Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF B.C.
AS CANADA’S PACIFIC GATEWAY

B. Stewart: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to move a private member’s statement today for this House to recognize the importance of British Columbia as Canada’s Pacific Gateway. As British Columbia’s former special representative in Asia, this is a topic in which I am well-versed — to act in my role as the province’s official on-the-ground representative in Asia and to further strengthen B.C. government-to-government relations in the region.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The most important part of this was to maintain good relations with countries and companies in fostering trade relationships. Selling B.C. isn’t that hard thanks to the incredible resources, products and industries that we have in this province, as well as the indelible memories that people have from visiting here.

However, none of what we’ve accomplished would have been possible without the groundwork laid decades ago. It was former Premier Bill Bennett who opened up Canada’s Pacific Gateway by putting British Columbia on the radar in Asian markets. He took the unique step, as a provincial leader, of meeting with a foreign head of government. This meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan set in motion everything that has led us to where we are at today.

Bennett, along with Don Phillips, made the bold move of establishing a B.C. trade office in Tokyo, Japan. By making a full-time commitment to trade relations, this showed Japan that we were serious. This was B.C.’s first foray on its own into the world of international trade.

In the late 1980s, Canada began pursuing and adopting a series of free trade agreements. The effective tariff rates on imports gradually came down over this period, from 3½ percent in 1988 to around 1 percent today.

In 2007, under Premier Gordon Campbell, B.C. became the first province to release an Asian strategy. This Asia-Pacific initiative highlighted the importance of Asia for the future of the province and the need to build on its strong economic, cultural and personal ties with Asia to boost B.C.’s economic prosperity. The goal was to increase trade, investment and knowledge cooperation, mainly with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia.

In 2011, the province released Canada Starts Here: The B.C. Jobs Plan. The plan emphasized Asia’s potential to help shape our province’s prosperity, and it made the expansion of market access for its products and services, particularly in Asia, its third pillar.

Building on these two initiatives, the province released the B.C. Jobs Plan Trade Strategy: Raising Our Game in Asia in 2015. This set out a plan to diversify and strengthen our province’s trade in Asian markets. The strategy’s three goals were to increase the number of B.C. companies that export to Asia; to increase investments to make B.C. sectors competitive; and to reduce barriers that impede the flow of goods, services, investment and people between B.C. and Asia.

[10:10 a.m.]

That lone trade office in Japan is now joined by offices in China, India, South Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines. In 2016, B.C.’s goods exports were $39.4 billion — an increase of 9.8 percent over 2015, 20.8 percent over 2011 and 56.3 percent since 2009.

While B.C. trade remains oriented to the U.S. at 51 percent in 2017, this is changing fast. That is down from 54 percent in 2016. By contrast, the share of trade with the Asia-Pacific region is rising. In 2017, the share of Asia-Pacific was up nearly 40 percent, up from around 25 percent in 2000. B.C. sends far more of its exports to the region than any other province. Thanks to these increases in exports to Asia, the stagnation of exports to Europe in recent years was offset.

B.C.’s top exports in 2017 were…. Natural resources, wood products, pulp and paper, metallic minerals and energy alone accounted for nearly 70 percent of B.C.’s total exports. Agriculture and fisheries are also significant exports on top of these. These exports, directly and indirectly, accounted for more than 2.9 million jobs in Canada in 2011, according to Statistics Canada, or 16.7 percent of all employment.

How has B.C. managed to come so far? It’s simple. On top of labour market stability, B.C. has the best products, the best people and best commitment. When we put our minds to something, we’re in it for the long haul.

I remember a few years ago when bureaucrats in China made some regulatory amendments which resulted in a ban on Canadian spot prawns. This wasn’t a shot across our bow. It was just a boring regulatory update that suddenly put our prawn industry into jeopardy.

What did we do? We worked with the embassy. We called Ottawa. We set up meetings with the ministries and the AQSIQ, which is the equivalent of CFIA in China.

Through the great relationships that we developed and the fact that we were alerted to the problem quickly by our exporters and the networks we had built up over the years of working together, we got over the impasse. China announced exemptions for Canadian spot prawns. That is the value and the commitment to trade — not just the economic benefits but the relationships.

In Japan, the world’s largest consumer of haskap berries, they were running low on labour and producers due to an aging population. Emi Kelver, who works in our trade office in Tokyo, identified the supply issue. Today Monte Creek Ranch in Kamloops is now among several B.C. producers working to grow haskap berries to help meet that demand for the future. This is the value of our commitment to trade.

J. Rice: Thank you to the member for Kelowna West for his comments. I appreciate his expertise and experience and the little bit of history that we’ve learned about Canada’s Pacific Gateway.

B.C. is Canada’s export gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. The Pacific Gateway initiative has been an initiative with multiple levels of government and the private sector to improve trade-related infrastructure. Our largest trading partner is still the United States, which is the destination for 51 percent of our exports. B.C.-origin exports to the Pacific Rim were $16.2 billion last year, 37 percent of all B.C. exports. In the last ten years, it’s grown by 52 percent.

[10:15 a.m.]

That is why our government is committed to creating strong, sustainable relationships with Asia. In January, our Premier and Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Technology; Minister of Tourism; and Minister of State for Trade went on trade missions to China, Korea and Japan — our second-, third- and fourth-largest trading partners.

During these meetings, our government promoted many sectors of B.C.’s economy, such as tourism, wineries, wood products and our tech sector. These meetings included several bilateral discussions with the goal of deepening existing relationships. The former government put all its eggs in the LNG basket while ignoring other sectors of our economy, but by building strong relationships with our partners abroad, we’re supporting a growing, diverse economy with good-paying jobs here in B.C. and connecting B.C. businesses to new markets abroad.

B.C. goods exports to China totalled $5.9 billion in 2016, making China B.C.’s second-largest export market. China was also Canada’s second-largest export destination, with 4.3 percent of Canadian goods shipped there. The 2018 Canada-China Year of Tourism is an initiative launched by the governments of Canada and China to celebrate and promote tourism opportunities.

China is a burgeoning market for tourism, with a 22 percent increase in overnight visits to B.C. in 2016 over 2015. Tourism visits to British Columbia from residents of China, South Korea and Japan in 2016 were: mainland China, over 312,000 overnight customs entries. This has more than tripled since 2009, and mainland China is now B.C.’s second-largest market after the U.S. Japan, over 151,000 overnight customs entries. This is B.C.’s third-largest Asia-Pacific market after China and Australia. South Korea, over 108,000 overnight customs entries. This is B.C.’s fourth-largest Asia-Pacific market.

Canada and South Korea share a thriving, two-way trade relationship totalling billions of dollars every year, particularly in the natural resource sector, agrifoods and seafood, international education, technology and tourism. B.C. exports to South Korea were $2.2 billion in goods exports in 2016, accounting for 51 percent of total Canadian exports to Korea.

Destination B.C. purchased and served B.C. wines at events in South Korea and Japan. Japan is B.C.’s third-largest trading partner at $3.7 billion in goods exports in 2016. B.C.’s total exports to Japan, which are primarily commodities, are nearly double that of the next leading Canadian province.

The Pacific Gateway also relies on infrastructure to get B.C.’s and Canada’s projects to market, and we’re continuing that work. We’re upgrading three interchanges to improve residential and commercial traffic along the South Fraser Perimeter Road and on Deltaport Way to serve Deltaport.

In my riding, the Port of Prince Rupert recently unveiled its expanded terminal. We’ve had over $1 billion worth of investment in the last year in the Port of Prince Rupert. Multiple partners, including the province, also contributed to improving the road-rail utility corridor that serves the port.

We’ve eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, which will reduce costs for trucks serving the ports. In short, we are working extremely hard to support sustainable B.C. jobs via our trade relationships in the Asia-Pacific region in order to ensure that the economy of this province is as diverse and robust as possible.

B. Stewart: I just want to thank the member for North Coast for her remarks and recognition of the value in international trade to British Columbia and even her riding, where the Port of Prince Rupert is. These numbers…. I mean, I lived in Kitimat, just south of her riding, a number of years ago, and I can relate to the fact that the Port of Prince Rupert has changed dramatically and is a key part of Canada’s success in receiving and shipping goods into Asia.

I’m encouraged by the fact that both the Premier and the Minister of Trade saw value after a lot of, perhaps, criticism of my role in Asia and what it really meant and the fact that they visited the very markets that we’re so dependent on over there — China, Korea and Japan. It’s not that long ago that Canada received an exemption from China, or the allowance to have been able to allow Chinese nationals to get a visa and come here. The results have been nothing short of staggering, in terms of tourism, flights into YVR and the amount of traffic that we receive.

[10:20 a.m.]

More importantly, it has familiarized the Asian markets — not just Japan and Korea, which are very familiar with Canada, but with China — in terms of the value of our international education system.

Since 2012, we went on a mission to promote two-way trade of students and educators between these countries. The fact that…. We have over 51,000 students enrolled in British Columbia from China; South Korea, almost 13,000; India, 12,000; Japan, 6,500; and the United States, only 4,780.

It goes to show that the value of a growing relationship with these markets is extremely important, vital to the success of our economy. I think that it’s most important that we not lose sight of the fact that we jeopardize these things by sending messages of uncertainty — that we’re not open for business. The fact is that we need stability. We need confidence to make certain that we continue to grow and develop and build on those relationships that go back to when Premier Bennett, back in the early ’80s, opened up that first trade office in Tokyo.

I look forward to the minister’s and the government’s continued support and working with them to help build that trading relationship, which I think is most important for all of the natural resource industries and all of the other industries that are dependent on those new markets — and the fact that it’s inevitable that the growth in other products, which are being hotly debated today, is something that is valued by all Canadians.

MENTAL HEALTH

B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased today to make a private member’s statement on mental health.

The last time I was able to spend any time with my brother Guy when he was well was 1984, when he was 16. We went on a trip together to Europe, and we travelled around Germany. We saw France and England, and we had a wonderful time, but that was the last time that he was well.

Now, when I went back to university that year, he entered grade 12. He went in with good grades, looking forward to going to college and a life ahead of him, but unfortunately, during grade 12, his marks slipped. He started trashing cars and acting erratically and hanging out with a bad crowd. Things just went really wrong, and my family didn’t know what to do.

He barely made it through, but he ended up going to college. But he didn’t go to class, and he dropped out. My parents sent him to England. When he got there, he became catatonic. He ended up in hospital in England. He was talking strangely and acting in a very, very odd manner. It was very difficult for my parents and the family to understand what was happening.

For the next few years, he was in and out of hospitals in England, in the States and in Canada. Eventually, he was stabilized, but he’s never worked, he’s never had a family, and he’s been mentally ill for decades. Our parents spent, and still spend, a great deal of their time advocating for him, even though now he’s in a safe residence. He has 24-7 help.

Guy was one of the lucky ones who had a family who fought for him. Many people with mental illness struggle alone, with no one to be their champion. With a system that has severe and significant limitations, many, many people fall between the cracks, and that’s one of the key reasons I ran to be an MLA.

It’s also why I’m so excited that we have a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. We actually have a minister now who wakes up every day and tries to make life better for those people who are suffering. In her own words:

“Mental health issues affect British Columbians in so many ways, and mental illness doesn’t discriminate. Parents, spouses, siblings, children throughout our province are deeply affected when they or someone in their family is dealing with a mental health issue. We worry. It puts immense strain on our relationships. We try to hide what’s going on because of the stigma we face. Mental illness also touches so many of us through our workplaces or circle of friends. People we care about deeply and see every day often end up feeling isolated and alone, and we struggle to figure out the best ways to help them.”

[10:25 a.m.]

What are we doing to try and fix this? Well, the new ministry is focusing intently on developing a comprehensive strategy for mental health and addictions care so that British Columbians can ask once and get help fast. This work is being done in close partnership with all B.C. ministries, partners and stakeholders that need to work together to break down silos.

That is why a separate ministry is so important. The minister can focus various ministries and stakeholders on actions that will help tackle this huge societal issue, and she’ll make sure that each ministry is aware as to how their ministries touch on mental health issues. This strategy will create the building blocks for a seamless, coordinated system to focus on prevention, early intervention, treatment and recovery for people and their families.

We also need to address the social factors that contribute to mental health and addiction issues, such as poverty, housing, education, intergenerational trauma and stigma. Stigma starts early on, and that’s why any plan for mental health must include a strategy for dealing with youth with mental health.

My community has actually been working on this for some time. Our Youth Wellness Centre is a great initiative. The Youth Wellness Centre is a one-stop location where children and youth between eight and 24 can receive responsive care for psychiatric assessments, medical care, community resource information and support services, all within one convenient, youth-centred location at the Greg Moore Youth Centre, provided by the city of Maple Ridge.

The Youth Wellness Centre’s Dr. Matthew Chow has conducted 150 psychiatric assessments and 180 follow-up visits for youth. That’s actually a 400 percent more efficient strategy than traditional psychiatric settings. This means more kids are receiving service in a timely way and less than 5 percent are being redirected to hospitals, meaning they’re proactively reaching children in a state of crisis.

In fact, the ministry is working to provide timely access to a full spectrum of mental health and addictions care for children and youth throughout the province, where you can ask for help and get it fast. The ministry is trying a whole-person, whole-government and whole-province approach to address the gaps in mental health and addictions.

The centrepiece of Mental Health and Addictions is a plan for child and youth mental health. As part of the cross-government approach, the ministry is working with the Ministry of Education on what more can be done within the education sector. This work will focus on prevention and early invention to ensure that students in K to 12 struggling with addiction and mental health issues are well supported within their school setting.

The ministry is taking action to improve mental health and addiction services for our youth with the development of the Foundry centres across the province. These life-changing centres bring physical health, mental health and substance-use services and social support under one roof. Foundry centres have been opened in Vancouver, North Van, Prince George and Campbell River, and work is underway in Maple Ridge, Abbotsford and Penticton. We’re really pleased that a Foundry centre will help build on the Youth Wellness Centre.

In the words of our minister, again: “One in four British Columbians will deal with a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many people suffer in a dark silence, a silence that exists because of shame and judgment, instead of talking openly about this illness.” We need to work together to eliminate the stigma and start creating a more seamless and coordinated system where people who are struggling with mental illness can ask for help and get it fast.

I know from personal experience how important the proper supports are to ensure that we help people suffering from mental illness. If we can intervene early with our youth, we can also potentially treat mental illness before it leads to suicide or more profound mental illnesses.

I can only imagine what might have happened had my brother had this early intervention, but my family will never know that. The families of thousands of suffering British Columbians need the resources to help their loved ones with this often terrifying struggle with mental illness.

J. Thornthwaite: I always enjoy taking the opportunity to talk about mental health and try to stop the stigma surrounding it. As you know, I’ve been a huge advocate of prevention, early identification and treatment when children are young, and I, while chairing the select standing committee special project on mental health, pushed for a strong focus and subsequent recommendations for more preventative help in the schools. Yes, it was our government that introduced the Foundry one-stop shop centres for children and families.

Another program I’m very proud of is the FRIENDS program. The FRIENDS program is a longtime program available in our school system. It is preventative. It focuses on increasing the emotional health of all children in a classroom. It is facilitated by classroom teachers or school counsellors using hands-on, peer-supported learning.

[10:30 a.m.]

There are ten-plus sessions that address emotional awareness, relaxation, problem-solving, self-management, goal-setting, interpersonal communications, support networks and more. Optional take-home activities for parents reinforce the FRIENDS concepts outside of school, and the program plays an important role in ensuring that B.C. kids have the life skills and resources they need to cope with difficult situations and challenges they may face throughout the year.

On April 5, I attended a presentation called “Stories and Inspiration to Thrive with Mental Illness” at the HOpe Centre in North Vancouver’s Lions Gate Hospital presented by the inspirational figure Brent Seal. Brent believes in following his dreams. It’s the foundation of his life. He started to follow his dreams, as many do, by attending university. He struggled. At age 22, Brent was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was hospitalized and suffered from psychosis. He had delusions and entered treatment. He even tried to commit suicide. Today he’s doing much better, with treatment and medication, and has dedicated his life to helping youth who face mental illness.

Brent started Mavrixx, a Vancouver-based social enterprise created to promote mental health and wellness to youth, professionals and organizations. Brent’s speaking program is called the Edge. It has the goal of giving youth opportunities and skills to deal with stress through physical activity.

The Edge is a high-performance wellness training program designed for youth and young adults who want to overcome mental health challenges and stress so they can have full and productive lives. As their website states, the program covers a variety of often overlooked areas that impact our mental well-being, including mental health awareness, stress management, self-confidence, mental filters, support systems, rest strategies and more.

Another one of Brent’s programs, called Mind vs. Mountain, has been featured on CBC, the Huffington Post, the Georgia Straight, Global, the Province, Hitcase and the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival.

Brent now calls mental illness his driving force. One of his dreams was to climb Mount Everest. In January 2016, Brent became the first person living with schizophrenia to summit South America’s highest mountain, Aconcagua. In June 2016, he did the same on North America’s highest mountain, Denali. He has run marathons, climbed mountains and, most difficult of all, dedicated his life to overcoming the stigma of mental illness. As Brent says: “They never told me I couldn’t do it. I started to realize, on this journey of climbing bigger and bigger mountains, there’s so much parallel between that and climbing out of a mental health struggle.”

We need to end the stigma around mental health. We need to continue to have an open and frank conversation about the struggle that so many face. We need to stand beside them and hold them up when they stumble. As Brent says: “You can’t stop the waves, but you can learn to surf.”

B. D’Eith: Thank you very much to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for her work in this area. I truly believe this is a non-partisan issue. Mental health affects everyone, no matter what your political belief system or anything. It affects all our families, and I wanted to thank her for her work on this file.

I did want to mention that the Children and Youth Committee did recommend a separate ministry, which the previous government failed to deliver on. At any rate, they did start the Foundry system, and there’s no question that the Foundry centres are a wonderful model for moving forward and, in fact, provide safe, barriers and judgment-free places where the children can get support to create the pathways of hope and empowerment that they need to get well.

Our government is building a provincewide network of Foundry centres to provide a one-stop shop for young people, to ensure that they have the supports they need. Foundry centres are a critical part of building this more seamless, coordinated mental health and addictions system in British Columbia.

We know that as many as 84,000 children and youth between the ages of four and 17 in B.C. experience one or more mental health disorders at any given time and that only one-third of them receive specialized treatment. Many more children and youth struggle with milder forms of mental issues, in particular anxiety and depression, and often remain untreated.

[10:35 a.m.]

We also know that because of intergenerational trauma, Indigenous children and youth are at a higher risk for mental health and substance abuse challenges. Indigenous youth aged ten to 19 are almost five times more likely to die by suicide compared to non-Indigenous youth.

What that tells us is that we must focus on prevention by giving children and youth the tools and resiliency they need to maintain good mental health and wellness. We must start intervening early to support children and youth who begin to show and exhibit signs of mental illness. The key to that is doing a better job in supporting youth to link to appropriate services and youth centres. These one-stop shops are a wonderful way of achieving that.

In closing, one in four British Columbians will deal with mental health issues in their lifetime. Mental health issues do not discriminate. People suffering will often try to hide what they’re going through because of stigma that they might face.

That is why this government is committed to the “ask once; get help fast” approach. It is committed to providing timely access to a full spectrum of mental health and addictions care for youth and children around the province — including the Foundry centres, which are a great mechanism to deliver that. It’s time that we all work together to ensure that we can care for people suffering from mental illness. We need to fight the stigma of mental illness and focus the resources that this wonderful and rich province has to help people.

PROUD TO BE CANADIAN

N. Letnick: I stand before you today as a proud citizen of British Columbia and a proud Canadian. I was recently reminded of Canada’s majesty and grandeur while listening to Gordon Lightfoot’s song, Canadian Railroad Trilogy.

There was a time in this fair land when the railroad did not run,

when the wild, majestic mountains stood alone against the sun,

long before the white man and long before the wheel,

when the green, dark forest was too silent to be real.

But time has no beginnings, and history has no bounds,

as to this verdant country, they came from all around.

They sailed upon her waterways, and they walked the forests tall,

built the mines, the mills and the factories for the good and use of all.

Of course, the song goes on, but I won’t.

As some of my legislative colleagues will know, my own life has allowed me to wander this country from sea to sea, to climb its mountains, to build businesses, to partner with my wife, Helene, in raising our family and to provide public service in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2018, for the third year in a row, Canada was ranked as one of the top two countries in the world — No. 2 only to Switzerland as the best country. We also have placed well in other global surveys — No. 3, best country to live in by the United Nations; No. 5, best country for business by Forbes; No. 2, best country for starting a new business by the World Bank. Consistently, all these reports point to several key factors for our top rankings.

Number 1 in quality of life. This includes how we treat our citizens, from broad access to food and housing, quality education and health care to economic stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Number 4 in citizenship, leading the world by example in areas such as human rights, gender equality and religious freedoms. Number 7 in being open for business — levels of bureaucracy, freedom from corruption, transparency of government, tax environment, etc.

I could go on with statistics, but I can also personalize this with my own family. We are now comprised of French, English, Filipino and Chinese heritage. My heritage alone has evolved from Jewish grandparents, fleeing Minsk in 1924 to a Catholic, bilingual upbringing by a French-Canadian mother.

Within my constituency of Kelowna–Lake Country, we magnificently blend preservation of the pristine environment with world-class entrepreneurial and innovative agriculture, tourism, recreation and education experiences that are the envy of many locations of the world, regional health care excellence and care for the elders and retirees. I have had the honour and pleasure of seeing the spirit of our community firsthand in all of these aspects and smile with great pride at the unique and special balance we have achieved in these areas.

I note with pride our ability to extract, process and distribute some of our natural resources with care and ensure ethical practices of employment; care for and restoration of the environment during and after use; provision of shared benefits to many interests, including those of companies, shareholders, pension plans, provincial residents through funding of common services and Canadian residents through federal taxation.

I will also note that there is no evidence of environmental harm in the Salish Sea after 45 years of U.S. tankers bringing Alaska crude to the U.S. refineries in Bellingham and Anacortes, which happens to be part of the Vancouver fuel supply.

[10:40 a.m.]

In addition to our work of providing a world-leading quality of life, so, too, have I witnessed across British Columbia a very passionate pursuit of world-leading citizenship by immigrants and refugees seeking to resume life in British Columbia, plus being one of the leaders in our country in the championing of gender equality and religious freedoms and tolerance. Our communities are incredibly proud of their diversities of culture — their foods, customs and languages — including our many Indigenous nations and communities.

In addition, both in British Columbia and across Canada, we live the concept of freedom to its fullest. One can only look in today’s newspaper to see the awful situation in Syria, on the one hand, feeling fortunate that we do not have these issues in our own province and country, yet providing compassion to their refugees in resettling and restarting their lives right here. And then we also see the incredible compassion and caring for those who have lost loved ones and friends in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and the incredible personal support they have received from neighbours, from people in other provinces and territories across Canada and, indeed, from strangers around the world.

These two tragic circumstances make us realize our good fortune to live in Canada and the incredible strength of heart and soul and resiliency of our communities. As a province and a country, while we may be satisfied with the No. 7 position in being open for business — this is a good ranking — we can do better, and we should always strive to improve. Indeed, we are being seriously tested right now in our province to provide a stable and trusted environment for economic growth and continued prosperity.

However, some of the great areas of pride I have as a Canadian in this regard include respect for the rule of law and a fair balance between individual rights and collective rights; copyright treatment, where we are much more fair than our neighbour to the south for our artists; with such things as pharmaceuticals and intellectual capital in general; with academics, inventors, knowledge workers and more.

There’s our respect and recognition, protection and celebration of Indigenous peoples, minorities, immigrants and the disabled, yet protection of our own distinct Canadian culture and values. Managed capitalism, where business is encouraged and innovation supported by compliance to reasonable community protection, is also protected. As community leaders, we provide gun and weapon control, and vigilance and protection against crime and exploitation, malfeasance and corruption, extremism, and fear of our own leaders and protectors.

These are some of the things I’m particularly proud of as a Canadian, in addition to our ability to forgive and love one another.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to follow the member and his wide-ranging discussion of why he’s proud to be a Canadian. There are a multitude of things that make me proud to be a Canadian. I’m sure every member in this chamber draws on some experience or some past relationship with other parts of the world in coming to understand fully, therefore, how lucky and fortunate we are to live in this country. We are a fortunate people in a fortunate time in a fortunate land.

So much around the world gives us pause for concern every day. Although the risk of international terrorism dominates the news, the reality is that Canadians, by and large, go every day into safe workplaces. They don’t face a dictator who’s going to poison them with sarin gas or chlorine gas. They get to vote regularly in well-managed elections. They don’t have to struggle with gerrymandered electoral districts, as they do in the United States.

They can rely on a public health care system which is the pride of this nation. Of course, I have to be slightly partisan here and remind everyone in this chamber that the implementation of public health care as we understand it, was a CCF invention in this country, nationalized by the government of Lester Pearson, with the support of most Canadians, after the wonderful recommendations of Justice Hall, a John Diefenbaker Conservative appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think where we may differ, though, around why we’re proud to be Canadian…. The member talked about being open for business. That’s a wonderful thing. But of course, we need to rely on our own selves. We have an excellent banking system which, if properly utilized and encouraged, provides more than the necessary capital to build the kind of economy that we want to build.

In British Columbia, the emphasis in that economy is around protecting and respecting our natural environment. I come back to where I started. We have the opportunity, given our small population, to be a leader in the world when it comes to protecting our natural environment.

[10:45 a.m.]

People come in droves from all around this planet. It was interesting to listen to the previous topic this morning, “The Importance of B.C. as Canada’s Pacific Gateway,” with some of the statistics provided by members earlier around who comes to visit Canada and why. They come here because they can breathe the air and they can walk the streets in relative safety. If they choose to immigrate, their children will attend a good public education system. They know that they don’t have to bribe the police officer or a government official to get something done.

They have come to paradise, just like the ancestors of everyone in this chamber this morning, save those of Indigenous descent. And even those, thousands of years ago, were immigrants, arguably, to this country. It appears the evidence is that there were no peoples here like at the Olduvai Gorge, or something like that.

Everyone came to North America, and everyone came for various reasons. Land was amongst one of them and, indeed, probably the most important thing. I’m sure it was the lure of land for my English grandparents on my mother’s side. The opportunity to actually own 160 acres of land was completely out of the question, given their class and their time, growing up in the old country, in England.

Laurier said, with great optimism, that the 20th century was going to be Canada’s. I don’t want to praise a federal Liberal too often. He was only a century out. I think the 21st century is going to be Canada’s, and I’m not the first Canadian to say it. The 21st century will be Canada’s because we have put in place all the foundations of a great nation: diversity of population, a welcoming immigration policy, environmental regulation, public health care, public education.

We have created a land of true opportunity, unlike the Americans to the south of us. Of course, no Canadian can ever talk about Canada without those comparisons. The reality is, if you wish to be socially mobile — and most of us do — you’re far better off in Norway today than you are in the United States of America. Chances are, if you’re born poor, you have a significant chance of remaining poor. Not so true in Canada.

It is here in this country, with our developing relations with the Indigenous peoples now — they’re finally being opened up and recognized and developed in a way that will finally bring about true reconciliation in this country — that we have every opportunity. We have every reason to be optimistic. As long as we continue to participate fully in our democracy and elect leadership that cares about the environment, that cares about social services, this will be a great country.

N. Letnick: I’d like to thank the member for his comments. I stand, as he does, before this assembly both as a proud British Columbian and a proud Canadian, because I believe that it is entirely possible to be both simultaneously and that I should never have to choose one over the other.

My pride is anchored by three key facets. One, being a citizen of B.C. and Canada calls on us to respect our commitments when we entered Confederation of this great nation. At that time of entering Confederation, of course, we had our own interest in having the national railway extend to British Columbia — uniting us with the rest of Canada — and recognizing the importance of this key piece of infrastructure, providing to B.C. a fast, safe and cost-effective manner to transport goods and resources within Canada and for export to boost our economy — also to move troops and weapons to us to strengthen our border security.

Then as a signatory to Confederation and now today, we recognize that jurisdiction over matters of national interest resides with the federal parliament, including trade and commerce, international affairs and interprovincial works and undertakings. We also recognize, with our provincial counterparts, that through our interprovincial trade agreements, ensuring that the free flow of goods and services across Canada…. We recognize and respect the fact that the transportation of goods and services across provincial boundaries and with access to international markets is a benefit to us, both as citizens of British Columbia and as Canadians.

Two is our commitment to and protection of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am proud of our constitution and charter, with guarantees of fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of press and other media — plus the right of every citizen and permanent resident of Canada to move and take up residence in any province, under the protection of section 6, which prohibits a province from discriminating amongst persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence.

[10:50 a.m.]

Three is the great compassion and tolerance we have as Canadians towards one another, in our collective consciousness to support each other, as exemplified by our strong support of the Canada Health Act and in support of refugees and others trying to escape tyranny, prejudice or catastrophe.

We further show our compassion and care through the support of our elders and retirees after their many years of active contribution to our economy and community. We support our seniors in fair treatment of retirement savings as well.

Yes, I feel great personal pride to be Canadian and a sense of being so very fortunate, with an abundance of resources to ensure our continued prosperity as a nation, a province and a citizen. I hope that we all take pride when we do our part to live up to our commitments, to ensure progress is advanced responsibly and that we provide balance, compassion and honest leadership for both British Columbians and Canadians at large.

PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE

B. Ma: ICBC, B.C.’s favourite Crown corporation, right? Okay, maybe not so much, but it wasn’t always like this. I’m here to talk about public auto insurance, and after considering this carefully, I think the best way to talk about it is to imagine for a moment that we’re back in time.

It’s the year 1969. Several of us, some of us, weren’t around back then. My mother is about 11 years old. My father is 16, a brand-new immigrant to Canada. A lot about B.C. is as it is now. A large province with many small towns and communities, B.C. is home to many varying climates, geographic features and wildlife that produce challenging road conditions, leading to a variety of vehicle collisions of varying types.

Some of the areas, with smaller populations — again, we’re still in 1969 now — have little or no police presence, as well, so drivers sometimes hit the pedal a little bit too hard or engage in other types of risky driving behavior. It’s 1969 still, and there are about 175 private insurance companies operating in the province, insuring homes, businesses and motorists, but mostly within the cities, mostly in the urban areas.

Outside the cities, getting coverage, if you can get it at all, is expensive, really expensive. The cost of servicing brokers and dealing with claims in rural areas is extremely high and simply not profitable unless rates are set extraordinarily high, and so they are.

We’re still in 1969, and the widespread discrimination when it comes to vehicle insurance rates is commonplace. You’re rated based on age, sex, whether you’re married or single or have kids. Your risk level is assessed based on where you live, what you look like, what you do for work, what kind of lifestyle you lead. You might even be denied coverage based on one of these factors. Every insurance company is free to set their criteria however they wish, and they do.

The extraordinary cost of insurance, frequent exclusion of drivers by private insurers and long claim settlement times mean that a whopping 30 percent of vehicles on the road are operated uninsured. Since many drivers are unable to qualify for insurance anyway, many drivers don’t bother getting licensed either. There are collisions, lots of them, and in far too many cases, the collisions involve uninsured drivers and vehicles.

Drivers, passengers, pedestrians, families, the general public — everyone involved in these uninsured collisions is left financially devastated. It’s havoc on the streets. Something has to change.

We skip ahead to 1972, and NDP leader Dave Barrett is swept into power with public auto insurance as one of their key campaign promises. The promise was postage-stamp auto insurance at $25 a year, and, implementing this plan at breakneck speed, the Insurance Corporation of B.C. was activated a year later, in 1973.

The plan was a huge success and provided the public benefits that were never seen under private auto insurance. Public auto insurance could return as much as 90 cents of every premium dollar into claim payments, while private insurers were running at about 70 cents being paid in claims. While private insurers had to satisfy their investors with an adequate return on investment, ICBC was able to use the investment returns to lower premiums for the public and invest in road safety.

Now we fast-forward. It’s the start of the year 2001, and under the leadership of CEO Thom Thompson, ICBC’s basic and optional insurance rates have been frozen for six years in a row. ICBC has made unprecedented investments into road safety improvements and initiatives, and fatalities have fallen 13 percent. Injuries have fallen by 16 percent. This is all between 1996 and 1999, just three years. Because of this reduction in harm, ICBC was able to pay out a road safety dividend of $100 to policyholders.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s now the start of 2001. ICBC is more financially stable and profitable than it has ever been since it started.

Fast-forward to the year 2017. It’s 2017, and after 16 years in power, a new government administration is formed by an NDP caucus, with the support of some spunky Green MLAs. The new Attorney General, the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey, is made responsible for ICBC. The revelations that have come to light in the months since can be characterized as nothing less than shocking. ICBC is in financial chaos. Its coffers have been raided, investments in road safety improvements extremely low, claims and costs have skyrocketed, nearly $1 billion in losses anticipated for the year and another $1.3 billion loss projected for 2018.

Even worse, it’s further revealed that in 2014, a report to government that warned that ICBC was headed for financial disaster and that provided advice on how it could be avoided was not only ignored, but recommendations were also deleted from the report and hidden from the public.

How far the Crown corporation has fallen since 2001 — turned from a key promise into a provincial disgrace. Today ICBC has been characterized as a dumpster fire. Costs are up, rates are through the roof, and members of the public are wondering why we have public auto insurance at all.

For decades, public auto insurance worked well for the public, and it served a valuable role and provided important service. For decades, ICBC provided low-cost and fair insurance to the people of B.C. — all of B.C. — and it invested in road safety improvements and other initiatives that have worked to take the risk out of transportation in the province. It’s created an enormous number of long-lasting, good-paying, family-supporting jobs while it’s been at it.

Indeed, provincial affairs reporter Vaughn Palmer recently wrote that even Nick Geer, a former Jim Pattison executive who was recruited by Premier Gordon Campbell to oversee the tacit privatization of ICBC, concluded that public auto insurance could and should be saved. Geer was, unfortunately, killed in a vehicle collision earlier this year in California. My deepest condolences to his family.

There is no doubt that ICBC is in a tragic state now, but it can and should be saved. That’s why our government is bringing in several changes to get costs under control at ICBC while improving care for people injured in auto accidents.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

These include a new limit on pain and suffering for minor claim injuries, the first major improvements in accident benefits in 25 years, and creating an independent dispute resolution process for certain motor vehicle injury claims. Together, these changes will reduce the amount ICBC spends on legal fees and expenses, which have grown to consume 24 percent of ICBC’s budget.

There’s a lot more to be done, of course, but I see that I’ve nearly used up my allotted time. I will continue, following the next member’s response.

J. Yap: I rise today in response to the member’s statement on public auto insurance. I’d like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the role and contributions of ICBC in providing affordable auto insurance for British Columbians. I want to recognize the hard-working men and women at ICBC who continue to serve the public well.

ICBC continues to face a number of challenges similar to those faced by auto insurance companies across North America. Our former government worked hard to keep rates as affordable as possible within this context. Let me provide a bit more detail on that. Crashes were up 23 percent in the past two years. In that same time frame, injury claims were up 16 percent and the number of vehicle damage claims was up 15 percent, while the cost of those claims was up 30 percent.

I think it’s important we acknowledge that more auto accidents and rising claim costs are happening not just here in B.C. but in other jurisdictions as well. There are also higher vehicle repair costs to contend with. Vehicles today, as we all know, are more reliant on high technology and expensive materials than ever before, so we should take that into consideration as well.

Our former government took steps to combat these statistics. We mandated ICBC’s board to oversee an independent third-party review by Ernst and Young of ICBC to identify additional opportunities for cost containment to keep rates affordable for the long term. B.C. has the toughest drunk-driving and excessive-speeding laws in Canada. In fact, our former government increased penalties for distracted driving.

[11:00 a.m.]

Some of the other measures we employed to keep rates affordable included doubling premiums on high-end luxury vehicles; shrinking the ICBC executive team, with 500 fewer managers and a 50 percent reduction in executive compensation; transferring over $1.5 billion in excess capital from the optional insurance side of ICBC’s business to the basic insurance side; implementing new fraud analytic tools, coupled with enhanced fraud detection and enforcement, leading to savings of $44 million per year; investing in a new IT system with a particular focus on insurance rating and claims management, generating savings of $90 million per year; launching a new windshield repair program; and investing billions in infrastructure upgrades to enhance road safety; projects like passing lanes, four-laning, median and roadside barriers; new bridges; wildlife detection systems; new avalanche control systems; and variable speed zone technology, to name some of these examples.

The Ernst and Young review was completed in the spring of 2017, and it was sitting in the middle of the desk of the Attorney General when he assumed responsibility for ICBC last summer. It laid out a number of potential initiatives that government could have implemented early on to keep the rates down.

As we know, the Attorney General instead completely ignored this independent third-party review, launched yet another review of his own and raised buying insurance rates for B.C.’s motorists by 8 percent. That was unfortunate not only for motorists but also because the recommendations in that independent report were essentially disregarded, causing considerable delay for British Columbians to actually see results.

In February, we did see the Attorney General announce some changes to ICBC, but we’ve expressed concern that some of those changes will have a dramatic impact on victims and won’t actually address the increase in accidents and claims. The new limit of $5,500 on pain and suffering for minor injury claims means that ICBC will now define a minor injury, as opposed to relying on an expert opinion.

Instead of seeing a system that encourages wellness and recovery, these changes will do the opposite. And for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one, no action has been taken to improve the ways to recover the financial loss from that. Furthermore, the civil resolution tribunal doesn’t have the resources to deal with the flood of appeals that will be generated.

These are some of the deep concerns that we have with some of the changes this government wants to make to our public auto insurer. I look forward to hearing the member address some of these concerns in her closing remarks.

B. Ma: I thank the member for their contribution to this discussion and am pleased to hear that the member also recognizes the value of public auto insurance in B.C. I must admit, though, I am taken a little aback at the other side’s attempt to place blame for ICBC’s dismal state on our ten-month-old new government, after spending 16 years at the helm overseeing that dumpster fire.

Now, having said that, this is meant to be a non-partisan portion of the private member’s time, so I’ll focus on the remainder of my statement. That is to say that, unfortunately, because of the dismal state of ICBC currently, many members of the public are wondering why B.C. doesn’t simply privatize auto insurance. “Bring in the competition,” they say. “That’ll solve everything.”

If the time travelling we did in the first seven minutes of my statement leaves you with anything, it’s that privatization of auto insurance is not the answer to our woes. If private insurance was the answer, then Ontario, which has a fully private insurance regime, would have lower insurance premiums than B.C. But it doesn’t, because the answer is simply not that simple.

There is a role for private insurers in B.C. for people who are looking for additional optional coverage, but even where there is choice, 80 percent of customers in B.C. choose to purchase all of their coverage from ICBC. A public, centralized system basically operates like a community insurance pool where everyone pays into it and everyone is covered by it, without a middleman siphoning off profits for shareholders — provided, of course, that you don’t have a government raiding the coffers for general revenue.

Because of the large size of the pool, public insurance is better able to absorb extreme changes in the marketplace without having to pass unreasonable costs to consumers. ICBC’s system also makes selling policies and enforcing mandatory registration easier, leading to lower rates of uninsured drivers than we see in other jurisdictions.

[11:05 a.m.]

ICBC is also more than just an insurance company. It makes investments that no other insurer would. In contrast, for-profit private insurers must turn a profit, and there are only a few ways they can do so in comparison to what’s happening today. They won’t invest in road safety improvements like ICBC does. They can drastically reduce employee wages. They can reduce coverage on payouts. They can refuse to insure rural drivers, where the cost of servicing claims is much higher, or other demographics of drivers they arbitrarily deem to be high risk, regardless of driving history. And they can raise insurance rates. In all of these cases, the shareholders benefit, but the public loses.

The impacts of such a regime can be seen in Ontario, where their fully private insurance regime has resulted in the highest insurance rates in the country and where it is estimated that up to 15 percent of Ontario drivers simply go without insurance. In B.C., however, it is estimated that less than 1 percent of drivers are uninsured, much lower than Ontario and other jurisdictions in North America.

I see my time is finished.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Motion 18 on the order paper.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 18 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 18 — DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA
ON TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

P. Milobar: It’s my first time presenting a motion, and I’m happy to move:

[Be it resolved that this House urge the Government of B.C. to engage with the federal government and the Alberta government to resolve the current trade impasse.]

I think we finally heard for the first time, yesterday, the Premier acknowledge what everyone has known for quite some time now — since January 30, actually, when the infamous document was released, the intention to have an intentions paper with unknown intentions. We are in a crisis. We finally heard the Premier acknowledge and admit that yesterday — that indeed, British Columbia, Alberta and the country itself is in a crisis.

That crisis needs to find a way to end. It needs to have a way to move forward. That can only come if the government of B.C. engages with the federal government and the Alberta government in a meaningful way — not going into rooms with predetermined insistence that they will not move or budge or change anything but to go in and truly act as a true partner of Confederation.

When we see the Premier indicate that not one project makes an economy, the Premier is actually correct about that. However, I would point out that this crisis that’s been manufactured and created by the current government has created a situation where we now have over 70 different business groups indicating that this crisis around a project is actually creating a mini-crisis moving forward, sector by sector by sector, including in what we would consider the clean energy fields out there.

The reality is that projects of large scale — be it oil production, be it refining capabilities, be it sawmills, be it pulp mills or be it clean energy products — require huge amounts of capital. Generally, that gets raised from the world markets. All of those types of projects and all of those enhancements that people may be looking at doing — retrofitting existing mills, retrofitting existing plants, coming up with new innovative ideas — are at risk right now, because all of those require the same thing that the Trans Mountain project that went through the process required.

They require governmental approvals. They require access to government tenures. They require certainty that when they go through a process and they get to a final decision point, they can proceed with their investment in good faith. They can move forward and can make sure that they are creating the jobs within British Columbia and within Canada that support all of the social programs that everyone holds near and dear to their heart.

Although the Premier is right in saying an economy does not hinge on only one project, in this particular case, because it was a fully permitted, fully approved project that is now seeing immense governmental hurdles trying to be put in its place…. That creates an instability within the investment climate not just in British Columbia; it creates uncertainty across the country.

[11:10 a.m.]

When you look at federal health transfers and other types of initiatives that we see from the federal government, when you see transportation investments that we see the federal government stepping up to the table on in British Columbia all now being at risk and when you see the private sector investment starting to get worried about not investing into our province, there is a very real consequence to these actions.

We need to make sure that the B.C. government is sitting down in a meaningful way, trying to get to an agreement with the federal government and the province of Alberta on how to make sure that our economies are for the betterment of not just British Columbia but all of Canada, because at the end of the day, we are all very proud Canadians. We’re all very proud British Columbians, and we’re also very proud Canadians.

We need to see a way forward, and we need to have a government willing to actually advance a way forward, instead of digging their heels in and going to meetings where they walk out and say, before they even go in: “We’re not going to even discuss changing anything that we’ve talked about up to this point.” That does not get us a whole confederation. That doesn’t get us the investment climate we need from a wide variety of sectors out there.

This is not just about one project. This is about trying to move forward and reclaiming not just British Columbia’s reputation on the world financial markets and investment markets but making sure that British Columbia and Canada are still seen as a safe place to invest in.

A. Olsen: I’d like to thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for introducing the motion we have before us today.

When there are disagreements in our federation, there are few things more important than engaging one another to resolve disputes. I only wish there was a more honest conversation taking place — one where fact, and not rhetoric, was the driving force.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his federal government’s promise this weekend to give Ottawa control over the project and the commitment of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars that this will require is not an evidence-based decision. It’s a political one. This aggressive new position is intended to ram this pipeline through in spite of community opposition, a lack of evidence about the fate of bitumen in coastal waters and the commitment to good-faith First Nations consultation and to taking climate leadership seriously.

This is in stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s commitments in the election where we heard that while governments grant permits, only communities can grant permission. We heard that true reconciliation was on the horizon and that there were few ambitions more important than the relationship with Indigenous peoples and becoming a leader in climate action.

Instead, we now have the federal government tying their legitimacy to a pipeline whose economics is on increasingly uncertain ground due to changing global oil markets. The dispute we are now in was entirely foreseeable. Indeed, the three-person panel that Justin Trudeau struck to look at the project highlighted exactly these issues and posed important questions to the government that they hoped would inform the government’s next steps.

To quote the last paragraph of the report:

“The issues raised by the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal are among the most controversial in the country, perhaps in the world, today: the rights of Indigenous peoples, the future of fossil fuel development in the face of climate change and the health of the marine environment already burdened by a century of cumulative effects. There are matters of public safety and environmental sustainability overlaid against economic need in a province where a once strong resource sector is currently under severe strain.”

There is an easy and lazy narrative — I repeat, an easy and lazy narrative — pushed by Kinder Morgan to lay this dispute at the feet of our provincial government. The reality is that the federal government failed to follow through on their own election commitments, and they are now poised to use taxpayers’ dollars to push this project through despite valid provincial concerns about the impacts bitumen will have on our coastal communities and our economy.

[11:15 a.m.]

The provincial government’s entirely reasonable and evidence-driven response has been to seek clarity about what regulations are within the jurisdiction, our jurisdiction, to protect our province’s coastline. So, yes, let’s urge the government of B.C. to continue to engage with the federal and provincial governments of Alberta, but let’s also urge them to stand their ground for evidence-based decision-making and B.C.’s right to protect our economy, to protect our environment and to protect our people.

M. Bernier: I’m a proud resident of the Peace country, I’m a proud resident of British Columbia, and I’m a proud citizen of Canada.

I think what’s important to recognize is that we live in a country where there are no barriers. We live in a country where we can move from province to province with no fear of being stopped at borders. We live in a country where we can actually exchange our goods. We can move back and forth. We can support each other, and that’s what we should actually be doing.

I look in the Peace region where I am. I live on the Alberta border. We rely on each other. Alberta is one of our better trading partners that we have in all of Canada. We hear the Premier say: “Economy does not really hinge on one particular project that we’re debating right now.” In a lot of ways, it does.

What’s happened recently is we have set the stage across Canada, across North America and nationally that maybe British Columbia is not a stable place. We have created a sense of uncertainty in our province. We’ve created an urgency in the fact that: can somebody come live here, be what they hope to be and strive with investment? And are their investments and opportunities safe here in British Columbia?

When you look recently, we have the B.C. Business Council, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and others all coming out and saying that British Columbia is sending the wrong message to the investment climates around the world of whether they should be coming to B.C.

Is this about one project? In a lot of ways it is, because it’s starting to set the narrative of what B.C. is going to be looking like — if companies should even be coming to British Columbia.

I listened to the leader of the Green Party this weekend, as well, saying oil is not a driver of the economy in Canada. I think maybe it’s time that he comes and looks at my part of British Columbia or in Alberta or other parts and the fact that there are tens of thousands of jobs in Canada, which means tens of thousands of families, that are reliant on this industry. We have provinces who are hard-to-do right now, who rely on transfer payments for health care, for education and to help their citizens, and a lot of that money is coming because of the oil and gas sector.

I look in my region specifically, and this narrative right now of stopping investment in pipelines in British Columbia sends a chill through families, through investors in the Peace region where we have thousands of jobs. We have youth in their 20s who can take the opportunities of a good education and get out and work in this sector and actually realize enough money through a good, hard-working job, where they can actually buy a house, where they can make that decision to start a family, where they see a strong future for themselves in British Columbia.

Those are the opportunities that we need to be making sure take place in British Columbia. But that’s not going to happen unless B.C. sits down, talks with Alberta, talks with the federal government — like we did.

We actually have the ocean protection plan — $1.5 billion across Canada and the lion’s share going to British Columbia — because we showed leadership. We sat down with the federal government and said that if we’re going to be having opportunities like this, we want to have the proper marine spill opportunities and safety in British Columbia. The federal government agreed, and they worked with us when we were in government.

[11:20 a.m.]

That’s what sitting down is. That’s what partnership is, and that’s what negotiating is. That’s what it means to look out for British Columbians so we can make sure we have the investment, the jobs and the environmental protection. It is about trying to do all, not one or the other.

I’m really proud of what we did when we were in government to actually do that. I want to make sure that the new government actually does their job, shows leadership, sits down with Ottawa and does not just the rhetoric but actually makes sure they’re protecting all of British Columbia, which means environment and jobs and family, and more importantly, to help all of that: investment.

M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I agree that it is important for B.C. to engage with federal and provincial governments to solve problems. Indeed, Premier John Horgan has been actively communicating with….

Deputy Speaker: Member, only refer by riding name.

M. Dean: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

The Premier has been actively communicating with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta for months, particularly in relation to the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. Of course, we all know that there was a meeting in Ottawa yesterday that was attended by our Premier, who stood up for and defended the rights of British Columbians.

There’s no threat of a trade issue from B.C. However, the people of B.C. expect us to defend our province from the devastating consequences an oil spill would cause. Indeed, my constituency is full of coastal communities. All municipalities — Esquimalt, View Royal, Colwood and Metchosin — First Nations — Scia’new, Songhees and Esquimalt — and Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt are coastal communities.

As one member of our community wrote me recently: “Our coastal waters are the lifeblood to many in B.C. and, therefore, the rest of Canada, in the interest of Canada. Our coastal waters, once damaged, are irreplaceable, and until we know how to clean up a bitumen spill, having a clean and healthy environment is my right as a Canadian. And it is most certainly the right of every First Nation person whose rights have been squandered and squashed for far too long.”

We will continue to defend B.C. and stand up for our interests. The communities in Esquimalt-Metchosin depend on a pristine marine environment, and our local economy and family-supporting jobs rely upon a clean and well-managed coastline.

For example, we have over 19,000 tourism businesses, employing 133,000 people here in B.C. Tourism generates $17 billion each year. A reported 239 cruise ship calls in 2017 made it the largest number ever recorded for Victoria, up from 224 in 2016. From April to October, over 600,000 passengers visited the city, and this season also welcomed the seven-millionth cruise ship passenger since the Ogden Point cruise terminal became a destination, in 1978.

This is an issue of protecting the rights of B.C., not of creating issues of trade. The risks of expanding the pipeline are too great to our environment, our economy and our coast. There is a major risk of a spill, which would directly impact the environment and economic activity.

As I heard from a resident the other day: “It is dangerous for the waters and lands the oil would cross, and the economic case has not been made for the people of B.C. — quite the opposite.” Another concerned person said: “I want senior and sister governments to leave bitumen in the ground and accept that heavy oil extractive industries are sunsetting fast.”

By standing up for our coastline and B.C. waters, the Premier is protecting many unique industries. Our seafood sector accounts for $1.2 billion in sales in B.C. and $1.3 billion in exports. Fisheries and seafood contributes more than $660 million each year to our GDP, employs 14,000 people and pays nearly $400 million in wages. Sport fishing employs 8,400 people and generates close to $1 billion each year in revenues.

[11:25 a.m.]

There are other sensitive matters to consider, not only the impact on trade. There are risks to Victoria’s sensitive coastal bluff ecosystems, as well as the southern resident orcas critical habitat, and risks that we would not meet our climate commitments, as well as our commitment to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. As a neighbour wrote to me last week: “First Nation rights, my rights, are not less than a Texan’s rights.”

D. Barnett: B.C. stands at the crossroads of trade on Canada’s west coast. We are, in fact, Canada’s Pacific Gateway. A significant part of Canada’s exports pass through the Port of Vancouver. This includes all of the export products produced in British Columbia.

People in the Cariboo are well aware that jobs in agriculture, mining and forestry all depend on our ability to ship our goods overseas. Even passengers embarking or disembarking at the Tsawwassen ferry terminal are in plain sight of Westshore Terminals. This facility describes itself as Canada’s premier coal export terminal. It handles 33 million tonnes of coal annually and provides billions of export revenue for Canada and British Columbia.

Put in context, that’s nearly triple the combined coal exports of the entire U.S. west coast. This places Vancouver well above Norfolk, Virginia, the busiest coal port in the United States in terms of total volume. B.C. coal exports are more than double the total coal production of Mexico.

It might surprise some to discover that coal, a fossil fuel, is, in fact, British Columbia’s number one export commodity. And if all goes well this year, we might get a successful investment decision that would allow LNG Canada to proceed with the construction of an export terminal in Kitimat. None of the other provinces in Confederation have a problem with this.

Our strength as a country is defined by the economic union that we share between all provinces. This includes the free flow of labour. A person can pick up and leave for another province in search of better opportunity without any interference. But all of this is contingent upon cooperation between the provinces and the federal government, and the respect for the rule of law.

There have always been tensions between the provinces and even between the provinces and the federal government. Justine Hunter of the Globe and Mail once wrote that fed-bashing has been something of a provincial sport in B.C. for decades. She was referring to the late 1990s, when the then Premier turned a battle of words into an international incident.

I am referring to the so-called salmon war that dragged Canada and the United States into an unwanted conflict, all over non-existent jurisdiction. B.C. filed a lawsuit against its own national government over a populist battle over fishing rights. This phony war led to the blockade of an Alaskan ferry by B.C. fishermen, the burning of a U.S. flag in Prince Rupert and the closing of a torpedo testing range the province leased to the U.S. Navy at Nanoose Bay.

Ottawa responded by flexing its muscle and expropriating the land in the country’s very first hostile expropriation of provincial lands in the nation’s history. It all sounds oddly familiar, as if someone took a page out of a political playbook. I would have to agree.

The current dispute between the current government versus the rest of the country is no longer about the export of one single commodity. The dispute calls into question the ability of Canada to function as an economic union. Last week major business groups from across Canada, called Confidence in Canada, published an open letter to the Prime Minister calling on the federal government to flex its muscle once again.

The letter referred to the current provincial government’s efforts as something that “threatens to provoke a crisis of confidence in Canada’s regulatory processes, with far-reaching implications which go well beyond this project.”

[11:30 a.m.]

For a government still in its infancy, it’s time to grow up and join the rest of Canada for the sake of the country.

R. Glumac: We do find ourselves at an impasse. On the one side, we have the province of Alberta, which wants to support an industry that is a major part of its economy. On the other side, we have the province of British Columbia, which wants to protect our economy, our environment and our coasts from the devastating consequences of a diluted bitumen spill.

Now, I understand Alberta’s position. I don’t agree with the position, for many reasons, but I understand. What I do not understand is why the B.C. Liberals are taking such a strong position against British Columbia. They, after all, are supposed to be representing British Columbians. More and more it seems that they are representing Alberta.

When I reflect on this, I remember that that party is not representing Alberta so much as it’s representing the interests of the oil industry above everything else — above the environment, above climate change, above the economy, above jobs, above the interests of this province. That is why when they were in government, they went to Alberta to get advice from the oil industry in drafting climate change policy. They held five secret meetings in Calgary.

Let’s be clear about this. There was a climate leadership team that consisted of 17 industry, First Nations and environmental experts that worked for many months drafting recommendations. They were subsequently ignored, and a new plan was drafted with input from the oil industry in Alberta.

It comes as no surprise that when Kinder Morgan issues a press release, once again the B.C. Liberals are called into action. They are now fighting as hard as they can for the interests of Kinder Morgan, for the industry that continues to tell them what to do, just as they were told what to do, behind closed doors, in Calgary not so long ago. They represent the oil industry above all else.

Our government understands that all sectors of the economy are important. Sectors like commercial fishing, port activities, ocean transportation, tourism and recreation are important as well. All of these would be affected by a diluted bitumen spill.

The city of Vancouver commissioned an economic study that looked at just these five ocean-dependent industries. They found that they generate more than $6.7 billion of economic activity and support more than 36,000 jobs in Vancouver alone. When you consider our very successful film industry, which could also be affected by an oil spill, that would include another 60,000 jobs. The B.C. Liberals don’t seem to be worried about these jobs. They’re worried about a single industry — in fact, just a single company in that industry — above all else.

In B.C., we were recently awarded supercluster funding from the federal government to support the growing tech sector. Hundreds of millions of dollars of investment will be going towards supporting innovation across a broad spectrum of sectors in this province. This will support industries of the future, industries that are growing and creating jobs across this province.

We are world leaders in many areas of technology — in virtual reality, augmented reality. We are also home to 25 percent of Canada’s clean-tech companies. In 2018, we had 13 companies in Canada on the top 100 list of global clean-tech companies, and almost half of those were in B.C. What would it take for this party to support these industries? Perhaps it would take a press release from Kinder Morgan. That seems to be where they get their direction.

Our economy is about more than just one single project or one single company above all else. Our economy is broad and diverse, and it is strong. This project puts our economy at risk. It puts our environment at risk, and we need to protect against that risk.

[11:35 a.m.]

An analysis commissioned in 2015 stated that “changes to diluted bitumen density and viscosity within the first few days of the release may render oil spill response systems ineffective.” Ineffective. That is what we are concerned about, and that is why this government is doing the responsible thing.

M. Morris: I support the motion, and I’ve been listening to the rhetoric and the comments from the members opposite and from the previous speaker.

What’s been taking place in the last number of weeks in British Columbia has far-reaching ripple effects. This demonstrated resistance to Confederation not only affects the industry that British Columbians and Canadians rely on to build our hospitals, to build our schools, to build the critical infrastructure that we need to make our communities safe, but it has ripple effects on the health and safety of British Columbians.

My interest was piqued by my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin when she talked about the salmon war from the late 1990s, 1998. At that particular time, I was the district officer for the RCMP looking after the northern three-quarters of the province. So I’ve got some pretty intimate knowledge of that entire file — how it started and how it ended.

The ripple effects — and I’ll use that file as an example — caused considerable consternation for our federal government, for the provincial government, although they were very absent from the table during the critical time that the Alaska ferry was blocked by over 1,500 fish boats in Prince Rupert. Can you imagine the resources that it would take the RCMP to enforce the injunction and the enforcement order that the courts had provided for us to free the Alaskan ferry and all of the passengers that were on board?

This extended not only to the citizens of Prince Rupert in British Columbia but to the American citizens that were trapped on that Alaska ferry. I had to bring in extra resources from across the province, from a policing perspective, in order to do that. I had some excellent help. Because we had 1,400 fish boats at stake here, I had to bring in the Canadian Coast Guard and the federal Fisheries to find enough qualified people to run those boats in the event that we had to physically seize those particular boats.

I have to take my hat off to the cool heads that prevailed, the people that were organizing that event, because a couple of times it did start to take off. After three days of negotiating with the federal government — and I was in the centre of this — the governor of Alaska…. British Columbia was absent from the table. I heard nothing from the Premier or the government of the day at that particular time. We were able to negotiate a peaceful resolution where the fish boats finally hauled anchor, and they left the scene. The impact that we saw from that transcended down for years after that with some of the fish boats in contradiction or in conflict with a lot of the U.S. area that they fished in.

We see that today with Burnaby — Burnaby Mountain — and the Kinder Morgan protests that we have here. Burnaby is not autonomous. Burnaby is part of this great confederation that we call Canada and British Columbia. Burnaby is refusing to pay policing costs.

We hear this government has been very silent. I’m amazed at the silence that this government exhibits as these people hold the court order in criminal contempt by continually violating the terms of that injunction that prevents people from going into specified areas.

It’s cost probably an extra $1 million over the last year or so for extra policing resources to go in and deal with the protests, to make sure that everything is peaceful. Police officers have been hurt in the ordeal. Burnaby has refused to pay those policing costs.

Another rippling effect of this protest and this resistance against confederation in Canada is the fact that B.C. taxpayers have been picking up the tab for a municipality that is encumbered by the municipal police service agreement in British Columbia to pay those costs but is refusing to pay the costs. So here we are, sharing that million-dollar bill amongst British Columbians.

[11:40 a.m.]

How big will that get before the provincial government steps in and says: “Listen, ladies and gentlemen, please keep a calm head here”? Let’s work collectively with the federal government and the provincial government in order to ensure that these kinds of issues don’t escalate.

We are part of a confederation. We are part of this great country that we call Canada, and it requires all of the provinces to work collectively together to ensure that the industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and right across Canada have access to the Pacific gateway, have access to what we have here.

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to talk about what we should be doing when there’s a dispute. What we should be doing when there’s a dispute is talking to the people with whom we’re having a dispute. That is exactly what we’ve been doing.

It’s kind of surprising that this is a suggestion coming from the other side, because the other side…. It seems that all they want to do, almost giddily, is inflame the tensions that exist. That’s what they seem to be doing: buying right into the rhetoric, responding as soon as the company writes a letter. They say, “Jump,” and these guys on the opposition say: “How high?” When did we capitulate the responsibility of British Columbians?

The other thing I’m wondering is: even if you disagree with the perspective — and we have to acknowledge there are differing opinions on this; it’s not all or nothing — none of the members from the opposition have even bothered to raise the issue of the environment once. Not an oil spill, not the pipeline, not the tar sands — not once.

They’re talking about: “Oh, the difficulty in policing.” For crying out loud, this is about an issue that is obviously of concern, but it’s not about enforcing a particular law in a particular place. As soon as we interfere in the work of the police, they’re going to scream, and they’ll have another vacuous motion on the table for us to debate.

Of course we should sit down with people we are having disputes with. If that doesn’t work, here’s a secret for the opposition. If that doesn’t work, let’s go to court. Let’s not fight. Let’s not talk about how hard we can throw something at the other one’s head. Let’s figure it out. But this opposition seems giddily excited about the prospect of a trade war. The British Columbia government is not involved in a trade war.

The other side throws something. We say: “Hey, wait a second. Let’s be mature about this.” This might be a concept foreign to the opposition here. Let’s take a step back and say: “Where do we have a conflict? Where can we find a solution?” It’s not where the opposition is suggesting, capitulation and run away. If you have authority, if you have the potential to exercise your jurisdiction, you should be doing that. Don’t run away. Don’t capitulate.

I grew up where there was a constitutional crisis, in Quebec. I know what it is to fight hard for the values of Canadians. I know that it’s not always easy to do that, but because it’s not easy doesn’t mean that we run away. It doesn’t mean that we exaggerate the concerns or incite the disagreement. That’s the exact opposite way of proceeding.

The opposition seems intent on finding a place to fight. If there isn’t a fight, they’ll start a fight. What we’re going to do on this side is the responsible thing. We’re going to abide by the rule of law. We’re going to keep communications open. We’ve already done what this motion calls for. We went to Ottawa, and we talked.

You know what? The member who proposed this motion has the nerve to say: “Don’t go into the room with your mind made up.” As if this opposition hasn’t already settled long ago that this is all about the economy, this is all about their friends, and this is all about those who have been supporting them for the last 16 years. I think that the government is right to say: “Enough of that. Let’s look out for the interests of British Columbians and stick hard to that fact.” We’re going to do just that.

R. Sultan: As a Canadian, I find the actions of the British Columbia government endeavouring to blockade another province’s shipments of hydrocarbons by pipeline to offshore markets highly offensive. Our government apparently prefers that petroleum products find their way to tidewater in railway cars, despite the obvious greater risk to the environment and safety.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[11:45 a.m.]

R. Sultan: Last time I looked, we were still one country. How dare this minority government take it upon itself to prohibit what its partner, the Greens, detest — namely, hydrocarbons of any type inside a pipe but apparently okay inside a rail car.

Let me reflect on the fragility of our Canadian Confederation. Not many countries in the world can claim to have existed inside unchanging boundaries for over 150 years. Let me repeat that. Not many countries — particularly ones sprawling across the second-largest land mass in the world, such as Canada — have existed inside unchanging boundaries for 150 years. Europe? Certainly not. Asia? Nope. Africa? Certainly not. South America? Nope. North America? Well, not if you consider the border wars between Mexico and the United States.

When I went to live in the United States, I first realized how ignorant we were of American history and the civil war which killed 620,000 Americans in order to keep that confederation together — only about 150 years ago. Historically, it is no small thing when one province of Canada decides to break the ties which bind our sprawling confederation due to parish pump politics.

We came very close to losing this country in 1975, only 43 years ago, in the Quebec separation referendum. I was there. Quebec’s ties to Canada were belittled. Those of us living in Montreal whose mother tongue was English were harassed by the Quebec elite. I did, of course, see some side benefits. I purchased a ten-bedroom stone mansion at the top of the mountain for little more than $100,000…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Powell River.

R. Sultan: …since so many were dumping their properties on the market at any price.

I’m not accusing this government of planning separation anytime soon, but I want to remind them of the fragility of our confederation. Does British Columbia have a lot in common with New Brunswick? Well, not much, except that we believe in this country and have sent our soldiers to fight in wars to defend it.

I am highly offended by the actions of any government which weakens the bonds which unite us. We are complacent. I am sure some will find my remarks far-fetched. Such persons should look around at the rest of the world and say a prayer for the continuation of the confederation we have created based on core beliefs, tolerance for persons of a different point of view and a willingness for any province to ship stuff through our ports to any country they wish.

Therefore, government, in this self-serving but dangerous squabble: stand down. Stand up for Canada.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for moving this motion.

People living in my constituency of Burnaby North have been listening to the escalating threats out of Alberta and Ottawa with mounting alarm. They’ve been sharing their fears with me. They’ve even been stopping me on the street to talk about it. As their MLA, I want to give voice to their side of this so-called trade impasse. As this debate has been unfolding this morning, it’s clear that when the members opposite talk about engagement, what they really mean is capitulation.

What does this impasse mean to the people of Burnaby North? North Burnaby is ground zero in Alberta’s fight with British Columbia. If Alberta gets its way, it’s where at least one tanker per day will load dilbit — not oil, not gasoline, but tar so thick that it has to be watered down with highly-flammable carcinogens like benzene so it can move through the pipe.

Then these tankers have to navigate back out through the inlet and along the entire northern boundary of Burnaby North, squeeze under the Second Narrows Bridge, not far from my house, before dodging cruise ships and other marine traffic on their way out to the busiest harbour on the west coast. Burnaby is the most populated section on the entire 1,000-kilometre pipeline route. When an accident happens here, it will be deadly.

[11:50 a.m.]

Kinder Morgan stores diluted bitumen in tanks on the side of Burnaby Mountain. If Alberta and Ottawa get their way, the company will be allowed to crowd in twice as many tanks. According to the Burnaby fire department, the chances of a catastrophic fire jumping from tank to tank would increase dramatically.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I myself attended a meeting where the deputy chief outlined his concerns. I remember him talking about the challenge for crews fighting an uphill fire, about the impossibility of evacuating SFU at the top of the mountain and the ground-level toxic vapours that would ignite if you tried to start your car to escape. Close to 40,000 people go up to Simon Fraser every day. Many of them live in Burnaby North.

As one of my constituents said: “Prime Minister, as you sit safely in Ottawa, you expect me to go to work every day on Burnaby Mountain and, every day, run the risk of being cut off from my kids when that tank farm blows up. Prime Minister, doesn’t the future of my kids matter to you?”

You can underestimate her concerns if you will. You can call it rhetoric, as you’ve done so far in this debate. Here’s what another Burnaby resident had to say.

“We bought our house in 2005. We were uneasy that it was so close to the Westridge terminal, but we trusted that the odds were in our favour because, after all, there hadn’t been an accident in 50 years. Then two years later, the pipeline ruptured, a block and a half from our house, spilling 200,000 litres of crude oil into my neighbourhood. I was pregnant at the time, and we still don’t know how my direct contact with the oil and fumes will affect my son’s health in the long term. That spill may not have been Trans Mountain’s fault directly, but so many things can go wrong in such a densely populated area.”

Now, we don’t know what the long-term effects are on her child…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Burnaby North has the floor. Thank you.

J. Routledge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

…because the National Energy Board only wanted to hear about the economics, not the health impact.

Addressing the economics, let me quote someone who works at the refinery in Burnaby. “It’s the last remaining refinery on the Burrard Inlet. It produces 40 percent of the gasoline to the Lower Mainland, 50 percent of the jet fuel to YVR and the diesel that powers our ferries. Our facility doesn’t process diluted bitumen. The purpose of the pipeline expansion project is to export dilbit to be refined offshore and sold back to British Columbians. Our refinery will likely close, with the loss of 450 good local jobs.”

Now, I haven’t talked about climate change yet, but people in my community are talking about climate change. They want to reach a reasonable transition, accommodation with Alberta…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Routledge: …but one that protects the lives of people in Burnaby North.

R. Coleman: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline was not just dreamt up recently but has, rather, been subject to a five-year, very extensive approval process. All aspects of environment, construction, First Nations, engineering, geotechnical and related items were scrutinized. They received extensive public input and support from many of the First Nations along the pipeline route.

Economic benefits were agreed to. Employment and trade commitments were made, both for First Nations and for communities on the coast and on land. Environmental responses were enhanced as part of the five-condition agreement with Kinder Morgan, which also brought the federal government to the table to enhance coastal protection.

Government has received, in addition to that $50-million-a-year commitment, $1 billion over 20 years from Kinder Morgan for the communities in British Columbia. All of this 4½-year process followed legal requirements for approval under the laws of Canada and the laws of B.C. The decision to approve was statutory.

[11:55 a.m.]

The project was approved with conditions and done after extensive review, authored by many professional public servants in the approval of the statutory approval process by cabinet. The law was followed. No influences were involved. I know that because I was one of the statutory decision–makers.

The B.C. government is choosing to ignore the laws, the statutory decision powers and approvals, contending they don’t have to accept the legal decisions. The message they send is oppose anything — even a legally, properly approved project — if it does not support their agenda, feelings or whims.

My concern is this. I have driven the Fraser Canyon, I’ve driven to the Cariboo, and I’ve driven all the way out through Kamloops and north up the Yellowhead. What we are facing today without this pipeline…. I know that the people along the river north of me in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and the people all the way across the valley, along the Thompson and Fraser rivers, do not want to see ten 100-car oil trains per day coming through their community because we don’t go with the safest and most environmentally safe solution to the problem of moving oil.

We don’t want the oil moving by rail. Take a drive. Just go along the river and see how close the railway is to the Fraser and the Thompson. You want a cataclysmic environmental disaster? That’s where it will happen. The Trans Mountain pipeline has operated safely for 60 years. To talk about somebody with a backhoe, who didn’t look at where a pipeline was, hit it and tries to blame it on Kinder Morgan…. That would be absolutely, incredibly bad.

The project is about safely moving a product in the national interest — jobs for thousands of people and economic benefits. It’s about health care, daycare, social programs and the future of thousands of British Columbians, because the people that are have-not provinces in Canada receive billions of dollars on an annual basis from Alberta to support those programs. They’re deficit governments that are supporting programs that are coming from Alberta and also from British Columbians.

We’re Canadians. We’re proud Canadians. We believe in our country. I believe our country stands by the rule of law. I saw the work. I saw the statutory decision. I saw the law being followed in the approval of this process — a project with conditions. So to come along after the fact and say “we didn’t like the process” means you really don’t like the law. The fact of the matter is it was legal, it was thorough, it was done properly and it will stand up to scrutiny — because it already has.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where, internationally, a message is being sent by British Columbia: “Don’t invest in this province. Don’t create jobs. Don’t make billions of dollars in investments. Because even though we have a legal statutory process, the government of B.C. will not stand behind it.”

To the credit of the federal government, they’re prepared to stand by the legal process, because they also had to sign out with their statutory decision-makers.

I know this. Millions and millions and millions of barrels a day by rail, along our rivers and through our communities, is not the answer. It is a cataclysmic opportunity for disaster, environmentally, in our province, because the government of British Columbia refuses to follow the rule of law.

I would move adjournment of debate.

R. Coleman 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 11:58 a.m.