Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

COMMUNITY SUPPORTS FOR LNG

E. Ross: October 2 of this year was history in the making for British Columbia.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

After many years, and considerable effort by people from all walks of life, LNG Canada announced its final investment decision to build a $40 billion LNG export facility in Kitimat, representing the largest private sector investment project in our country’s history.

[10:05 a.m.]

Over the years…. Our reputation has suffered greatly in recent times with unprecedented opposition to just about everything to do with energy, from Site C to the Trans Mountain pipeline. Foreign influences have contributed greatly to stalling just about any project that extracts resources from Canada. Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have much more to say about foreign influence in the second half of this morning’s debate.

In the meantime, I would like to acknowledge the investigative reporting by Vivian Krause and others on the topic of foreign influence. Thanks to people like Vivian Krause, we now have a better idea of where this money is coming from, and its purpose, because we know the sole purpose of these foreign influences is to set up multiple fronts against resource development in Canada.

That’s what makes LNG Canada so significant. We have now sent a message around the world that British Columbia and Canada are once again open for business. It sends a strong signal to investors that Canada is a reliable source of energy and that major projects are possible. It is my sincere hope that LNG Canada is just the first of many projects that will benefit the people of British Columbia for generations to come. This is entirely possible, because demand for LNG is expected to roughly double by 2035.

We are now part of the global effort to transition industry away from the use of dirty fuels like coal and instead adopt the cleanest LNG in the world, which comes from B.C.

LNG Canada did not come about this by chance. This project represents a whole new way of getting a project off the ground. This involves earning the support of surrounding communities, including First Nations, and making a viable business case in conjunction with government. That’s how we can return to prosperity and give depressed communities hope for the future.

In the case of LNG Canada, it should be noted that all 20 First Nations located along the TransCanada Coastal GasLink route, from upstream to downstream, have approved the project and have negotiated benefit agreements. This is something new and sets a precedent moving forward in all projects.

This process also draws attention to the issues regarding hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs. Whoever leads the communities is up to the communities, but in either case, the leaders must be accountable to the people who entrusted them to look after the interests of the community. While both sides have valid opinions on who’s in charge, the people who have the most to lose or gain aren’t aware that it is they that can decide who their leader is. As a former elected councillor and chief councillor of the Haisla First Nation, I can assure you this is true.

This leads me to the topic at hand, community supports for LNG. The introduction of a project of this scale will no doubt change the economic prospects for all people, not just First Nations. Between the plant and the pipeline, approximately 10,000 people will be employed during construction. We are going to experience rapid growth between now and at least the middle of the next decade. When more projects come on line, we’ll be looking at a two-decade horizon.

For many parts of my riding in Skeena, this will be a wel­come injection of economic activity, but we also have to be ready for change and embrace this process. We have the benefit of experience in other communities, like Fort McMurray.

With progress comes added demand on social infrastructure as well as public infrastructure. I’m well aware of this, because I’ve already written to the Minister of Health on a replacement for the aging Mills Memorial Hospital and to the Minister of Housing concerning the supply of affordable housing. I’ve also written to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources concerning the Copper River forest service road that was heavily damaged by a rainfall event. The same applies to the replacement of the Kitimat River bridge, not to mention the preparation that we have to do to get British Columbians into the plant once the plant is built itself.

All these issues and more have to be addressed in a timely fashion. We have to do it now and get it right or suffer the consequences later.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward by my friend the member for Skeena. I want to acknowledge his hard work when he was Chief of Haisla Nation to see this project come to the day of light. But as he’s aware, there was a stall after a while. No one thought this project was going to go ahead.

I also want to also acknowledge the current chief, Chief Crystal Smith, and the council, for all their hard work as well, for taking this project, which a lot of people thought wasn’t going to ever go through, and getting it across the finish line.

[10:10 a.m.]

Of course, I think even the member across the way will want to acknowledge the work of the Premier and the Mini­ster of Finance and other colleagues of mine for creating the groundwork to make sure that this project does go through, in fact.

We had four conditions that we had clearly outlined within our election platform that any development that goes through in this province meet four critical conditions, one being that we get a fair return for the province. Second was guaranteeing good jobs and training opportunities for people here in British Columbia and Canada. Third was making sure that First Nations are our partners, true partners, and see themselves reflected in the projects. The last was to ensure that any project protect B.C.’s land, air and water, and work within a framework for the province’s climate change objectives.

With that being said, I think every member of this House knows of the changes that we made to facilitate this huge investment for this province, the biggest in Canadian history. One was that we developed the fiscal framework. We created a level playing field — so not anything special when it comes to electricity tariffs but the same as everyone else. That made a significant difference for this project to go through.

We established a payment program for PST in construction, not to take away the PST but to allow them to pay it back later on in the cycle of the project, which makes a big difference. Of course, energy-intensive, trade-exposed status for the provincial LNG…. We know they’re competing against providers all over the world, so we put that piece in place.

The member mentioned an important topic, which is around supports for communities when they see economic development. We’ve seen studies over the years that show that when you have a boom of resource and economic development, it creates other social challenges and puts pressure on social infrastructure.

The member mentioned the need for more assistance on housing. Well, I’m sure he’s aware that just a couple of months ago the Minister of Housing made an announcement on this topic. “New Homes on the Way for Kitimat” was the headline. Part of that announcement was 12 beds for transition houses, ten beds for secondary-stage housing for women and children and 20 new affordable rental homes, including ten for accessible units for women and families in need.

We’ve seen…. There’s study after study. With the boom of economic development in a community, you see a rise of violence against women as well. This is a step to address that. We do believe there needs to be more. I know that the Minister of Housing continues to look for opportunities to make further investments, but I think it’s an excellent start.

I had the opportunity to visit the region a few months ago. I saw the member for Skeena there. It was nice to catch up over a meal. I had a chance to go to…. Of course, yes, we also threw some luggage together, as he reminds me. We had a luggage-throwing contest at the opening of the expansion of the airport. He can throw luggage, hon. Speaker. I was very impressed by how much pace and strength he used to throw that suitcase. I didn’t think it was going to get too serious, but I’ll admit, for the record, that he did beat me in tossing the luggage. But my suitcase was bigger than the one he was tossing.

I did have an opportunity to travel to Kitimat. I met with LNG Canada well before the project was approved. I had an opportunity to talk to many people in the community. The excitement of this potentially happening in the community at that time was real. I can just only imagine how excited people are at the prospect. But they also, as the member mentioned, have to now deal with the other side of it as well, and I hope the government addresses those concerns in the near future.

E. Ross: Thank you to the member opposite for his contribution to this debate on LNG and community supports. I agree that the excitement is palpable. Everyone is feeling it all across B.C. But the fight is not over. There are more blockades that we’ll have to deal with. There are more challenges we’ll have to deal with, as well as campaigns to stop LNG tankers. We’ve got to double down in our efforts to make sure not only that LNG Canada proceeds but that more projects get on the books and get approved in B.C.

[10:15 a.m.]

It was about this time last year that environmental groups were forming up to oppose further construction of the Site C hydroelectric dam project, for example. Opposition groups, including one party in this House, made every excuse under the sun to argue against Site C. But now that construction is going ahead, protesters are coming out of the woodwork, claiming that we now need to electrify every single industry, seemingly overnight.

While there’s no question that electrification does reduce carbon intensity, the fact remains that it is not always possible or economically viable. In the case of Site C, environmental groups are trying to claim that its only purpose is to supply electricity to LNG Canada. That would be quite something if it were true, but that’s completely false.

B.C. Hydro confirmed that the utility could provide power for LNG Canada with or without Site C. Now that Site C is to proceed, organizations like Clean Energy B.C. want electrification to be adopted across every energy sector. That sounds great in theory. But British Columbia is a big province, and it’s not always possible to electrify projects in remote parts of this province. It’s a question of cost and who pays for it, even if it’s possible.

The fact is that Canada — and British Columbia, in particular — is one of the cleanest producers of energy in the world. Everyone wants a greener footprint, but the steps along that path have to be taken one at a time. Giant leaps in technology are not always possible, but it’s something that we can aspire to, because just like LNG, it’s a part of the journey.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Dean: On average, a woman in Canada is killed each week by her intimate partner. Each year 20,000 women in B.C. experience violence in their relationships. In B.C., there are over 1,000 physical or sexual assaults against women every week. Over half of women in B.C. have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. That’s more than one million women in our province.

Spousal violence is consistently the most common form of violence against women in Canada. This must change. Gendered violence is an issue we all must confront in our communities. It’s not enough to say: “Violence against women is unacceptable.” Words have to be followed by actions.

We all know that violence against women hurts everyone and has long-term effects on families and our communities. All Canadians pay a steep price for gender-based violence. It’s estimated that each year Canadians collectively spend $7.4 billion to deal with the aftermath of spousal violence alone. It’s estimated that Canadian employers lose $77.9 million annually due to lost productivity, staff turnover and other expenses due to domestic violence.

Domestic violence is not just about physical abuse. It’s also sexual, emotional, financial and psychological and includes threats. Violence against women and girls includes domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and sex trafficking.

Sexual and domestic violence cut across all socioeconomic lines and belongs to no one community. However, some groups of women do experience higher rates of violence. Interactions between different aspects of a person’s identity and social location, determined by, for example, socioeconomic status, age, race, ethnicity, ability, sexual orientation and employment status, can leave some people more vulnerable to experiencing sexual violence than others.

We must pay attention to the specific and unique needs of Aboriginal women, women who are immigrants or refugees, those living with disabilities, women with mental-health or substance-use issues, women living in poverty, transgender women, etc.

In fact, Indigenous women are 3.5 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to experience violence, and the homicide rate is seven times higher. Women with disabilities are almost twice as likely to be sexually assaulted as women without. Trans people also face high levels of sexual violence. Nearly one in four trans youth have experienced sexual assault.

[10:20 a.m.]

I’ve spoken in this House before about how my friend Emma, daughter of our village family doctor, was murdered by her boyfriend — she was three months pregnant when he set fire to their house, and no one even knew that she was having a baby; my friend Kat, whose family’s life changed forever from the age of 13, when her dad killed her mom and then himself; or Michelle, who I worked with, a single mom of five who found the resources to leave her long-term partner and live independently only to have him come to her house and kill her.

However, today, instead of dwelling on the harms and individual tragedies, I’m going to focus on what we can do and what we are doing today. As the 2012 Ending Violence Association of B.C. publication 33 Years of Recommendations states: “We know what needs to be done. The challenge is to do it.”

Ninety-five percent of sexual assault survivors don’t report. When they do, they’re often not believed. Only 11 percent of the cases that are reported eventually lead to a conviction, yet we know that women who experience violence are helped by specialized supports — in particular, services that are trauma-informed, non-stigmatizing and community-based. Services available to women who are reluctant to engage with the justice system ensure that justice is more fairly achieved. To make sure everyone has access to affordable, quality legal services, we’ve expanded legal aid, including Indigenous and family law services, with a $26 million investment.

Now, a lesson that is learned repeatedly in this area of work is the proven benefits of high standards of coordination and information-sharing. Collaboration within privacy legislation can be critical in protecting women and children from harm, preventing tragedies within our communities. Along with this, we also know that high-quality risk assessment and coordinated safety planning are crucial. These are skills that require training and support and that can be vital in the protection of women and children.

All of these important services are most effective when they’re informed by the needs of marginalized women and are culturally safe and appropriate, including services that are accessible to women with disabilities, immigrant women and new Canadians, as well as Indigenous women. Standing with survivors of violence, we’ve committed to $18 million in annual funding over three years for victim support services and violence-against-women programs. To support community groups and front-line workers in addressing violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, we’ve provided $1.7 million in community grants.

Prevention and public awareness programs are another important aspect of preventing violence against women. To keep students safe and informed on consent, we launched a provincewide campaign to prevent sexualized violence and misconduct on campuses. Effective policies that support high standards of protection for women from domestic and sexual violence are all part of the solution. Organizations, front-line workers and government services have been working together for years to develop and implement policies that offer high levels of protection.

By re-establishing a human rights commission, we are creating a more inclusive and just society for all. The commission’s focus will be on human rights, education and promotion. I’m sure you can understand how that commission will also contribute to our comprehensive approach to prevent domestic violence.

J. Thornthwaite: On November 10, last weekend, I attended a protest rally in downtown Vancouver, in front of the law courts, called “Stand up against rape culture,” to support a young North Vancouver woman who was viciously attacked and sexually assaulted at an after-grad party in a downtown nightclub two years ago.

Hundreds of people of all ages, young and old, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers and teachers all gathered to hear the co-organizers Mitra and Yalda Kazemi share their reasons for holding this rally. The young offender received a two-week juvenile jail sentence plus three years’ probation for being convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault, one count of unlawful confinement of the nightclub victim and another count of sexual assault on another teenager. The organizers were angry. The crowd was angry.

[10:25 a.m.]

They had seen friends of theirs put in jail for two weeks because of a peaceful environmental protest, so it didn’t seem right to see this young offender get the same amount of jail time as the peaceful protesters.

Why? Well, the judge said he had to consider the extrajudicial consequences the offender had experienced, which included not being able to graduate from high school with his childhood friends and being shunned in the community. Really? This young brave woman was brutally assaulted, so much so that she needed to be taken away in an ambulance with critical injuries that needed immediate surgery. She was traumatized by the assault, and she was traumatized by the system. Her PTSD continues to this day.

At the rally, we heard passionate, emotional speeches from the father of the nightclub victim and the mother of the other victim. They spoke of their daughters’ indignity that they experienced at school and at work — a private trauma played out in a public way. Everyone knew.

These are the types of situations that discourage women from reporting a sexual assault. Why would you? After having to relive your trauma over and over again, explaining to witnesses, police, medical professionals, counsellors and many more within the legal system, there is little or no support after you do come forward. Where was the help for this young survivor? It was WAVAW, or Women Against Violence Against Women, who supported her through the court process when the judicial system failed.

Me Too can only go so far. There is a rape culture that needs to change from within. It’s going to have to be up to the men, the fathers, the brothers, the boyfriends and the husbands, who will have to come to terms with how they treat women, how they talk about women, not just in public but amongst themselves, and how they care about all the women in their lives.

In the meantime, there needs to be more support for the victims of sexual assault or harassment, and not just from non-profits like WAVAW, the Ending Violence Association of B.C. or the Be More Than a Bystander campaign spearheaded by the B.C. Lions. The crime victim assistance program is available but needs better profiling and funding to support the victims of crime in a more holistic manner.

Everyone needs to understand the impact of trauma and make counselling easily accessible to all. Victims should no longer have to answer ridiculous questions like: “What were you wearing?” What difference does it make what the victim was wearing? Does anyone ask the rapist what he was wearing?

This process took two and a half years and four Crown prosecutors, two of whom were clearly not familiar with the case. We need to make the victim the priority in these situations. We need to give the victim time and space to heal. In this case, the victim had to keep explaining her situation over and over again to many people, essentially getting re-victimized over and over again. She wasn’t even allowed to be called a victim until he was convicted as a rapist.

Victims of sexual assault need better support from our legal system, better supports from our medical system and certainly more support from us, the general public, men and women alike. It’s time for change. Victims need to feel empowered to speak out, feel safe to report and, when they do, be assured they will be supported. We must ensure that they will not be traumatized by the system in which they are seeking justice and support.

I ask this House to stand with me for the survivors of sexual assault and to work with us to change the system so that the victims of sexual violence are not victimized again.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

For too long, community organizations helping women affected by violence have not had the resources and support they need, with gaps in service and growing wait-lists for counselling and crisis programs. People in crisis shouldn’t have to wait for help, and front-line workers shouldn’t have to turn away women in crisis.

Our government is enhancing supports for women and children affected by violence. In a province that puts people first, we are making sure women and children can find safety when they need it most. We’re providing funding to better meet the demand for programs and services for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes. This includes counselling and outreach and crisis support as well as stable, ongoing investments in domestic violence units in B.C. police departments.

Ensuring survivors have a safe place to go to rebuild their lives is an essential first step to creating safer, more supportive communities and ending gender-based violence. We’re building 280 new homes to provide safe places to stay for women and children leaving violence, the first major investment in transition housing in more than two decades.

[10:30 a.m.]

These homes are the first step in the government’s new Building B.C.: women’s transition housing fund, a $734 million investment over ten years to build 1,500 transition, second-stage and affordable housing spaces for women and children leaving violence.

Of course, there is much more work to be done to address violence against women in B.C. We’re using our voices and platforms to speak out and join the fight for equality and safety because we know we can only end gender-based violence if and when we work together.

November and December are important months for raising awareness of gender-based violence, with the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women on December 6, 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence and International Human Rights Day.

We’re working every day to advance equality and make life better and make communities safer for women, girls and trans people across the province of British Columbia.

PAY EQUITY

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the member for raising the issue that she has just spoken about. It’s certainly a very important one and, I think, one that everyone in this House can stand united on, for certain. It’s an interesting lead-in to my statement today.

Friday was the fifth annual We for She event in Vancouver, and 1,500 women, girls and a few men were there, talking about creating an equal future, talking about the barriers that still exist for women in our country today.

Now, gender bias is attracting new attention these days. We’ve seen protest marches, viral social media campaigns like Me Too and Time’s Up. Women around the world are demanding an end to sexual harassment, abuse and inequality, men as well — and rightly so. I stand with them, as I know members of this House will as well.

In preparation for this statement today, I don’t think I had realized how much this conversation is permeating today. I’ve had conversations, over the last few months, with Equal Voice, with West Coast LEAF, with Minerva. There were two policy positions on pay equity at our party convention recently, and there was a bold commitment by our opposition leader on these issues.

There are headlines in the media and across social media, headlines like “Why Maclean’s Is Asking Men to Pay 26 Percent More for Our Latest Issue,” “Nearly Three-Quarters of Canadians Want Pay Transparency,” “After the Reckoning Comes Damning Proof Hollywood Values Women Less than Men,” “Why the Gender Pay Gap Is Everyone’s Problem,” “The Case for Equal Pay” and “The Gender Pay Gap Ex­plained.” Just a few examples, but it went on for pages.

A few articles specifically caught my attention, like one in Canadian Business: “Do Women Choose Lower Pay?” It was written by Marina Adshade, who is a UBC economics professor. She quoted in it a study by the American Association of University Women, which shed some light on the earnings of men and women just a year post-graduation.

They found that even at the beginning of their careers, women earn less than men, only 82 cents on the dollar. Now, of course, some of that can be explained by the differences in the degree, the differences in occupation and employment by sector — but not all. Even within similar occupations, this study showed that women earned consistently less than men.

[10:35 a.m.]

In teaching, women were earning 89 percent; in business and management, 86 percent; in sales, 77 percent of the salaries of men in the same occupations. As I read through many of the articles, and as I hear many of the explanations and the reasoning for why there is a gender pay gap, I start to read things like: “Women choose lower-paying work. Women work part-time. Women take time off. Men choose riskier jobs.” Well, I think we should unpack that a bit. We should debunk a few of the myths.

Yes, women do often choose lower-paying work because, in fact, society values the work women choose less than they value the work men choose. That’s a bigger issue to solve. Women work part-time or take time off in their careers, which limits their ability to access salary increases and promotions. Why do they do that? Well, partly because women still bear an overproportion of the responsibilities in the home, caring for both children and for family.

The one that I like the best is that women earn less because they don’t work in high-risk jobs. Of course, when we think about that, we think of things like police officer, which we know that women work in, but when you go even further, the reality is that recent statistics are showing that 56 percent of lost-time injuries among workers are among registered nurses. So in fact, women choose the riskier jobs and are still lower-paid.

Still, none of these things account for that last 7 percent, that unexplained gap. The UN suggests that empowering women and girls is essential to meeting 17 of the sustainable development goals by 2030. However, gender bias remains a significant barrier, especially in the workplace.

We heard last Friday from Catalyst, a non-profit that watches these issues, that while research overwhelmingly shows that there’s a clear link between a company’s gender balance and its financial health, productivity levels and innovation, women still only occupy 20 percent of governing board seats and 17 percent of executive offices. So despite this fact that 73 percent of global firms have the equity policies in place, the wage gap is still real.

Women are more educated and control 80 percent of consumer spending. They make up 60 percent of the workforce, but that gender gap in pay still exists, and the numbers are more profound when it comes to women who are racialized, Indigenous, immigrants or people with disabilities.

This year our federal government took bold action to propose legislation to address pay equity and federally regulated public and private sector employers with ten or more employees. I think it’s a good start.

A. Kang: Thank you to the member for Surrey South for sharing your views in this matter.

As we can see, this is an issue that’s important to all members on all sides of the House. I’m so pleased to be able to rise to speak about the importance of pay equity and the challenges that women continue to face in our society today.

As Canada continues to slip in its world ranking in the gender pay gap, our province must take leadership in addressing this issue. While I’m proud of the significant progress that this government has made in the last year, there is still much more to be done. Women continue to make up the majority of part-time workers and are more likely to be in more precarious positions and lower-paid industries.

It doesn’t make much sense to me that statistically women have a higher education level than men, except for in the trades, but continue to lack economic security and access to leadership positions in government and business. Despite our acknowledgment and awareness of the need for pay equity, on average, women continue to get paid less than men for doing the same work. This is simply unacceptable.

Victoria actually has the lowest gender wage gap in Canada for the third year in a row. The rest of British Columbia is not so fortunate. Pay inequity continues to exist across our province in all industries. This inequity stems back from the lack of representation.

[10:40 a.m.]

As an example, women only occupy 30 to 34 percent of management positions in B.C.’s big cities. The result: women are more likely to live in poverty than men.

Gender pay equity is a human rights concern, and I am so proud that our government is bringing it back to the human rights commission to proactively protect the rights of all British Columbians.

I would also like to take a moment to recognize the efforts of local organizations and initiatives working to close the pay gap. The Central Okanagan Women’s Resource and Education Foundation, for example, provides research and education on how violence, mental health, poverty and child care options impact women’s ability to fully participate in our economy. Women often face these socioeconomic barriers, such as access to affordable, quality child care, home care and elder care programs.

Families often have to make the difficult decision of working full-time or spending more time with their children or their elders. In many cases, women end up having to make the sacrifice and take the responsibilities to be at home. Families shouldn’t have to make decisions like this. And while admirable, women shouldn’t have to be put in the position to make these sacrifices.

Thanks to our Premier and our Minister of State for Child Care, we’ve made a $1 billion investment in a universal child care plan so everyone has access to affordable, quality child care and families can make the choices that work for them.

McKinsey, a management consulting firm, released a report suggesting that if more women worked, the Canadian economy could grow by $150 billion in ten years, and B.C. would be among the four provinces with the greatest potential to benefit from the economic growth.

To help close the gender pay gap, our government is raising the minimum wage and eliminating the unfair liquor server wage to lift up all workers. Women have been disproportionately affected by the unfair liquor server wage, as 85 percent of these workers are women.

We’re also investing in training programs and scholarships for women in STEM and the trades. STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As mentioned before, in B.C., women have statistically higher education levels than men, on average, except in the trades. STEM and the trades should not be dominated by men. We need to open up doors to these stable, well-paid jobs for women as well.

Closing the gender gap requires everyone in this province to work together. While the government is taking steps in removing socioeconomic barriers, I hope that employers will also consider ways to assess the gender gap that may exist in their internal promotional pathways and their payrolls.

Even with so many obstacles in life, British Columbian women continue to show us that success is possible across all sectors. Now imagine what we would be able to accomplish when these barriers are removed. As I always say, when the gap closes, more doors open.

A wise woman, Vera Nazarian, has expressed: “A woman is human. She is not better, wiser, stronger, more intelligent, more creative or more responsible than a man. Likewise, she is never less.”

S. Cadieux: I’ll thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for the supportive comments. Thirty-one percent. That’s the difference in earnings between men and women in Canada. Eight percent is the gap adjusted for a host of contributing factors like industry, occupation, age, union status, and so on, which is otherwise referred to as the unexplained gap.

Whichever stat you use, the reality is that women are paid less than men. The gap exists in every province, in every major occupational group, and it has only slightly improved over my working lifetime, despite the fact, as has been mentioned by both of us, that education levels for women have surpassed those of men and the percentage of women in the workforce has grown from 42 percent to nearly 60 percent.

At the current rate of change, the global economic gender gap won’t be closed for another 170 years. What is it going to take? Why hasn’t it happened?

Well, while equal pay for equal work is enshrined in the human rights code, discrimination can only be prosecuted retroactively, once it’s detected or brought forward. And we don’t talk about how much we make. We don’t have transparency over what our colleagues in our same field make.

[10:45 a.m.]

We have that here in the Legislature. We have made great strides in British Columbia in representation in our Legislature as well, which is wonderful to see, and we can only hope it will continue to grow.

Despite the fact that our caucus — myself, actually — put legislation forward on this issue, B.C. doesn’t have pay equity legislation. We can’t proactively look and see if women are being treated fairly. The Ministry of Labour has indicated that there’s no plan in place to introduce any such legislation.

While we have a cabinet of 50 percent women, which is fantastic, I do agree with the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that there is still so much more to be done. While we can’t yet be proud of B.C., I think that it is fantastic that the federal government has introduced legislation very similar to the legislation introduced here to take the lead on opening up this conversation and ensuring that women are treated equally and fairly in their workplace.

There is nothing that would be more demoralizing than to find out you are paid less than the person doing the same job as you, and it’s time that that wasn’t the case anymore.

Deputy Speaker: That concludes the private members’ statements.

Hon. C. James: I call, for consideration, Motion 32 by the member for Nechako Lakes.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 32 without disturbing the priorities of the motions proceeding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 32 — FOREIGN DONATIONS
AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
OF ORGANIZATIONS

J. Rustad:

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable, and that organizations should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.]

I want to start with a quote from the hereditary chiefs council of Lax Kw’alaams: “…we categorically reject interference from outside environmental NGOs, especially those foreign-based, who appear to be dictating government policy….”

A lot has been said about big money influencing politics. One article even called B.C. the Wild West of political fundraising. But the money that came into political parties over the past decade pales in comparison to the more than $600 million in foreign money that has come into Canada to influence politics and to stop resource projects.

The B.C. NDP and the Green Party and some municipal campaigns have benefited directly from these efforts. Organizations like Leadnow, Dogwood and Tides actually boast about their political efforts. They boast proudly on line that they’ve helped to defeat candidates. Much of their funding comes directly from foundations in the United States. These groups have received awards and recognition for their efforts and proudly post pictures on social media. They even have the gall to advertise for political staff to fight in support of their referendum on proportional representation, all the while being driven by strategies and resources from outside of Canada.

I’m proud to be a Canadian. I’m proud to be a British Columbian. Our resources support our quality of life. They pay for our health care, our education. They’re the very fabric of our society. Yet these groups are trying to hurt our economy. They’re trying to hurt our quality of life, and they are doing it simply so that our neighbours south of the border can benefit from our struggles.

The NDP, with their Green partners, turn a blind eye to this. They give long speeches congratulating each other, while being willfully blind to the efforts of foreign money. They believe that the means justify the results. No true Canadian would accept our democratic institutions, our decision-making and our rights to benefit from our resources being dictated by foreigners for foreign benefit.

No true Canadian would intentionally hurt their neighbours and willingly reduce the quality of our standard of living to follow ideology driven by foreign interests. This used to be called treason. Yet there are, in 2018…. The NDP the Green parties turn a blind eye to this. Their actions and ignorance of the issues speak volumes about their desire for power over the best interests of the country and its citizens.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s time to wake up. It’s time to see what’s going on. Enough is enough. It should be unacceptable for any party or candidate in this Legislature to willingly accept money and influence from foreign interests. It should be unacceptable that our society allows third parties to run campaigns designed by foreign interests to influence our politics and our policies.

Vivian Krause has dedicated ten years to researching what is truly going on. She has brought to light much of this information through her research, chiefly from U.S.A. tax returns. Sadly, Canada does not have the same rigour when it comes to reporting. This also needs to be changed, and if the federal government won’t wake up to this issue, B.C. needs to take steps to protect our own interests.

Open and transparent reporting is the key to stopping this unwelcome influence. Just last week Canadian heavy oil was trading at a number starting at about $12 per barrel — $12 — compared with international prices of around $65 a barrel. Foreign campaigns have been targeting our resources to landlock them so that we have no alternatives but to give them to the U.S.A. at such a cheap price. This equates to almost $50 million a day.

We are subsidizing U.S.A. gasoline prices. Think about that — $50 million a day. That means approaching $20 billion annually that Canada is losing, and that is billions of dollars that could be going towards affordable housing and health care and other services.

The Minister of Environment here today in British Columbia used to be the head of the Sierra Club, a group that benefited directly from that foreign money and its influence. It’s not possible that the NDP doesn’t know about what’s really going on. Yet they have done nothing, they have said nothing, and they continue to benefit directly from this foreign influence.

This needs to come to an end, and under a B.C. Liberal government, this will come to an end. The NDP and their Green partners, quite frankly, should be ashamed that they’re wilfully hurting Canadian families.

B. Ma: “Sweetheart Port Tax Deal Questioned by North Vancouver.” That was the headline of a North Shore News article dated March 23, 2018, by an intrepid journalist, Brent Richter; the leading photo of none other than former Premier Christy Clark, in a construction vest and a hard hat, standing atop a pile of wood pellets at a North Vancouver port company during an election campaign stop in April 2017. Her brilliant trademark smile is supported by two more smiling faces behind her — former MLA, North Vancouver–Lonsdale, Naomi Yamamoto, and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

The 2,400-word investigative journalist’s article begins with the following: “Questions are being raised about whether one of the North Shore’s industrial port terminals got a ‘sweetheart deal’ on its property taxes from the previous provincial government, leaving other municipal taxpayers to pick up the tab.”

The front-page piece then goes into detail about a series of bizarre circumstances and decisions made by the previous government that led to a substantial tax cut for the port company, and a further dispute over $1 million in unpaid municipal taxes leading to a threat of seizure of property through a tax sale by the district of North Vancouver. It was also followed by a request by the company in question to the new provincial government for help in intervening in that tax sale. And of course, lawsuits followed. It was quite a mess.

When I was interviewed for the story, the reporter asked me if I thought political donations had anything to do with the decisions being made by the previous government. After all, the company in question was very close to the B.C. Liberal Party, and they and their parent companies and owners had donated heavily to the B.C. Liberal Party.

I answered honestly: “I don’t know, and we probably will never know, but the fact that you or anyone else is asking that question at all is exactly why it’s so important that we get rid of these kinds of donations in this province. Nobody should ever have to ask whether big money was involved in a decision or not. It is not enough for a government to consider itself above reproach; it must also be seen to be above reproach.”

[10:55 a.m.]

British Columbians have asked a lot of questions about big money here in B.C. — corporate money, union money, super-wealthy individual backers, foreign money. Years of big money donations to political parties and their candidates in this province is what led British Columbia to gain international notoriety as the wild, wild west of political contributions. With no restrictions on who could donate and how much they could donate, political parties and their candidates could reach far and wide, all over the world, for the funds to power their campaigns.

A year and a half ago, before the new NDP government banned corporate, union and foreign donations and placed caps on individual donations, you could be a billionaire living halfway across the world and donate enough money to buy a political party here in B.C., and it would be completely legal. Those were the rules set out by the B.C. Liberal government, and they had absolutely no intention of changing it, because much like first-past-the-post, those rules worked great for them.

In fact, they really doubled down on it when they voted against getting big money out of recall campaigns just a couple of weeks ago. So the absolutely excruciating irony of the motion being put forward by the B.C. Liberals today just blows my mind.

Let me read it for the audience. “Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable, and that organizations should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.” I’m almost tempted to think that we’ve really, really grossly underestimated their sense of humour and that we’re actually all being punked right now, because this is next-level satire.

Alternatively, if they’re being serious, I can only conclude that what they really mean by way of this motion is the following: “Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable when political parties are not involved and that using foreign money for political activities should be banned for all organizations who are not the B.C. Liberals.”

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I honestly really believed that the reports of “bang your head against the wall, WTF” moments here in this House were absolute exaggerations. But now that I’ve been here a moment, I continue to be astonished.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise today on this particular topic, that the House “recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable.” One of the things that I think that we’re really trying to get to here is the fact that…. Why has this become such a factor, and why is it influencing what’s happening here in British Columbia?

This is not about big money politics. It’s about the fact that there is big money in business that is essentially working to undermine and, in a corrupt manner, to try to deter what people are trying to do here in British Columbia in natural resource development.

Where is this kind of happening? I mean, this is happening around the world. It’s not just here in domestic politics. It’s been a hot topic as of late in the 2016 American presidential election, the U.K.’s Brexit referendum — which, of course, has been in the news as of late — and how nefarious actors have incited killings and hate crimes in Myanmar over Facebook. It is clear, in a globalized and increasingly on-line and connected world, that physical borders cannot stop foreign influence.

Here in Canada, in British Columbia, we too have been subject to foreign influence in our domestic policies. We have seen well-funded campaigns using foreign dollars launch an all-out assault on our Canadian energy and environmental policies. These are well-thought-out, scientifically based policies. But the bottom line is they’re being undermined by these foreign resources, the funding for such attacks being almost exclusively from the United States.

Now, any student of American history will know that the United States has a long and complicated track record when it comes to meddling with other countries’ domestic politics, be it helping overthrow leaders in Iran or Guatemala or backing coups and opposition parties in Latin America. This is nothing new.

[11:00 a.m.]

What we see here today is different. It’s not necessarily state-sponsored. Wealthy American billionaires, like the Rockefeller family, who made their fortune in oil, are sending millions of dollars into our country to fund political campaigns determined to shut down domestic energy exports.

American organizations like the well-known Tides foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund are spending wads of cash in our country to lock Canada out of the global oil market, hiring employees to run campaigns and launch petitions, phone banking provincial elections and using social media to sway public opinion against pipelines and Canadian energy exports. In the end, it benefits American oil companies by reducing Canadian competition and benefiting America as a whole, as we are forced to continue selling oil at deeply discounted rates.

Without pipelines or ports, we have no access to international markets, where oil is still going at around $70 a barrel. We’re forced to sell to our only customer at around $17 a barrel. This costs us billions of dollars every year. This benefits the United States with billions of dollars.

All of that costs about $90 million funneled through various American organizations into Canada over the last ten years to help promote anti-pipeline policies and sentiment and restrict oil and gas developments in Alberta. I’d say that it’s a pretty good return on investment for the Americans — that $90 million in costs over the decade — to save billions each and every year. They have no intensive campaign against OPEC in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran; no protest in Russian state-owned Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas company; and, most hypocritically but not surprisingly, no large-scale opposition to American Energy Development or Texas oil fields.

Canada is the seventh-largest producer of oil in the world. The United States is No. 1. When you think about a spat after everything that we have just spoken about and heard about, it leaves you almost speechless — the audacity of it all. This is why I stand before the House today to voice my support for this motion. Let’s keep foreign money out of B.C. public policy. Let’s keep foreign influence out of Canadian politics.

B. D’Eith: Wow. It’s curious to see members of the opposition raise this topic when they accepted $3.6 million in donations from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and held secret meetings with them in Calgary in regards to our climate action plan. It seems unbelievable.

Let’s break this into two parts. There are two parts to this motion. “Foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable.” Is the United Nations a foreign influence? I think so. Is the member saying that the influence of the United Nations is unacceptable? If so, the member is saying to this House that work being done by this government to adopt the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people is somehow unacceptable. What about the declaration of the rights of the child? Unacceptable? What about the United Nations declaration on human rights? Is that unacceptable? I think not.

I believe that the United Nations and such other organizations can and should have a profound, positive influence on our policy in order to make B.C. a more inclusive, just and equitable society. I believe that foreign influence, such as the United Nations — especially working on equity and the rights of Indigenous peoples, children and basic human rights — should be embraced. There are basic human rights in this world that should be accepted universally.

In fact, this motion illustrates the kind of governance that a party on the other side had where they governed from 30,000 feet and they abolished the Human Rights Commission. Maybe the B.C. Liberals should have listened to some positive foreign influencers instead of sticking their heads in the sand and thinking that discrimination in our province would go away on its own. Tell that to the Indigenous women who are eight times more likely to be murdered in this country than other people.

We recognize that protection of human rights is a responsibility of good government and something that needs a proactive approach. That’s why we brought the Human Rights Commission back. We listened.

This motion also implies that we should listen to B.C. to the exclusion of the world. To say that we should not be influenced by the good work of people and their organizations other than B.C. is not only myopic; it’s dangerous.

[11:05 a.m.]

Policy that does not listen to the voices of the world is policy developed in a vacuum. Is this motion suggesting that taking account of the influence of international protocols such as the Paris accord is unacceptable? Perhaps the member is devolving into Trumpism. It’s all about looking internally and not looking outside.

I believe that our policies must be shaped not only to benefit our citizens, but also we must play a responsible role in the world. We need to do our part, listening to the voices from all over the world, to fight climate change and leave this planet a better place for our children. There are many good influences that can be derived from foreign people and entities. As policy makers, we should listen to these influences. If we stop listening to these influences, we do it at our peril, so I absolutely reject the first part of this motion.

Now the second part: “That organizations should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.” The second part is astounding, coming from the other side. The audacity to make this motion, after defending big money and politics and benefiting from that influence for decades, is astonishing.

The B.C. Liberals took tens of millions in big money donations while looking out for the interests of their wealthy donors. Our government took $65 million of big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at $1,200, and we set spending limits on third-party advertising and campaign spending to ensure that elections will not be influenced by foreign money or organizations.

Again, I’m stunned by this motion from the other side, because this is clearly one of those “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones….” I mean, come on. Let’s think of three words. The Fraser Institute. This Canadian organization is a right-wing think tank and research group that gives tax credits as a charity, because we all know that billionaires need a charity for themselves. This organization is one of the most egregious examples of big foreign-money influence in this country, and certainly the B.C. Liberals have benefited from this organization for many, many years.

The Fraser Institute takes millions and millions of dollars from right-wing American funders, such as the Koch brothers, the Cyril Foundation Trust, John Templeton, Chase Foundation and the list goes on. They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from big oil, such as Exxon, while producing multiple documents denying climate change.

They even made the statement: “There is no clear evidence nor unique attribution of the global effects of anthropogenic CO₂ on climate.” Unbelievable stuff.

If this motion is in favour of stopping investment from the Koch brothers and big oil in Canadian organizations, well, I think that’s great, but I really think the mover might want to check with their higher-ups on this one.

R. Sultan: I would like to compliment my two worthy friends on the opposite bench for floating some huge red herrings. I will supply the Akvavit, and I suggest we get together for a little Scandinavian recap after the debate is over.

In January, the Guardian reported that the FBI was investigating whether Russia funnelled money through American non-profit organizations to influence political campaigns. Our own Defence Minister said last week that Canada is next. Such foreign contributions are illegal in the United States but apparently not in Canada.

My constituent Vivian Krause researches foreign funding influencing Canadian public policy affairs. She stumbled onto such activities when researching the fish-farming industry, which was under heavy assault from well-financed opponents. Through IRS filings, she demonstrated that most of the money trying to shut down the B.C.’s fish-farming industry came from private foundations sympathetic to the Alaskan coastal communities and commercial fishermen, who were losing market share, especially in Japan, due to stiff competition from B.C. fish farms.

Fast forward to pipelines. Today the United States produces about half of the world’s petroleum, thanks to technical advances, fracking shale oil, a cousin of our own heavy oil. Americans are no longer beholden to the gyrations of the Middle Eastern oil cartels — Saudis, Iranians, and so on. Would the Americans enjoy Canadian petroleum muscling its way onto world markets? Well, not if they could help it.

[11:10 a.m.]

So far, with generous funding from American foundations to Canadian registered charities and non-profits, the United States has played a lead role in landlocking Canadian oil. As a result, Alberta’s provincial budget has been turned topsy-turvy, and Mr. Trudeau must look elsewhere to fund equalization payments this year of about $19 billion, about two-thirds of it destined for Quebec.

This is serious business. If the tables were turned, the Americans wouldn’t put up with it for an instant. Vivian Krause figures that since she started going through the tax returns, about $800 million Canadian has been shipped by Americans into Canada, a large chunk of it aimed at influencing British Columbia public policy.

Here are some of the big spenders measured in millions of Canadian dollars: the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, well over 200; the Pew Charitable Trusts, well over 150 — ironically, this is oil money; the Hewletts and the Pack­ards together shipped at least 150; the Oak Foundation, over 25; and a dozen others. These foreign interveners into Canadian affairs have tended to focus on oil and gas and climate change initiatives to stop the hydrocarbons; the forestry sector — “Let’s stop cutting down the trees”; and aquaculture and fish farms — those dratted Alaskans again. A certain portion trickles directly into political campaigns, such as the mayoralty contest in Vancouver, but only after NGO-washing at multiple levels.

Let’s be generous and say only half of this cumulative $400 million Canadian, or 400, was aimed at B.C. Let’s further assume that some of our people decide to retaliate and set out to influence public policy and rules in Texas on an equivalent scale. The Texan economy is about nine times larger than our own. To be comparable, we’d have to ship a cumulative $2½ billion American over a period of time into Texas, roughly $125 million U.S. a year. It would be noticeable. I assure you an FBI agent or maybe even a Texas Ranger would come a-knocking at your door before you got one-tenth of the way through.

So next time British Columbia faces a well-financed campaign to divert us this way and that, let’s make sure we know where the money is coming from and why.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don’t know if this motion is a tribute to the B.C. New Democratic Party because of our work to ban big money in politics. Maybe it should be, because, as you know, hon. Speaker, the B.C. Liberal Party voted against banning big money in B.C. politics, including foreign donations. They voted against banning big money in recall campaigns. They voted against banning big money, including foreign donations, in local election campaigns.

Everything about the democratic system and electing people who can govern and do public policy…. The B.C. Liberals have actually endorsed foreign donations, have actually endorsed big money in all of the ways we elect people in this province. To suggest that they now are all of a sudden saying no, no, they’re actually against that…. Well, just two weeks ago they voted against banning big money in recall campaigns. So it’s either the height of hypocrisy or….

Last week they had some incredible face-to-face meetings with their constituents, angry that they continue to champion big-money donations, and they’ve decided they wanted to get on board with the New Democrats, who are against big-money donations influencing our politics. Either way, welcome aboard if that is indeed the truth. I don’t see any indication of it, though, based on what people have said to date.

Foreign influence. Foreign donations to non-profit organizations. What about foreign influence of corporations? We know that many of our corporations that work in British Columbia and across Canada have multiple shareholders, and they’re multinational corporations. They answer to a board of directors, who may be in another nation, maybe all the way across the globe, in terms of: do they invest here in B.C. or not? They engage politicians. They try and get changes to public policy.

Are the Liberals saying that any corporation now that has a foreign buyer or foreign owner, foreign shareholders, should not be allowed to be influencing any policies here? Is that what this motion is suggesting? I don’t know. It’s so badly written that it’s hard to say.

What about if an embassy decided to fund a dancer from Australia to come perform in British Columbia to show the public what great artists they have in Australia? Is the mover of the motion suggesting that all non-profit organizations should not be able to work with foreign embassies? Maybe that’s what he’s suggesting.

[11:15 a.m.]

Now, I know in my community, there’s a Taiwanese-Canadian community. They celebrate a Taiwan day, a TaiwanFest. They’re very proud of the place they’ve come from. I’m sure that the government of Taiwan has been supporting that effort too. Is he suggesting that should be banned — or a day for Japan, a day for China, that they hosted for the Union of B.C. Municipalities? If so, it would be interesting for him to be putting that on the record.

I don’t think that’s what this is about. It’s about trying to score a couple of political points for their friends in the oil and gas sector, targeting environmental groups. They don’t support any action on climate change, so they want to talk about that.

I know that there are First Nations that sit on one side and First Nations that sit on the other side. We should respect that. If we want to talk about foreign influence in B.C. politics, we should remember we’re named British Columbia because of a very heavy-handed foreign influence that came and moved in here and colonized this place.

It goes back through our history. That’s how B.C. de­veloped. We had the Hudson’s Bay Company, a big company that wanted to profit off of this land — not indigenous to this land, but a foreign company that came in. So let’s try and not whitewash the history.

I think another thing we need to remember is that when you try and demonize the foreign, you can create real problems. Our province has had a history of demonizing so-called foreigners. The yellow peril was one, the red menace, the internment against the Japanese. You go through many parts of our history. We’ve decided to create the foreign boogeyman to attack.

I want B.C. politics to be run by local people, absolutely. I want our decisions to be made in the best interests of local people. So let’s just remember that there are many outside influences — non-profits, corporations, donors, people who come here trying to lobby us to support their own nations in cooperation with our own nation. Rather than trying to create this hypocritical, boogey-scare technique, which these guys, I guess, on the other side…. That’s all they’re left with.

It’d be nice if they actually put their actions where their mouths appear to be today and voted in favour of banning big money, voted in favour of banning foreign donations into our political system. But no, the B.C. Liberals have 100 percent endorsed foreign donations, endorsed foreign influence on our politics, endorsed corporate and big-money influence on our politics — every single one of them.

They may get up and they may speak about how they don’t want to see it, but they didn’t do it when they had the chance for 16 years. They didn’t do it when we brought private members’ legislation forward. They didn’t do it when we were government. They love foreign money donations. They love big corporate donations on the Liberal side.

G. Kyllo: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Nechako Lakes for bringing forth this motion and raising concerns on what is becoming an increasing global concern — namely, the foreign influence and interference in a country’s domestic affairs and organizations that should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.

Now, most people are certainly aware of the allegations that Russia may have had on influencing some of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

Australia has taken considerable efforts in order to ensure that they can keep foreign money out of the political affairs of their country. They recently passed national security and foreign interference laws, at the end of June, that Attorney General Christian Porter has called the country’s biggest counterintelligence overhaul in decades. The legislation includes tougher penalties for traditional espionage activities, such as leaking classified information and interfering with public infrastructure, along with sweeping provisions aimed at combating foreign interference and a registration scheme for agents of foreign political actors.

As the Australian politicians repeatedly emphasized, while the legislation moved towards passage in the House, foreign interference in democracies is a growing global challenge. Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election prompted governments around the world to give the issue greater attention and provoked a raft of legislative proposals. In many countries, however, the focus has been on intermediaries such as Facebook — pressuring social media platforms to stem the tide of fake news and to provide greater insight into political communications during elections.

Now, while charges have been laid against 13 Russians for interference in the United States election, as part of the Mueller investigation, public efforts to prevent similar activities within the U.S. and elsewhere have largely aimed at getting social media companies to better police the content on their platforms.

[11:20 a.m.]

It’s important we have a look at some of the increasing attention that this particular activity has actually undertaken over the last number of years. Vivian Krause has done a lot of work on identifying a lot of U.S. money that is actually flowing into B.C. and Canadian organizations to cause grief with their development of resource industry throughout British Columbia.

I think, as British Columbians and as Canadians, we certainly need to take heed of some of the influence that’s actually funding from the United States into Canada. We have a look at some of the work that’s been done on trying to stop and blockade the Kinder Morgan pipeline, as well as some of the opposition to fish farming on our B.C. coast as an example.

It’s really important that this actually takes additional light, in our media, and that governments, both of Canada and of British Columbia, take good consideration of some of the efforts of other governments around the globe as they look to try and combat some of the influence that’s actually being undertaken for different countries and governments around the globe.

As we know, with the significant amount of funding that’s been flowing from U.S. entities to companies like Tides and 350.org, these organizations are providing funding not just specifically to provide funding to environmental organizations so they can do the research so that they can actually provide fact-based decisions and information to British Columbians or Canadians; they are actually setting aside funding for specific attacks to try and either block our resources from getting to market, in the case of Kinder Morgan pipeline, or, in the case of the B.C. fish farms, they’re actually putting focused effort to try and stop fish farming.

I think it’s important, as we have a look as British Columbians, that we want to make sure that British Columbians are provided the fulsome information, including having brought to light the amount of foreign influence that’s actually coming into Canada.

When I wake up in the morning, I’m Canadian first, and I’m a very proud British Columbian as well. But I think that just because we have the privilege of living on B.C.’s coast does not give us the opportunity to actually block the opportunities of other provinces in Canada, namely Alberta, with getting their product to market.

As we’ve seen with the significant discrepancy between the Canadian standard price for oil and the West Texas crude pricing, Canadians are really being ripped off by being forced to sell their oil through one specific market, the United States.

D. Routley: It gives me some degree of pleasure to stand to speak in this House at all times. But it’s rather puzzling sometimes to respond to such whiplash in policy, values and principles that we see from across the way by the opposition B.C. Liberals.

This motion suggests that this House recognize that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable. It is absolutely astonishing that this could be presented by a party in opposition who had 16 years in government to get rid of big money that could come from anywhere in the world to influence provincial elections, civic elections and recall campaigns. All of those measures, they voted to support — to support big, foreign money in our public process. Now they stand up and deliver this.

This reminds me of all those years in opposition.

G. Kyllo: Are you supporting it?

D. Routley: No, I’m not.

I would get up, and I would be puzzled. How could a party run for government and promise the people A and deliver Z?

Let’s look at the HST. Was that a promise? I mean, I understand that sometimes political positions need to be adapted to the current circumstance and bent in order to properly apply in the best possible way to defend and uphold the public interest. Those are changes we support. But when you have an abandonment of principle, taking off the jacket of values and flipping it over, that is different.

[11:25 a.m.]

I always used to think about this game that I played with my daughter before she went to school. We’d play opposites day, where we would say: “Oh, it’s so cold in here; turn down the heat” or “I can’t read. Turn off the lights. It’s too dark in here. Turn off the lights.” Ha ha ha. It’s kind of funny. It is funny.

It’s funny when you actually read the suggestions and positions taken by this former B.C. Liberal government that seem to completely abandon all of the practice and principle that they defended in the past. So that would be funny if it weren’t tragic. But it is tragic because, in fact, for the last 16 years before the B.C. NDP government took power and banned big money, the B.C. Liberal government…. The only thing that prospered, it seemed, was the B.C. Liberal party donation account from foreign money and big money in B.C.

To suggest that companies doing business in B.C. on resource projects are not employing foreign funds in order to stake their position as they operate here is ridiculous — ridiculous and, in fact, insulting. It’s insulting for a number of reasons.

First of all, they either take British Columbians for being idiots or for not paying attention, or both. That’s what the B.C. Liberals think of the people of B.C. if they think that any British Columbian could read this supposed motion from that group and not be flabbergasted by the hypocrisy of it. It’s astonishing. It’s tragic because our politics have been very negatively impacted by big money, and the vehicle of that impact was the B.C. Liberal government for 16 years.

It got to the point, as we all know, where duffle bags of money were wheeled into our casinos and then infected the real estate market with damaging inflation that hurt everyone in this province. They stood by and watched that happen. They have stood by and watched so many different groups who were not based in B.C. contribute money to this province to affect public policy, and they did nothing.

It’s time for them to face up to some facts. When they were in government, the B.C. Liberals took $3.6 million in donations from members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. So $3.6 million — that’s their record. That’s why they don’t want to ban big money. That’s why they support big money in our politics.

E. Ross: I would like to thank the hon. member for Nechako Lakes for bringing forth this motion to shine a spotlight on the foreign influence and the interference campaigns currently happening in our domestic affairs.

Now, I guess it was expected that there’ll be misdirection and deflection on the topic at hand. That side of the House hasn’t actually counteracted any of Vivian Krause’s facts yet or any of her research. They try to tie it up with the big money and the foreign influence and the campaign financing and the recall, but they haven’t answered the facts that Vivian Krause has brought forward.

This is what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to get rid of the interference campaigns that are actually landlocking our resources. In fact, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is indicating that it’s much more common than we thought. While most of us would be aware of government-to-government tactics, very few are aware of the influence and direct interference campaigns of privately sponsored activity.

Vivian Krause has done an excellent job of uncovering a great deal of activity that is directed primarily against the Canadian industries that are trying to get resources to Asia. Ms. Krause discovered the efforts of American charitable organizations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation by accident when she was researching the opposition to fish farms. These organizations are the primary funders for the tar sands campaign directed by the U.S.-based CorpEthics organization. According to the CorpEthics website, their mission was to “recruit the groups, develop the strategy, create a coordinated campaign and act as a regranting agency for the North American tar sands campaign.”

[11:30 a.m.]

CorpEthics coordinated the campaign in Canada and the U.S. until 2014, when two national campaigns were separated due to their complexity and strategic focus. Executive director Michael Marx claims: “The strategy is successful to this day. All the proposed pipelines in Canada have been effectively blocked.”

While some in this country might welcome foreign influence for environmental reasons, it is not clear why these very powerful foreign organizations have not directed similar campaigns against U.S.-based industries. Whatever their goal is, this leaves Canadian trade effectively landlocked, with only one export market, the United States.

Consequently, Canadian resources are sold well below market value. It is estimated that the Canadian economy loses out on anywhere from $18 billion to $100 billion annually, or about $50 million every day, just on oil alone.

We’re not talking about the potential to landlock LNG or fish farm products. According to Marx of CorpEthics: “From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to landlock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a higher price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines.”

They’ve done a great job up to date. And it’s going to spill over into LNG. We already see the campaigns mobilizing right now. By “grassroots,” what they’re talking about is the millions of dollars flowing from south of the border to fund organizations such as Greenpeace Canada, Idle No More, Leadnow, Living Oceans Society, the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

While environmentalists in Canada may call this a good thing, these efforts do nothing to protect the environment in any way. It just means there are more and more oil tankers sailing past our coast — sailing past Victoria, sailing past Haida Gwaii — carrying American oil to international markets.

It is estimated that the United States will become the world’s largest producer by 2020 and net exporter by 2030. So why are we as a province and a country so opposed to getting the proper price for our oil exports when the United States is hell-bent on freezing us out?

Every day we are losing public revenue that should be going to funding health care and education. That’s the issue. Instead, what we’re going to see more of is more misdirection, more deflection, more talk about campaign financing, instead of looking at the facts that Vivian Krause has uncovered. We are still going to be subject to foreign influence, and the foreign influence has got to stop.

N. Simons: I think I appreciate what the opposition is trying to do here, but it’s kind of clumsy, if you ask me. If it’s a question of big money influencing policy, rightfully, this side of the House laughed, looking at the record of the previous government. I mean, it’s just embarrassing, really, referred to by many as the Wild West of political campaign donations.

Then this idea that the foreign intervention or foreign influencing in this province is somehow one-sided or uniquely funding the people who are concerned about the environment is another ridiculous assumption. If you want to get rid of foreign investment in Canada, then we can have foreign ideas…. These ideas, these concerns about the environment are perhaps universal. Maybe we’re very aware of issues in British Columbia.

I don’t quite understand how they can justify this complete, apparent contradiction in their perspective and then somehow blame foreign money for making arguments that go against some financial interests. There’s a history of debate over important issues, and those debates are influenced throughout the world by many places, in many parts. Money comes into British Columbia; money leaves British Columbia.

This just seems like dog-whistle politics — simplify things to the simplest words, in order to maybe attract people who haven’t got any critical thinking skills themselves. This is just, in my view, dog-whistle politics.

[11:35 a.m.]

The members across the way are really, really contributing to division, contributing to the idea that there’s division. Instead of trying to find solutions and building resilience among decision-makers in this country, they’re talking about, worrying about…. What are you so scared of? What is the opposition so scared of? If they’ve got good ideas…. And they can come up with them. But this is about being afraid of people who challenge their particular world view. Well, bring out some better ideas. This is dog-whistle politics.

I might add I concur with my colleagues that it’s a badly written motion. What organization…. It says: “Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy….” They have the nerve to mention fish farms. Exactly. Hilarious. You know, who owns the fish farms? Do you think about that before you start spewing off these ideas that we’re being run by foreign ideas?

I’ll give credit to British Columbians for a minute. Please allow us to know, remind British Columbians, that we are capable of thinking for ourselves, quite frankly. I can’t believe the negative attitude of the opposition, this idea that somehow we can’t withstand ideas from other places.

We’re pretty resilient here, and we should remain resilient. We do so by making sure that big money doesn’t influence policy. They’re suggesting that they’re only concerned about this pocket of big money, not that big money. They voted against cutting big money out of politics in three different ways, and they did so with shame in their heart. They’re saying: “Oh yeah, whose money? Whose big money do we not want? Well, we don’t want big money that contradicts our ideas. We want big money that’ll support us for 16 years. Who do we listen to? Hey, what about $60,000 to fight B.C.’s idea of ending the grizzly bear hunt?” Where did that 60 grand come from? “Oh, we don’t want to think about that right now.”

“Hypocritical” is the word I can think of for this motion. It is hypocritical. I think it’s not becoming of a fairly weak opposition to put this forward to justify our conclusion that the opposition has nothing to go on. I’m pleased to have an opportunity to say this is without merit. It’s not based on good wording, even. The idea is bad. It’s designed to divide us. It’s unfortunate. But here we are on a Monday morning, and I’m expecting better from them for the rest of the week. I look forward to that.

D. Barnett: Now that I’ve got a lecture, I’ll give him one back. I am thankful for this opportunity to rise on behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and speak to the topic of foreign influence. As you may know, local industry in the Cariboo has been devastated already by wildfires and beetle infestation, which is now resulting in layoffs in the forest industry. Lumber companies are simply not able to access enough logs to keep our mills going.

While we have activists calling for an end to the export of raw logs, I have to wonder what planet they are on. Better yet, what organizations are currently funding many of these groups that are supposedly trying to benefit the environment? We are talking about millions of dollars from the U.S.-based Tides foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Both of these organizations send money to Greenpeace Canada, Idle No More, Leadnow, Living Oceans Society, the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund Canada.

On top of foreign-funded private organizations, we also face the ongoing lumber dispute that has virtually gone ignored by the current government. The Premier made a symbolic trip to Washington, D.C., when he was first elected, but nothing ever came of that junket. Nor have we heard anything since from the Premier or the Minister of Forests.

Basically, we have a battle on two fronts — one inside from foreign-funded organizations who want to stop industrial development altogether…. Then we have the U.S. government trying to price Canadian lumber out of the market through punitive tariffs. What has the provincial government done on this file? Not very much.

[11:40 a.m.]

I have constituents in my riding who lost everything in the 27 wildfires, and they are still waiting for help from the provincial government. Some of our caucus members just met with the Guide Outfitters Association, and they are facing economic ruin too, but not a peep out of the government.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Madame Speaker, in answer to the gentleman over there, if I may. His government isn’t looking after the constituent. I tried….

Interjection.

D. Barnett: I helped them.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

D. Barnett: Our entire economy is suffering under the influence of foreigners, yet our provincial government seems powerless to do anything. We see, too, that with the energy industry, the Canadian economy is now losing anywhere from $18 million to $100 million a year in lost revenues, because we are selling our oil in a landlocked and captured market south of the border.

When I think of all the lost public revenue that could go to spending on health care and education, it makes my head spin. As the member for Skeena pointed out, even CSIS is warning about the negative influence of foreign influence.

It is a rough, tough world out there. Our competitors want Canadian resources at a discount. This includes our lumber and our oil. In a resource-based economy such as British Columbia, we cannot simply pretend that there isn’t a concerted effort out there to suppress our economy. That’s terrible, because in places like the Cariboo, jobs depend on our natural resources.

I sincerely hope that members opposite take note of this debate and urge their own government to wake up to the realities that we face continuously in rural British Columbia.

D. Davies: I’d like to first of all thank my colleague from Nechako Lakes for presenting this motion on influencing B.C. policy, on elections, in this province and throughout this country, threatening the livelihoods of many British Columbians and Canadians.

I find it quite funny that the other side seems to find that this is acceptable practice — even hearing referencing back to the Hudson’s Bay Company and up to present day, that this influencing is normal and acceptable practice. This is not acceptable now or moving forward.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the debate.

D. Davies: Our province is being threatened. Alberta’s eco­nomy is being threatened. Our country’s economy is being threatened. These are jobs, and these are families’ lives that are all being threatened.

As we’ve heard a lot from this side, we’ve talked about Vivian Krause, and she has followed the money behind the activism against pipelines getting crude oil from western Canada to our overseas markets. There are many others that are doing this. In fact, a gentleman in my riding by the name of Ian Fife — he lives in Fort Nelson — is also starting to do a lot of this research and followed the money. This individual is absolutely at the end of feeling like he is being targeted, as that economy is struggling.

She’s found that there are more than 100 activist groups all financed through the same Rockefeller-funded campaign, through the Tides Foundation in San Francisco. Through Tides, American interests have dished out more than 400 payments to more than 100 organizations involved in the campaign called the tar sands campaign. Even the name tar sands is misleading, as they are the oil sands. But this is all part of their narrative.

Perhaps surprisingly, the top-funded organizations in the tar sands campaign are also ones involved in election activism, including right now in our ongoing electoral reform referendum — the Dogwood Initiative, Leadnow and the SISU Institute, which most of us haven’t even heard of.

Yet they are receiving millions of dollars from the U.S. to defeat politicians in political parties who support our neighbours in Alberta that dare try to break into the U.S. monopoly and accessing Canadian oil exports to end the long lines of oil cars that are snaking through our communities and river valleys across B.C. and Alberta. This just tells us how important this political and electoral activism has become in the decade-long tar sands campaign, which by its own admission, aims to landlock Canadian crude oil and keep it out of overseas markets.

One of the groups that Ms. Krause has studied is Leadnow. She found that Leadnow was created as part of the strategic incubation program, yet another Rockefeller-funded organization based in California.

[11:45 a.m.]

She also found Leadnow’s original business plan of $16 million over ten years and photos of Leadnow staff attending meetings with Rockefeller funders in New York and Cambridge, England — constant evidence of meddling in our economy, meddling in our politics. In fact, Leadnow staff was in Australia in January 2016, where they were presented an award for defeating the Conservative Party in the 2015 election. Are these the kinds of games that we want to see continued here in our province and our country?

Canadian oil, right now, is trading at…. Actually, I think it’s around $14 a barrel today in Canada, a record low. Alberta is losing hundreds of millions of dollars every day. British Columbia is also feeling those effects. This national economic crisis is a direct consequence of the anti-pipeline tar sands campaign that has not only stalled the pipeline construction but has interfered in our election, including our referendum that we’re on right now.

I could keep talking, but I know my time is short here. I’ve only got five minutes to talk on this. I find it very doubtful, though, that the Environment Minister will do much about this, as he is pretty buddy-buddy with a lot of these groups. In fact, he even met with them the day before the announcement from the government against Trans Mountain, gave them a head’s up and treated them to some dinner, I imagine.

Our economy faces a well-financed campaign to divert us this way. We see this as an absolute threat, again, to our economy, to the workers in my riding of Peace River North and my colleague’s in Peace River South. The many men and women that work in the oil and gas industry in my riding see that these influencers from outside Canada are threatening the livelihoods of so many families.

I take this very personally. The time is now that we need to clamp down on these foreign influencers.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to stand and talk on this motion — my colleague from Nechako Lakes brought it forward — to ban and to restrict foreign influence on our industries here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would just like to recognize what is going on here. This is of national interest. This is not about our paltry squabbling across the floor in British Columbia. This is not about the NDP putting up a false front for us here on the B.C. Liberal side. This is of national interest. This is about eliminating landlocking British Columbia so that we can get our resources out to port, out to other markets, give us options, give us flexibility and stop foreign influence from eliminating us from doing that.

We’ve heard, from a lot of members on this side, of the person Vivian Krause, who has done some incredible work. This has been going on for, probably, the last 12 to 14 years, and it’s coming to fruition now. There is now a paper trail established. We are seeing how this influence is being enhanced through different channels, through Tides, through other organizations around the world, mainly from the U.S., to landlock British Columbia so we do not get our product to market.

I live in the southeast corner of British Columbia. I am home to five of the six top mines in British Columbia, heavy in metallurgical coal. We have more than 4,000 jobs that depend on our natural resources. They depend on getting that resource to foreign markets other than the U.S. The U.S. is a big partner of ours.

What is going on right now here is absolutely mind-blowing. We hear people on the other side arguing against this motion when they are the ones that talk about getting rid of big money. Well, this is about big money. It’s about non-Canadian money. This is about foreign money landlocking us here in British Columbia.

It’s absolutely mind-blowing for me to hear the people on the other side protect American interests. They’re protecting American interests, and it absolutely sickens me to hear that come from that side of the House. We should be working together here in British Columbia, from the B.C. Liberal side to the NDP side to the Green side, in order to get this big money and foreign interests out of British Columbia.

M. Bernier: Thank you to my colleague from Nechako Lakes for putting this important motion forward.

[11:50 a.m.]

What’s been really disappointing, as we’ve listened to the last hour here, is the fact that this is an important issue. It’s an issue that’s going to affect families. It’s affecting jobs. It’s going to affect companies and the people right here in British Columbia, and not one person of the NDP stood up to say they agreed with this. They said that it’s okay. Obviously, what they’re saying is…. The NDP is standing up, deflecting away from the issue that this is important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: The members opposite in the NDP had their five minutes each to stand up, where they could have actually said: “You’re right. This is an issue. You’re right. We are government, and we’re going to put a stop to this.” Not one of them had the guts to do that — not one of them. Instead, they deflected away from the issue.

We have Leadnow. We have Dogwood.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Peace River South has the floor.

M. Bernier: We have Tides. We’ve had over $600 million of foreign money coming in here, trying to influence the economics of British Columbia to hurt the people, the families and the companies right here in our province. The government has the opportunity to put a stop to that. Instead, they stood up in the House today, and all they said was that basically, they agree with it. Because they deflected away from the issue, they’re not acknowledging how important this is and how severe this is for the people of British Columbia. I say: “Shame on them.” They had an opportunity.

I look at Peace River South, Peace River North and the opportunities that we have up there and the fact that we have foreign groups that are coming into British Columbia, trying to stop economic opportunity. It’s unfortunate that the member opposite didn’t stand up for the families, the businesses and the people of British Columbia by saying: “Yes. It’s time to put a stop to foreign money and foreign influence, which are going to hurt the people of British Columbia.”

They try to say they stopped big money. I’m sorry to tell them: $600 million of foreign money, trying to stop British Columbia families from working — that’s big money. They have an opportunity. They did not speak against that today. They had an opportunity to do that. They didn’t fulfil their jobs today. It’s unfortunate that the members opposite would not actually acknowledge the fact that we have a huge issue in British Columbia, and they used to be able to do something about that. They’re not doing anything about it.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: They’re still heckling, as if it’s no big deal in acknowledging it. It’s absolutely disgraceful that they actually did not acknowledge how important this motion was and support it today. They had their chance. Not one of them did. It’s very disappointing.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no further speakers, the question is Motion 32: “Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable, and that organizations should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.”

An Hon. Member: Division.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called.

Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25, which states that no division will be taken in the House during private members’ time, the division is referred until 6 p.m. this evening.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.