against British Columbia. How is that in the benefit of supporting people?

We have members of the NDP and past members of the NDP that actually boasted about voting against things like NAFTA. She stood and voted against NAFTA. That’s not about improving people’s lives; it’s about politics.

Study after study show that issues like…. For women, they live healthier, longer and more independently in countries with high levels of economic freedom. You start blocking off economic freedom, and you start actually hurting people. Economic expansion and a free economy have contributed greatly to the quality of life and improvements worldwide. The amount of people that have been lifted out of poverty and the benefits that have happened over the last 50 years, predominantly through trade, has been phenomenal, and energy plays a key role in that. It plays a key role.

[11:05 a.m.]

I quote from a report called “Energy, EROI and Quality of Life.” EROI is the energy return on investment. It says:

“Humanitarian efforts continue to focus on poverty reduction programs — example: health and education. Our results suggest that the metrics of societal well-being and per-capita net energy available to society appears to be linked. Policies developed with the purpose of improving the human condition within a society may have little impact on society’s well-being without accompanying increases in per-capita net energy delivery to that society.”

When you’re talking about trade and the ability to move goods, you’re talking about….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Rustad: You’re talking about the ability to be able to move energy…

Deputy Speaker: Member, time is up.

J. Rustad: …and that is exactly what we need to be thinking about.

Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you.

J. Rustad: Thank you for ending my time early, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: No, the red light was on.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you challenging the Chair’s ruling?

J. Rustad: Sorry?

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine. Thank you.

R. Glumac: B.C. has an economy that relies heavily on trade, yet we live in a time where these mutually beneficial trade deals are being ignored or they’re being used for political advantage by our neighbouring jurisdictions. Let’s take one example — our good friend to the south, Donald Trump. He sees problems, legitimate problems, in the U.S. job sector and targets these trade deals as the source of the problem. He stated, but I can’t do the impersonation: “NAFTA is the worst deal, one of the worst deals our country has ever made from an economic standpoint — one of the worst deals ever.”

I’ve not met many people that agree with very much of what Donald Trump says, especially this particular comment. There’s almost universal agreement among economists that NAFTA has been mutually beneficial to all three countries, yet we’re still faced here with the ramifications of his actions.

North American trade has grown considerably since the implementation of NAFTA. It was $290 billion in 1993 and over $1.1 trillion today. Some 14 million American jobs depend on trade with Canada. In my time in government so far, I have also encountered almost universal support of strong and stable trade agreements.

For example, as the government’s representative to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER, which represents five states and five provinces…. There was uniform agreement about the importance of NAFTA. All ten jurisdictions signed on to a letter that stated that PNWER members encouraged their federal governments to strive towards a modernized NAFTA that builds upon its current success to further enhance trade and investment in North America.

In 2016, the two-way trade within the PNWER region was $29 billion, supporting jobs linked through various integrated regional supply chains, with $9.3 billion in goods and services exported to Canadian PNWER jurisdictions from U.S. PNWER jurisdictions, and $19.7 billion exported from Canadian PNWER jurisdictions to U.S. PNWER jurisdictions.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Technology, I can say with confidence that there is strong support in the tech sector. There’s currently $1.3 billion of high-tech goods being exported from B.C. and $4.5 billion of high-tech services. The Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology is working together with other ministries to increase export opportunities as a means of creating long-term jobs and growing the economy.

For example, we are working with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development to expand efforts to market manufactured wood products to world markets. Under the previous government, we know that we’ve lost 30,000 jobs in the forestry industry. We want to bring those jobs back.

We’re also working with the Minister of Agriculture to promote B.C. food and agricultural exports, especially to growing markets in the Asia-Pacific. And we have a growing network of trade and investment representatives throughout the world that are working to secure export agreements for B.C. goods and services in new markets.

[11:10 a.m.]

I support the motion today. But I don’t agree with other jurisdictions that walk away from these mutually beneficial agreements strictly for political advantage, whether that be Donald Trump to the south or Rachel Notley to the east. In B.C., we will continue to stand up for our economy and our environment, and we acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships and the benefits of diversifying trade.

T. Wat: I rise in the House today to speak in support of free trade and its many benefits for our provincial economy. Here in British Columbia, we take a lot of pride in the great variety of high-quality goods that we produce for local consumers and export abroad. Commodities like wood products, agricultural foods, fish and seafood, machinery and equipment, and metallic mineral products are in high demand.

In 2016, when the previous government was in power, total B.C. goods exported worldwide rose to almost $40 billion. That represented an increase of 9.8 percent over 2015, 20.8 percent over 2011 and 56 percent over 2009 to when the NDP was in government.

It’s worth noting, however, that events south of the border and around the world have created uncertainty. With that in mind, the diversification of our economy has never been more important. That is why our former government worked so hard with the private sector and with workers and families in British Columbia to develop and maintain our Asia-Pacific partnerships.

These markets, in particular, continue to grow, and they provide significant opportunity for B.C. trade and investment. Canada’s recent signing of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership or CPTPP is another important step in that relationship building. It is one of the largest free trade agreements in the world. It removes trade barriers and provides preferential market access for B.C. goods and services. Ultimately, it will increase investment and create new jobs and opportunities for many British Columbians.

With all these positives in mind, you would expect this government to be publicly declaring its support of the CPTPP. But so far, they have remained silent. We do know that their counterparts at the federal level have been vocal in their opposition to the agreement, saying no to jobs and the working people. And if we look back to when the members across the way were in opposition, we see many examples where they have spoken out against free trade, whether it be NAFTA, TILMA or our former government’s trade mission to Asia.

Meantime, instead of creating a level playing field for B.C. business to compete on a global scale, many obstacles have been put in their path to success. We saw a budget update in September that raised corporation tax, raised the carbon tax and removed its neutrality. We just saw this government’s first full budget in February that replaced MSP premiums with a surprise and crippling employers health tax. Since then, we have relayed numerous concerns to this House from business owners across B.C. who tell us how this payroll tax will hinder them from hiring staff or potentially even cause layoffs or price hikes for their customers.

What’s more, B.C. got tangled up in a trade war with Alberta that didn’t need to happen — over a pipeline that has already received federal approval. Alberta banned B.C. wines, hurting our agricultural industry and our economy. While Alberta has called off their ban, this government is now musing about taking further actions against British Columbia that could hurt our economy and our people. They are doing it today.

When you look at all of these different events I’ve just described, a pattern of uncertainty emerges, a pattern that chips away at our competitive advantage. It makes investors wonder whether British Columbia is still a good place to do business. It puts investment and trade at risk. It puts our economy at risk. It puts the future of B.C. workers at risk.

[11:15 a.m.]

As the former Minister of International Trade and now the Trade critic, I know all too well that a reputation takes years to build but moments to destroy. I urge the current government to support free trade with action in order to grow B.C.’s economy and support the men and women who have worked so hard to build it.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be speaking to the motion today to recognize the importance of strong trading relationships and the benefits of diversifying trade. We know the record of the previous government. It was a near-constant refrain about everything. All of our economic development in B.C. was dependent on liquefied natural gas, basically putting all their eggs in that basket while ignoring other sectors of the economy.

Our government recognizes, really, the diverse nature of our economy and the need to support that. We know under the old government — what was the record? — 30,000 good forestry jobs were lost, 100 mills were shut down. As well, the softwood lumber deal expired under the tenure of the previous government, and no efforts to travel to Washington to get a deal.

We know that the importance of our diverse economy — in particular, our manufacturing centre — is key. Our manufacturing sector contributes 7.2 percent of our GDP, which equates to $16 billion for B.C.’s economy. According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, manufacturing is an important driver of our economy. B.C. is the third-largest economy dependent on manufacturing and the third-largest output for manufacturing in our country. The largest source of employment, it directly provides 180,000 jobs and indirectly supports hundreds of thousands more jobs. For every dollar generated by a manufacturer, there’s a multiplier effect of another $3.50 in economic activity that results in benefiting local B.C. communities.

We know that the wages in the manufacturing sector are 15 percent higher than the overall average for other industries. The sector contributes 30 percent of business taxes. As well, our exports — 67 percent, two-thirds — are manufactured goods. Certainly, it’s a growing sector. We know that…. In terms of our government and our support for manufacturing, we recognize that for companies to be successful, they need support in terms of trained workers, and our world-class post-secondary education provides highly skilled workers.

B.C. is well situated in terms of having global access, with respect to our strategic location on the West Coast and our efficient transportation and communication systems. As well, it’s an important consideration that our government ensures that we have a very competitive environment to ensure that manufacturers are successful.

I want to talk specifically about some key initiatives led by our government to support this sector. We have, under the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party caucus, appointed an innovation commissioner, Alan Winter, to be the point person to lead on ensuring that innovation is supported and companies are successful in B.C.

As well, we have expanded the mandate for, previously, the B.C. Innovation Council. It’s renamed Innovate B.C., and it’s a main agency now for tech businesses to build capacity to reach global markets, attract new investment and access start-up capital.

We have, as well, the announcement, very exciting, in terms of the B.C.-based digital technology supercluster, which is a successful recipient — one of the five winning bidders in the federal government’s innovation supercluster initiative. This will provide support and ensure that British Columbia is competitive and able to access and leverage not only funding but also support for the network of industries as well.

We have a very dynamic sector. We have life sciences, transportation, agrifoods, clean technology, tourism, film, TV and digital media, forestry, mining, international education, technology — a very dynamic sector.

[11:20 a.m.]

Our government, supported by the Green caucus, has taken initiative to ensure that we are competitive. We are building relationships with our Cascadia Innovation Corridor, with our trading partner in Washington, to ensure that B.C.’s economy is strong and works for British Columbians.

D. Barnett: I rise today in support of the member’s motion that cares for those that live in the Cariboo.

As you have heard me say time and time again in this House, my riding is the proud host to our province’s most prolific farms and cattle herds. The agriculture sector serves the province in many ways — by feeding our citizens, by providing jobs and by bolstering our economy through trade with our neighbours.

The Cariboo is one of the last intact temperate grasslands in the world. This ecosystem can be maintained through carefully managed livestock grazing, which makes the industry sustainable. This, of course, brings me to the people behind agriculture. These operations are often passed from one generation to another, making farming an act of heritage and of community. The people who work in the industry love the industry. They have worked through droughts, through forest fires and through uncertain markets — all for the tremendous love of the work. I am delighted whenever the ranchers in my community are rewarded for their hard work and sacrifice.

British Columbia’s sectors are all integrated and are all kept healthy through steady trade. One of the reasons that our province has been considered so prosperous is because of these transparent and fairly negotiated trade deals. These deals are made on behalf of our citizens for their benefit. They protect and guide British Columbians through national and international trade deals.

Our province has approximately 5 percent of the national beef herd, which is supplied to local, national and international markets. Approximately 45,000 B.C. cattle are sold directly as beef into the local market annually, and many more are sold to Alberta’s feedlot and finishing industry before, in turn, joining domestic and international markets. These markets include China and Japan, which have become Canada’s second- and third-largest export markets. It’s amazing to think of the beef raised here in B.C. being enjoyed by families on the other side of the world.

Free trade agreements allow us to further build upon B.C.’s already strong Asia-Pacific ties while simultaneously capitalizing on our own established industries. It’s amazing to think of what expanded market access would mean to B.C. cattle ranchers as they are able to meet the need of other countries.

There are just over 4,000 cattle ranchers in our province, with the industry employing some 8,700 people and contributing an estimated $600 million to the province’s economy annually.

Free trade agreements foster economic growth at both the community and national levels, and that’s why I support this motion.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to rise in this House today to respond to the trade motion introduced by the member for Nechako Lakes. The motion reads as follows: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships with its neighbours and the benefits of diversifying trade through supporting Canadian Free Trade Agreements.”

In my respectful and unbiased opinion, I believe that all members on both sides of this House believe that diversifying trade through supporting trade agreements and strengthening our relationship with our trading partners is critical to growing our economy.

We are all committed to doing that, but there’s a difference between us and them. The difference is that the members on the other side of the House and the members on this side of the House have a different approach and a different purpose for diversifying trade and strengthening relationships with our trading partners.

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s why I think it’s very important for us to debate this motion. This is really important for the people who are watching TV, watching this debate, to understand how our approach is better for the people of British Columbia than the approach of the previous administration. Our government is building strong trading relationships and diversifying B.C.’s exports to build a better B.C., to make life more affordable, to improve the services you count on and to build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every part of the province.

Our government wants a better B.C. for each and every person in this province, whereas the members on the other side of the House made bad choices on these trade agreements for 16 long years. To be fair, they did diversify B.C.’s exports, but their focus was to benefit only the top 2 percent of the wealthy people of this province. For example, the result of the diversification of raw logs under the previous administration was that 30,000 British Columbians lost good forestry jobs and 100 mills were closed.

There is a difference between the members on the other side of the House and the members on this side of the House. They made efforts to diversify B.C.’s exports to benefit the top 2 percent, and we are doing it to build a better B.C. for each and every person in this province. That’s the difference.

Our government has done more during the first seven months than the previous administration did in many years. Our Premier has recently led a very successful trade mission to China, Korea and Japan. These three countries are B.C.’s second-, third- and fourth-largest trading partners. During this trade mission to China, Korea and Japan, we promoted many sectors of B.C.’s economy, such as tourism, wineries, wood products and our tech sector.

We are committed to building on our strong relationships with Asia and connecting B.C. businesses to new international markets. The previous administration let the softwood lumber deal expire and refused to go to Washington to get a deal. Unlike the previous administration, our Premier was willing to go to Washington and fight for a deal on softwood lumber. We stand up to support B.C. businesses and fight for better trade deals. The previous administration, on the other hand, made bad choices by giving up too early on that issue.

Our government has also extended the export navigator pilot program for another six months to help more small business owners and entrepreneurs develop export capacity and gain access to new markets. Our government is fully committed to building lasting relationships with our trading partners that help B.C. businesses grow and prosper. We do that to build a better B.C. for each and every person in this province. That’s the difference between us and them.

G. Kyllo: I’m absolutely amazed by the comments from the member opposite when he talks about relationships. In less than eight months, what the new government has actually done is destroy relationships with our closest trading partner, Alberta, and caused lots of grief as far as the relationship we had with our federal government. These are things that should be extremely concerning to British Columbians.

Now, when it comes to the global economy, British Columbia proves that while we may be little, we are fierce, we are innovative, we’re daring, and we’re constantly growing. Our industries are flexible and resilient, adapting to whatever the world throws at us. We have weathered economic storms which grow in intensity as the world becomes increasingly globalized. Now, in order to press forward, rather than being left behind, we must turn our gaze outwards and aggressively pursue export markets.

As a former president and CEO of a family-run business here in B.C., I understand and appreciate the positive benefits that can float a company from the pursuit of export markets. In the case of my houseboat manufacturing company, we looked to export markets south of the border and were able to experience exponential growth in sales, whereby upwards of 75 percent of our products were shipped Stateside. This growth in international sales provided us with the ability to expand our production facility and hire over 70 new tradespeople to meet growing demand for our products.

[11:30 a.m.]

Fostering strong relationships is of critical importance, and that applies at all levels. At the local level, it’s important for business owners to foster good relationships within our communities. Just as importantly, our governments must also work together to build relationships and to secure and support free trade agreements at the international level. These ties allow British Columbian businesses to access niche markets, supporting industries that would not be able to thrive on a strictly local scale. On the whole, these agreements create and maintain strong, respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with our neighbours and contribute to the success and vibrancy of both local and global markets.

I know this is something our former B.C. Liberal government recognized and why we worked hard to create new opportunities for B.C. business. The results speak for themselves. In 2016, B.C.’s exports of goods totalled nearly $40 billion. This represents a nearly 10 percent increase over the previous year and a remarkable 56 percent increase since 2009. This kind of growth does not happen on its own.

Members opposite, I encourage you to take note. It requires a government that is committed to supporting businesses in this province — a commitment that I know members on this side of the House have never wavered on. As I mentioned previously, a big part of supporting B.C. businesses is helping to ensure that they remain competitive. It comes as no surprise that the taxes a government imposes can have a huge impact on that competitive edge, which is why this government’s recent tax changes give me cause for concern. Despite the current government inheriting a near $2.7 billion surplus on taking office, they still chose to hike corporate taxes — truly perplexing.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, let’s keep the remarks relevant to the motion, please.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Here we have it: a $2.7 billion surplus last year yet still a need to raise taxes. These increases in taxes have a significant impact in reducing the competitiveness of B.C. business. Yet in the spring, we saw more obstacles in economic competitiveness, including minimum-wage increases and a surprise employer health tax.

Business owners are concerned. I’m receiving lots of letters and communications from employers. I’m sure that the members opposite are as well, but they certainly will not stand up in this House and actually speak and represent businesses within their own communities that are having significant concerns with respect to this increased taxation.

Interjections.

G. Kyllo: Lots of heckling from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the economic success that we have enjoyed as a province is contingent upon the competitive advantage that businesses have here in B.C., but as we see this competitiveness being chipped away before our eyes, I can’t help but wonder why government is punishing B.C. businesses by destroying their competitiveness. In order for B.C. businesses to be successful in pursuing export markets, governments must ensure that they have a competitive tax framework from which to participate. I once again call on government and members opposite to support businesses and support the relationships that allow them to thrive.

A. Kang: Today’s motion is: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships with its neighbours and the benefits of diversifying trade through supporting Canadian Free Trade Agreements.”

The member for Nechako Lakes brings up a really good point: that our province needs to diversify trade. For too long, the old government put all their eggs in the LNG basket, while ignoring other sectors of the economy. This government is doing something differently.

Our Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is making considerable effort in supporting our tourism sector — a sector that builds on a strong and sustainable economy and good jobs for people in the communities across our province. Tourism is a bigger industry than people think and understand, and it’s definitely one of the most exciting aspects of our economy. After all, who would say no to a good vacation? Tourism creates jobs that support families. These are jobs related to lodging, food and beverage, transportation and more. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced, as they are tied to our British Columbian identity.

[11:35 a.m.]

Trade is so important for the B.C. economy. It is represented through the sales of both goods and services. That’s why it is so important to market B.C. as a destination for travellers, both nationwide and worldwide.

When my family and friends have visited B.C., they would ask me: “What can we do in B.C.?” and “Where could we go to get a unique B.C. experience?” I would say: “Well, why don’t you visit the Kootenays and experience the charms and attractions, whether it’s beautiful snow-peaked mountains for skiing and winter sports or the breathtaking outdoor experience? And what about the beautiful beaches of Tofino? And the beautiful scenery of Victoria?” By the end of those trips, they were grinning from ear to ear, showing everyone their pictures and planning their next trip back to B.C.

Promoting these types of visits to B.C. is a key to building good jobs in our communities. Last week the minister also announced the new minister’s tourism engagement council, an advisory group of industry experts from across the tourism sector. It is looking for representatives from arts, sports and other areas that contribute to B.C.’s tourism vitality. I want to take this opportunity to encourage people in the tourism industry who are interested in participating to apply to help provide the ministry with expert advice on tourism policy.

The minister also announced a new marketing campaign to promote and support wine and food tourism in B.C. The first campaign aims both to encourage B.C. residents to add wine-touring to their 2018 vacation plans. The second campaign will encourage international tourists to visit B.C.’s world-class wine and culinary destinations. This campaign will of course also benefit our agricultural industries, and it is an exciting lead-up to B.C. Wine Month, in April.

Tourism is such an important aspect of trade, and I love talking about it. It helps create the brand that not only attracts film productions like Once Upon a Time, Smallville and one ever my favourites, Stargate, to come to the province, but it also helps attract talent from around the world that want to live in our beautiful province of B.C.

My daughter is in grade 5 right now, and I can just imagine this conversation between her and her friend. “My mom is an MLA who works in Victoria.” The other says: “Well, my mom is the blue fairy that is shown in Once Upon a Time.” They will look at each other. “All right, you win, so I lose.” Once Upon a Time and the film industry — this is one of the great makings in our province. Last month I visited Canadian Motion Picture and Bridge Studios. The producers and the CEOs talked about why so many productions choose B.C. as one of their number one destinations to shoot.

Tourism also reminds us of the importance of protecting our agriculture sector, our outdoors and our beautiful natural industry. By investing in our tourism industry, by building our identity and brand of B.C. — what it means to British Columbians is we are helping to support our local small businesses and helping to diversify trade.

Our province has also welcomed trade with open arms, whether they are domestic or international partners. Our recent trade mission to Asia, which my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood just spoke about, is another excellent example of our work to promote tourism. These are important steps to support good jobs for people in our tourism industry and to build strong and diversified trade relationships. By building strong relationships with our partners, we are supporting a growing economy with good-paying jobs here in British Columbia.

D. Davies: There’s a lot to talk about in this morning’s motion — talking about the importance of our export economy and free trade agreements that facilitate job growth in British Columbia and, more importantly, the ability for this government to deliver the incredible services that all B.C.’ers rely on.

My riding is Peace River North — located, of course, in northeastern British Columbia. Most people think of the oil and gas sector when they think of my area. However, as I’ve mentioned previously in this House, you’d be surprised that one-third of the total farmland is located in my riding in British Columbia.

This means that we are just as much an agriculture community as we are an energy centre. And I’ll tell you, it also means that we in my region are pretty darn reliant on trade within this province and within our country. We are, in fact, the breadbasket of British Columbia, producing 90 percent of B.C.’s grain and 95 percent of B.C.’s canola crop.

[11:40 a.m.]

As I’m sure that you’re aware, canola stands for Canada oil. It was actually considered, in Canada and by the allies, as a substitute plant-based lubricant during the Second World War when oil was in shortage. Our agricultural industry in my riding relies very heavily on trade within Canada and around the world.

That small piece of trivia is a great segue into the importance of the oil and gas sector in my riding, particularly all of northeastern British Columbia. The history of B.C.’s natural gas and crude oil sector can be traced back to over a hundred years ago. Natural gas was first commercially produced in Pouce Coupe, a small community just outside of Dawson Creek, to supply natural gas into Dawson Creek.

Oil was discovered near Fort St. John in 1951, which marked a new stage in industry growth in my area, including the construction of the McMahon refinery in Taylor. While the production of oil in British Columbia averages around 21,000 barrels a day, it actually represents less than 1 percent of Canada’s total oil production. We are, therefore, very much dependent on our neighbours, as most of our petroleum comes from Alberta. In fact, 90 percent of the fuel that is consumed in British Columbia comes from that province.

Fortunately for us, the Canadian free trade agreement came into force July 1 of 2017. The CFTA strengthens and modernizes the former agreement on internal trade and helps clarify the free flow of commerce between the provinces and our territories. Crucially, the CFTA introduces important advancements into Canada’s internal trade framework. It also eliminates technical barriers of trade, greatly expands procurement coverage and promotes regulatory cooperation in Canada.

With all of that going for us, it comes as a great surprise when we’ve recently heard the Alberta throne speech that singled out B.C. for not playing nice in the Canadian sandbox. I would quote a little piece from that throne speech in the Alberta Legislature: “The dispute British Columbia has triggered with its attack on Canadian workers will not stand. We won’t let it. We have been vigilant in defending our workers, and we will remain vigilant. When the city of Burnaby tried to block the Trans Mountain pipeline in court, your government” — speaking of Alberta — “intervened. When the government of British Columbia tried to overstep its authority and regulate something it has no right to regulate, your government stepped in. We shut down talks about electricity sales to British Columbia.”

The Alberta throne speech goes on to say: “A task force of experts and notable Canadians will provide us with the best possible advice. Some people have asked how far we’ll go, and today we affirm we’ll do whatever it takes.” I could be wrong, but it sounds like those are fighting words from the Alberta government to the province of British Columbia.

Interestingly, I think that they will be debating this week about the flow of bitumen in the Trans Mountain pipeline. This is unprecedented and does not bode well for the economic well-being of British Columbia, nor does it bode well for the economic well-being of all Canadians and the workers that work in the oil and gas industry in my riding.

Therefore, I fully support this motion and hope it will encourage the government of British Columbia to work with greater cooperation with our neighbours in Alberta, and with our neighbours all over Canada, and not build their own trade wall.

L. Krog: I love to hear the sweet words of the member for Peace River North. I think he just encouraged us to make love and not war in Canada — a child of the ’60s, no doubt.

Now, we started this morning with a motion: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships with its neighbours and the benefits of diversifying trade through supporting Canadian Free Trade Agreements.”

I notice the member for Nechako Lakes used the term “agreements,” so it’s given this Legislature this morning the wide latitude to talk about all kinds of trade agreements, which doesn’t confine us to the Canadian free trade agreement, which came into effect last year. So I feel free to stretch this a little bit.

[11:45 a.m.]

Now, the member for Nechako Lakes started off kind of harsh, and then he got kind of soft, and then he said something that is profoundly true — profoundly true. He said: “It’s about politics.” Yes, shocking. This morning’s motion is about politics. Because of the language he used, it was made very evident.

In fairness, when he got soft in the middle, he did talk about the trade mission which this government undertook to the Far East, but he started off by referring to the Premier going down to Washington, of course, as a junket. One goes to Washington for junkets and to the Far East for trade, I guess. Given the announcements made recently by the U.S. President, I’d suggest it’s fairly apparent that trade is important in Washington as well. It’s not just about junkets.

Now, many members this morning have mentioned the phrase “eggs in one basket” and talked about liquid natural gas. Some of us do remember the former Premier’s promise. I think it was a $100 billion prosperity fund, the elimination of provincial debt and all those good things. I just remember the sage words of Andrew Carnegie, who had a monopoly on steel production in the United States under U.S. Steel and who said very wisely one time: “Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.”

Well, in a world governed by trade agreements, we don’t get to do that anymore. We work in regulated economies around the free world that enable us to engage in the trade that brings us prosperity.

After all, in the history of this province, we think of the great Alexander Mackenzie traversing this country, the first from Canada by land. But of course, Alexander Mackenzie only followed the grease trail established by the Indigenous peoples of this country in order for them to accomplish and achieve their own trading goals and desires by seeing goods, services and food substances passed back and forth.

When the opposition — who used to be the government for 16 long years, as we’ll recall — attacks the government for not doing enough about trade, I think it doesn’t really lie in their mouths to talk about it when you consider the missions that have already been undertaken by this government.

I think particularly of the Minister of Trade and Technology, himself, and the Premier going down to Washington to defend our forest industry, which this former government over there watched disappear, virtually, from being the signal symbol of British Columbia’s historic prosperity to an industry that now faces enormous struggles internationally as well — save and except for the glories of the U.S. housing market, which has given a boost to our lumber.

What I want to say about trade this morning is that I’m proud of this government’s record. In 33 short weeks, we’ve made a number of remarkable approaches to expand and create further trade around the province and in the country, notwithstanding the difficulties with the province of Alberta, which will get ironed out, and notwithstanding the Liberals’ reference to it as a sandbox fight.

We know that the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology…. Their service plan was working towards opening and expanding priority markets for B.C. goods and services, because what we produce here in B.C. is valuable and important.

People around the world want it, whether it’s agriproducts, which are becoming a significant force in the British Columbia economy; whether it’s our wine; whether it’s manufactured goods; or whether it’s the high-tech sector in this province, which has recently received a significant boost with the appointment of Alan Winter to his position, one of the most respected people in the province, who’s going to give us further opportunities to expand that trade.

So I’m delighted this morning that the member for Nechako Lakes brought this resolution to the House. We acknowledge the importance of strong trading relationships. We support strong trading relationships. We want to expand our trading relationships. We want to create the kind of prosperity that’ll see workers in British Columbia working all around this province, but not just only in the resource sector.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion in support of trade. It gives me greater pleasure to stand here today in this place representing the riding of Kelowna West, the riding that greatly benefits from trade agreements both internationally and interprovincially.

As British Columbia’s former special representative in Asia, this is a topic that I am well versed in. It was my role to act as the province’s official, on-the-ground representative in Asia to further strengthen British Columbia’s government-to-government relations in the region. The most important part of that was fostering trade relationships. It was my job to show how B.C. could benefit the world.

[11:50 a.m.]

Thankfully, the veritable cornucopia of fantastic products, resources and industries in B.C. helped to make my job much easier. In this globalized world of diversified economy, it is a key to success. Recent times have clearly demonstrated the problems with relying on a single trade partner for our goods. As protectionist policy continues to thrive to our southern border, British Columbia and Canada cannot allow their economy to be held hostage by a bombastic “America first” rhetoric. How? Free trade is the answer.

In 2016, B.C. exports totalled $39.4 billion, a 56.3 percent increase over 2009 numbers. Of those exports, $21.2 billion were to the U.S. However, thanks to efforts to diversify our markets, our exports to other countries have grown rapidly. Between 2009 and 2016, our exports to China increased by 145 percent; in India, a staggering 946 percent. In less than a decade, we have vastly improved our standing in emerging markets by fostering these trade relationships.

We currently have 14 offices in Southeast Asia to promote trade. I personally oversaw the introduction of B.C. cherries and blueberries to China and Korea and hothouse peppers to Japan — a simple action by the Japanese government that increased trade by over $60 million per annum for our greenhouse industries, with cherries into Japan soon to follow.

One of the first things anyone looks for in a potential trading partner is stability. The certainty of outcomes and the stability of decision-makers are of vital importance, but the status quo has changed in B.C. for now. We find ourselves in turbulent times, with isolationist tendencies in the U.S., NAFTA at stake and a fragile majority government led by a party that has never met a trade deal that it liked.

In 1993, the now Government House Leader publicly voiced his opposition to NAFTA. In 2009, the now Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources commented on the new TILMA agreement between B.C. and Alberta, saying of free trade: “It’s not the people who benefit; it’s the corporations. It’s not about communities; it’s about the corporations.” In 2013, the now Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology said that we should look critically at trade missions. This is exactly what the Premier was talking about in January when he said that the NDP will have to set aside its activism and start being better administrators.

Well, I don’t see this as having happened. We have a Minister of Agriculture so preoccupied with farmers markets that she misses the big picture and a Finance Minister who’s set her sights on increasing costs to businesses across our province. We have a government that starts petty trade wars with Alberta.

To paraphrase an Elizabethan poet, John Donne:

No province is an island entire to itself; every province

is a piece of the country, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Canada

is the less, as well as if a promontory were,

as well as any manner of thy territories.

Any province’s misfortune diminishes me,

because I am involved in Confederation.

And therefore, never send to know for whom

the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

No province is an island, and our government seems intent on making it so. Personally, I think we’re all in this together. I stand before the House today, proud of what we’ve accomplished, proud of our trade agreements, proud of free trade and proud to be a Canadian.

On that note, I move adjournment of debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Courtenay-Comox.

Member, hold it. Sorry, I missed it.

The member has already moved the motion. Is the member going to rescind? We have one more speaker.

B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll rescind that motion.

R. Leonard: With thanks to the member, I’d like to pay tribute to the hard work, the ingenuity and the gutsy attitude of small businesses — small businesses who can benefit from the opportunities and the protections that free trade agreements are intended to provide.

[11:55 a.m.]

After all, in B.C., one in five jobs is generated through trade, and $39 billion worth of goods were sold globally in 2016. Small business represents 98 percent of all businesses in B.C., and collectively, they create over a million jobs. In 2015, there were 388,500 small businesses in B.C., with over 80 percent operating with less than five employees.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This government is working to build a strong economy in every corner of the province, where small businesses thrive, workers have well-paying jobs and people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. With the kind of statistics I’ve just outlined, it is clear that supporting small businesses to succeed, first at home and then on to distant horizons, will mean a better B.C. for everyone.

The Canadian free trade agreement website outlines the top five benefits of the new deal. I’d like to focus on the benefit to local businesses. To quote the CFTA, it “will help Canadian businesses scale up at home so they can more effectively compete globally.”

May the House please consider the recent rollout of the Ministry of Agriculture’s $5 million fruit tree competitiveness fund. Family-run orchards and the sector as a whole will be supported to modernize their practices and share their oh-so-delicious apples, cherries and other fruits with more customers at home and around the world. The fund’s three key focuses include research on cultivars and disease and pest management; new infrastructure; and export-market opportunities and market-development research. By the way, the fund will also help with the successful replant program, which I’m sure that the member for Penticton, opposite, will appreciate.

We’re talking about 800 growers, who produced nearly 129,000 metric tonnes of fruit in 2016, worth $116 million. This sector is challenged in the marketplace, and this fund is shining a light to a bright future for the fruit tree sector at home and abroad.

I’d also like to highlight the successful export navigator program. Thirty-six agribusinesses, 21 manufacturers, consumer goods and clean tech businesses topped the more than 100 B.C. businesses that were helped to navigate the export process and access the right services to expand their local businesses and create new, well-paying jobs in their communities. Six regional advisers are on the job throughout B.C., including in my home, the Comox Valley, where the program was originally developed by the province, in partnership with Small Business B.C., federally funded Community Futures offices and the Comox Valley Economic Development Society.

It’s so important that all sides of the House stand up for our local businesses that are competing in the national and international markets. This is why our government is helping all B.C. export businesses to diversify and expand into new markets worldwide.

As I sail across the Salish Sea on a ferry or fly over our snow-capped mountains and lush valleys, I continue to be in awe of the vast beauty of British Columbia that we are entrusted to steward. As we move further into the 21st century and strive towards a more sustainable low-carbon economy, it is critical that we support our local businesses to innovate, embrace technology and diversify so that our businesses and economy are better placed to withstand whatever challenges the future may hold.

I am confident that this government is on the job to help us along that path, to support the people of this province and to build a strong and sustainable B.C.

R. Leonard moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.