2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Vaisakhi

Hon. C. Clark

J. Horgan

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, 2016

K. Conroy

Bill M218 — Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2016

M. Mungall

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Invasive plants

R. Sultan

Reconciliation journey by Anglican bishop Logan McMenamie

C. James

Bullying prevention and Out in Schools

J. Thornthwaite

Canadian Interuniversity Sports accomplishments by women

A. Weaver

Emergency services dispatchers

J. Sturdy

Alice Maitland

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

New Coast Realty transactions and regulation of real estate industry

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

D. Eby

Regulation of real estate industry and access to Vancouver listings

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Clark

B.C. Hydro management and dividends to government

A. Dix

Hon. B. Bennett

Port Mann Bridge tolling exemption policy

J. Wickens

Hon. T. Stone

Disability benefits and bus pass program changes

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

Hon. B. Bennett

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

A. Dix

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Correspondence with regard to New Coast Realty

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 11 — Trans-Pacific Partnership

Hon. C. Clark

J. Horgan

On the amendment

J. Horgan

Hon. T. Stone

B. Ralston

A. Weaver

V. Huntington

C. James

On the main motion

Hon. T. Wat

Hon. N. Letnick

D. Plecas

D. McRae

Hon. S. Bond

B. Ralston

C. James

A. Dix

Hon. J. Rustad

S. Simpson

Hon. T. Stone

M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 16-01 , lobbyist: Hal Danchilla, March 3, 2016

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 16-02 , lobbyist: Courtney Mosentine, March 3, 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Darcy

Hon. M. Bernier

K. Conroy

R. Fleming

J. Wickens

C. Trevena

M. Mark

K. Corrigan

V. Huntington

G. Holman

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Eby

D. Routley

D. Donaldson

[ Page 12141 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have a few introductions to make today. First of all, I would like to welcome Stephanie Goodwin, executive director of Out On Screen; Michelle Wilson, parent of B.C. student Tru Wilson — i.e., mom and student; Gavin Somers, Out in Schools program assistant; and Brandon Yan, Out in Schools program coordinator. They came and gave us a lovely lunch to explain what Out in Schools is all about. I’m going to be doing a statement about that in a minute.

We also have several guests from the Association of Book Publishers of B.C., too many to mention, but we would like the House to welcome them.

Last, but certainly not least, a longtime friend of mine, Gary Harbottle is here. Welcome, Gary.

Could the House please make them all welcome to the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would like to join with my colleague across the way in welcoming Tru and Michelle Wilson, Stephanie Goodwin, Brandon Yan and Gavin Somers from Out in Schools. Just a special shout-out to Tru Wilson. She’s an inspiration to so many of us.

I just want to say thank you to the organization for continuing to push for LGBT-inclusive education. It’s a message that we hear loud and clear, and now, hopefully, we can get to some action. Thank you to them.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to thank yourself for making B.C. Book Day welcome. We have the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. here. I want to acknowledge a special shout-out to Margaret Reynolds, their executive director. This is Margaret’s last year as executive director — really large shoes to fill. She’s done so well for our book publishers in this province — for authors, for readers. So on behalf of everybody who loves a good B.C. book, let’s say thank you to the B.C. book publishers and Margaret Reynolds.

Hon. T. Wat: Today I have two groups of guests that I want to introduce to this House. The first group is here today to show their strong support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. They are Christina Burridge of the B.C. Seafood Alliance, Kevin Boon and Brian McKersie of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, Mike Mueller of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada and Dan Baxter of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please make them feel a very warm welcome.

The second group of guests is from the Vancouver branch of the Bank of China (Canada), Ms. Jennifer Guo and Mr. Michael Wu. Jennifer is the senior manager of the Vancouver branch of the Bank of China, and Michael is the head of corporate financial services for the bank’s Vancouver operations.

The Bank of China (Canada) first established its Canadian subsidiary 20 years ago in Ontario and has since extended its operations to ten retail branches across the country. In late 2013, the Bank of China moved their international business centre to Vancouver, where it offers trade, finance and foreign exchange services to Canadian clients all across the country.

Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Jennifer and Michael.

S. Simpson: I know that all members on both sides hold their constituency assistants in high esteem and value their constituency assistants. We in the official opposition do, and we’re very excited that we have our constituency assistants all in town this week for their annual conference.

I know that all of my colleagues wanted to introduce all of their assistants individually and read their resumes into the record, but we are going to try to get to question period before three o’clock.

[1340]

What I wanted to say is a sincere thank-you on behalf of the official opposition, the MLAs, to all of our constituency assistants for the work that they do; for the grace and the decorum that they present in our office, sometimes in difficult situations; and, certainly, for the determination and the commitment that they show every day in the work they do for our constituents in our respective constituencies.

We value that work immensely, we’re really proud that they’re here, and we’re looking forward to getting together later and celebrating that.

Thank you very much to all of you.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to make an introduction to Mr. Vivek Savkur and his friend Kyron De Silva.

Mr. Savkur has been engaged in Canada-India bilateral business for 27 years. He’s a founding director of the B.C.-India Business Network, which is a new, first of its kind, not-for-profit, non-political organization for bilateral trade between B.C. and India. He’s the president, western Canada, for the Canada India Education Council. He’s a director of the Indo Canadian Socio Economic Association. He’s a director of Hope for Orphans Society, an institution for girls of persecuted Christians in India. He’s a former national president of the Indo-Canadian Business Chamber from New Delhi and Mumbai. And

[ Page 12142 ]

he is a member of the India Advisory Council at Simon Fraser University.

In March 2013, he was awarded the very prestigious Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal by the Governor General of Canada in recognition of his outstanding contribution to our country.

He also has some other interests that certainly would catch one’s attention. He was engaged in the first and second Himalayan international car rally and in a car rally in East Africa and in the World Snooker Championship in Mumbai, for those of you who have more indoor sports that you like. Then, of course, he was part of the team responsible for bringing the TOIFA awards to Vancouver in 2013.

An all-around engaged businessman and citizen, someone who loves to promote Canada-India business relationships, would the House please make Mr. Vivek Savkur very welcome.

D. Eby: Today in the Legislature we’re joined by Joe Wiebe. Joe is an author who’s here with B.C. Book Day. He writes at thirstywriter.com. In fact, he’s a wonderful guy, so don’t hate him for having the best job in the world. He writes about craft beer. His book is Craft Beer Revolution . He’s an expert on the craft beer scene in B.C.

Welcome, Joe, to the Legislature, and thank you for all of your wonderful work.

J. Sturdy: We have in the House this afternoon a local government elected official who I’ve known for years and who is a go-to resource for everything Bowen Island. I’m pretty sure that she’s served on Bowen council since the municipality was incorporated in 1999. It seems amazing, but knowing how well Alison understands Bowen Island and its history, it’s not at all surprising to me. Would the House please join me in welcoming to the Legislature Councillor Alison Morse.

C. James: I have three guests in the gallery today. The first is someone who’s been hanging around the building for the last while. Kimberly Copeland is currently studying political science at the University of Victoria. She’s working with our caucus on a co-op term until the end of the session.

I know the person to my right would want me to mention that she is also a constituent of Juan de Fuca and that she also commutes every day from the wonderful community of Sooke. She does work in the community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, so I’d ask the House, please, to make her very welcome.

Two other guests, who I’ll be speaking a little bit more about later. First is the Bishop Logan McMenamie, who is here from the Anglican Diocese of B.C. With him is Victor Flett, an elder and adviser to the bishop. I look forward to more words about that later.

[1345]

S. Hammell: I am pleased to introduce a former member of this House for the Comox Valley, Evelyn Gillespie. She was a member here between 1996 and 2001 and was, for part of that time, the Minister of Women’s Equality. But like Glen Clark and Elizabeth Cull, after politics she went into business and owns the Laughing Oyster Bookshop in Courtenay, and she was here for B.C. Book Day. So would the House please make Evelyn Gillespie welcome.

G. Holman: It’s my pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine, Briony Penn, who is attending B.C. Book Day celebrations in the Legislature today. Briony is an author, naturalist, artist, broadcaster, columnist and adjunct professor at the University of Victoria.

Briony is one of the most influential leaders of the land trust movement in British Columbia. She was a founding director of the Land Conservancy of B.C. and has been instrumental in guiding TLC through a very difficult period in its history so that it can resume its role as one of the most effective land trusts in the province.

To top it off, Briony’s new biography, entitled The Real Thing: The Natural History of Ian McTaggart Cowan , has been nominated for two B.C. literary awards. Would the House please make Briony feel very welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Stefan Jonsson, the director of communications for the B.C. Green Party, who is visiting today. He’s accompanied by his mother, Linda Jonsson, who is retired and volunteers with St. Vincent de Paul and is involved extensively in choirs within our community. Would the House please make them welcome.

Very briefly, I wanted to join my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey in welcoming Joe Wiebe. Now, the House should know that last year, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey got the only copy of the Craft Beer Revolution .

It was okay, because I already owned such a copy. But this year I beat him to it. I got Joe Wiebe’s second edition of his book before the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Last night on Twitter I told him I was going to do that, so it was wonderful example of bipartisan efforts here in celebrating craft beer in B.C.

J. Shin: They say Korean mothers are a force to be reckoned with, and I’m blessed to have not just one but three. Joining us in the gallery today are my mother and her two sisters from Korea.

Mumbo Li, my mom’s younger sister, is a dedicated Christian missionary, and her army of prayers from the other side of the Pacific helped me get elected and take my seat here in this chamber. I would like to thank her again today.

Sabu Li, my mom’s youngest sister, owns and oversees Duwan Corp. with her husband and family. If you have a car, chances are that it has parts and technologies that

[ Page 12143 ]

were made and developed by Duwan. Her family’s corporation and subsidiaries have grown by leaps and bounds as a global group of manufacturing plants and sales offices now operating in Korea, China, North America, Germany, India, Russia and Brazil, employing 4,000 employees. Their sales exceeded $2.5 billion, with no strike or job action in the last 22 years.

As one of its many contributions to the society, Duwan established a non-profit high school as well as a state-of-the-art university, educating 5,000 students across its two beautiful campuses that I had the pleasure of visiting last year with members from Surrey-Whalley and Surrey–Green Timbers.

Madame Speaker, my aunt. One of her missions, and she often proposes it, is that I go back to Korea to work with her. But I’m sure you would agree that there is no fancy suite in a skyscraper in Seoul more breathtaking than the nature that we have in our backyards in British Columbia and, dare I say, no paycheque bigger than the privilege of being a Canadian.

[Korean was spoken.] Would all the members please make them feel very, very welcome.

J. Darcy: It gives me a pleasure to welcome Lee Trentadue to the House today. She ran a bookstore on Galiano Island for many years and is the driving force behind the Galiano Literary Festival. She’s not a constituent of New Westminster, but she’s the next best thing. She is the mother of our city councillor, Mary Trentadue, of whom she is very, very proud. Welcome please Lee Trentadue to the House today.

Hon. T. Lake: As members of the executive, we don’t get to make two-minute statements, but I did want to recognize someone today who is celebrating their birthday. He’s someone that’s made all of us proud here in British Columbia — Dr. Julio Montaner, who has led the fight against HIV/AIDS around the world. I just wanted to say, on behalf of all of us: happy birthday, Julio.

M. Mungall: We are joined today by several people. One of them, her name will be familiar to members. Sheenagh Morrison is back in the gallery. She’s been here many times over the last few months.

[1350]

She’s an amazing Special Olympic swimmer and a self-advocate for people with disabilities. Joining her are Angela Clancy and Karen. Angela is the executive director for the B.C. Family Support Institute.

We also have a mom and her two kids. Xander and Shelby are joined by their mom, Delphine Charmley, and they are here because they are strong advocates for people with disabilities. But also, Xander and Shelby are in the front row today, taking in everything that we’re doing here in the Legislature as part of their provincial

section of their home studies class.

May the House please make them all very welcome.

V. Huntington: I would like to join the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in welcoming Alison Morse to the House today. Alison and I shared a class all the way through high school in West Van, and it’s indeed a pleasure to welcome her to the House today.

M. Mark: I’d like to introduce Romeo Tello, who wears a number of hats, one of which is as a constituent for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He’s an administrator, a coordinator and receptionist for the Vancouver caucus office.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Romeo to this House.

Statements

VAISAKHI

Hon. C. Clark: Over the next few days, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians will join millions of Sikhs around the world in celebrating Vaisakhi, and British Columbia, as all members know, is the home of the largest Vaisakhi celebration in North America. That’s the day that we celebrate the birth of the Khalsa. It’s the day that we celebrate the proud and enduring principles of the Sikh faith.

We are lucky in British Columbia that, over 100 years, we have succeeded in attracting so many people to our shores of South Asian descent — an entrepreneurial, community-minded group of people who have made such a difference.

I look forward, with other members of this House, in joining the thousands of people who will be participating in Vaisakhi events over the next few weeks. I’d like to say, on behalf of this House, to all British Columbians: Happy Vaisakhi. Lakh Lakh Vadhai.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the New Democrat caucus, I, too, want to wish the very best, and best wishes and a happy Vaisakhi to the Sikh community across B.C. as we celebrate the birth of the Khalsa.

It’s been 100 years since Sikhs have been coming to Canada and British Columbia and enriching our communities with their generosity, with their pursuit of social justice, with their pursuit of human rights and prosperity here on our shores. In fact, it’s the hard work and generosity of Sikhs right across B.C. that have strengthened our communities, wherever they may be.

At the same time, gurdwaras have been instrumental in reaching out to other faiths and creating bonds across different religions to make, again, our faith communities even stronger.

I hope everyone will join, as the Premier suggested, in Vaisakhi ceremonies right across British Columbia.

[ Page 12144 ]

This Saturday, the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade is going to take place, starting at the Ross Street Temple. On Sunday, here in Victoria, they’ll have another parade, starting at the temple on Topaz — and, of course, the massive celebration in Surrey on the 23rd. I encourage all British Columbians, wherever they may be, to find a celebration in your community. Enjoy Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi Di Lakh Lakh Vadiayi. Vaheguru Ji Kaa Khalsa. Vaheguru Ji Kee Fateh.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — SUSTAINABLE WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT ACT, 2016

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, 2016.

K. Conroy: I move that a bill intituled Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: The conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity in this province has been steadily decreasing. The land base has been neglected, and the sustainable management of animal populations across the province has been compromised. This needs to change.

Fish and wildlife are a valuable public resource that needs to be protected, and the British Columbians whose livelihood and recreation rely on these natural resources have been disregarded by this government for too long. This bill would ensure that we will protect these resources today and in the future.

Management of fish, wildlife and habitat shall be done in collaboration with First Nations on a government-to-government basis.

[1355]

This bill will require science-based objectives and peer review for habitat and wildlife management. It will establish a round table to carry out collaborative planning with First Nations and stakeholder groups.

Conservation of fish and wildlife and habitat will be a priority when planning for land- and water-use activities in British Columbia. It will ensure that adequate funding goes toward the management of wildlife and habitat by establishing a special account. By implementing science-based habitat and population management, by seeking out the expertise and experience of First Nations, resident hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts, and by prioritizing the conservation and biodiversity of habitats and populations, this bill will help to create jobs and a thriving environment in British Columbia now and for the future.

To quote B.C. Wildlife Federation president George Wilson: “A failure to adequately fund biodiversity conservation is the single biggest challenge B.C. faces.” Without funding, caribou, steelhead, sheep, moose populations and their habitat will continue to dwindle. Biodiversity needs to be funded, and it needs measurable objectives in B.C. As Hereditary Chief John Henderson, president of the Wildlife Stewardship Council, says: “Let’s use the seven-generations principle for future generations and the impact of our activities on those still unborn.”

I feel that this bill will ensure just that — a thriving wildlife for today, as well as for our children, grandchildren and their children. I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M217, Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M218 — POVERTY REDUCTION AND

ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2016

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2016.

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled the Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: Today marks the fifth time the New Democrat opposition has introduced this legislation.

Since 2011, when we first introduced a bill for a poverty reduction plan, we have seen food bank use in B.C. increase. Housing costs, food costs, hydro rates and post-secondary education costs increased as well. We have also seen every other province adopt plans that tackle poverty and seek economic inclusion for every one of their citizens. B.C. now remains the only province without a legislated plan that is transparent and accountable to its citizens. If we had a plan, government would have the structure in place to know when they are about to make poverty-creating policies and avoid such detrimental actions.

For example, had B.C. passed this bill already, it is highly unlikely that government would have suggested a bus pass clawback that increases bus pass fees for people with disabilities living in poverty. Additionally, a poverty reduction and economic inclusion act, as enabled by this act, would task government with identifying poverty-creating policies that are already in place and seek to end them.

[ Page 12145 ]

An example here is the maternity and parental leave clawbacks that deny working people with disabilities their right to collect EI benefits from maternity and parental leaves from work. While other Canadians have this right, our current government is denying them this, and it plunges families further into poverty simply because they are having children. There are so many factors that contribute to poverty, and ignoring poverty costs our communities and our economy more than taking action with a real plan.

Because of this and because it is the right thing to do, we need a comprehensive plan with targets and timelines to do the meaningful work of reducing poverty and including everyone in our economy. Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act can do just that, only if we’re given the opportunity to debate and pass it.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

Bill M218, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INVASIVE PLANTS

R. Sultan: Facebook says I’m a gardener. Well, maybe. A huge plant, ten feet tall, sprang up out of nowhere. It was giant hogweed — a dangerous pest, as it turned out, parsnips on steroids. To kill it, I had to suit up and inject it with herbicide and learn more about invasive species.

[1400]

Paul Berlinguette of North Shore Wetland Partners told me Cypress Provincial Park has been invaded. Bales of hay trucked in to save the Olympic Games also trucked in reed canary grass. Humans created this menace. A cultivar bred for fast growth and vigour, it takes over wetlands, and it destroys our streams. To control it, Wetland Partners, assisted by Fiona Wright’s Friends of Cypress and Cypress Mountain’s Bobby Swain, selectively pull it out. B.C. Parks is working on a management plan, educating volunteers and staff. Hopefully, herbicides will not have to be used.

Over in North Vancouver, a similar war is underway on the Seymour River. Here the invasive is knotweed. The ministry concluded only a full herbicide assault could do the job, but multiple stakeholders got together and said: “We want to try another way.” The ministry said: “Okay, you’ve got three years.” In 2019, we will see who won — the people or the herbicides. I am rooting on the side of the people.

RECONCILIATION JOURNEY BY

ANGLICAN BISHOP LOGAN MCMENAMIE

C. James: One step at a time, Anglican bishop Logan McMenamie is building a new relationship between First Nations and aboriginal people and the church. In March, those steps added up to 480 kilometres as he completed a three-week journey from Alert Bay to Victoria.

Shortly after his consecration in 2013, the bishop felt strongly that the Anglican Church on Vancouver Island needed to commit to a new relationship with its indigenous members and neighbours, and that commitment needed to take the form of concrete action. With the guidance of elders, the concept emerged of a sacred journey, a vision quest by the bishop, on behalf of the diocese, with the First Nations people on the land as

an act of repentance.

Before starting the pilgrimage, the bishop met with chiefs and elders and asked for permission to pass through their lands. In each of the communities he visited, his message was simple and direct. “We failed you,” he told them. “We failed to recognize the Creator in you and your land, your culture and your tradition…. We were part of a system in the residential schools that took your children away from you, and they suffered sexual, physical and cultural abuse. And I’m very, very sorry.”

The bishop completed his journey on Easter Sunday at Christ Church Cathedral, a remarkable accomplishment and a profoundly meaningful way to establish mutual respect and further the goal of reconciliation. What an example of leadership for all of us.

I hope that all members will join me in congratulating Bishop McMenamie on the completion of what he sees as only one step on a very long journey to justice.

BULLYING PREVENTION AND

OUT IN SCHOOLS

J. Thornthwaite: Safe, welcoming and inclusive schools — that’s what we want for students in British Columbia. We want learning environments free from harassment, bullying and discrimination where youth, regardless of race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation are able to concentrate on their education, without fear.

Earlier today MLAs from both sides of the House celebrated the international Day of Pink with the team from Out in Schools, a program that brings fresh, relevant films into B.C.’s classrooms to facilitate dialogue, stop bullying and promote inclusion. These presentations are hosted by young artists and advocates who use film as a medium for social change. The short films presented are dynamic and engaging and help students experience,

[ Page 12146 ]

understand and empathize with the challenges LGBTQ youth face each day.

Out in Schools began in 2004 and has since reached out to more than 60,000 students. The program works closely with school districts, educators and counsellors to tailor each presentation to the specific needs of an individual school. Though the program started out delivering presentations across the Lower Mainland, in recent years, it has expanded to reach communities outside Metro Vancouver, including Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii, Williams Lake and Kamloops.

[1405]

In addition to providing opportunities to discuss these issues in the classroom, the program is also encouraging youth to create change by making films of their own. The Out in Schools youth short film contest invites anyone aged 12 to 19 to create a short film that challenges homophobia, transphobia and bullying.

Films have to be entered before May 20, 2016. I encourage any student who is interested to participate. This is a great way for youth to be a voice for change in their community and to support our efforts and those of the Out in Schools team to combat bullying and discrimination.

I ask the House to join me in thanking the Out in Schools team for engaging students on this important issue and for helping us to create safe, inclusive classrooms across the province.

CANADIAN INTERUNIVERSITY SPORTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY WOMEN

A. Weaver: Last week in the House, we were introduced to the UBC Thunderbirds, the winner of the 2015 Vanier Cup. The next day we celebrated the 99th anniversary of the adoption of legislation by this Legislature providing women the right to vote in B.C. On that day, we celebrated how far we have come. These were indeed great events to celebrate. Today I’d like to expand the celebration of B.C.’s success — in the Canadian Interuniversity Sports, or CIS, sports championships.

In 2015, UBC’s women’s field hockey team won their fifth straight CIS championship. This year’s final game was a nail-biter. UBC was down 2-1 to the UVic Vikes with literally seconds left in the game when UVic was forced to defend not one but two penalty corners. UBC scored on the second penalty corner as time ran out and subsequently won the penalty shootout. Both players of the game, UBC’s Sarah Keglowitsch and UVic’s Lizzy Yates, were from Shawnigan Lake. There must have been something in the water there.

In women’s soccer, ten of the past 14 CIS championships have been won by B.C. universities, led by Trinity Western’s five titles, UBC’s four titles and UVic’s single title. UBC won this year’s final game 3-0 over the team from Trinity Western University.

The UBC women’s volleyball team won six consecutive titles from 2008 to 2013. This past year three of the top four teams in the country were from B.C.: Trinity Western, UBC Okanagan and UBC. In women’s basketball, from 2002 to 2010, B.C. universities won nine consecutive national titles: SFU, five; UBC, three; and UVic, one.

In the last 20 years, precisely four teams have been presented at the Bar: the B.C. Lions in 2006 and 2012, the Victoria Shamrocks in 2015 and UBC’s football team in 2016. As far as I can tell, a women’s sports team has never, ever before been presented at the Bar. We still have a long way to go.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCHERS

J. Sturdy: When you dial 911, the first thing you hear is “911 — police, fire or ambulance?” This is a voice of calm in a storm, offering relief and rescue and poised to deliver direction and support. The province of British Columbia has proclaimed April 10 to 16 as Emergency Service Dispatchers and 911 Awareness Week, in recognition of the vital role that call-takers and dispatchers play in providing emergency assistance.

The job of dispatchers is both hectic and heroic. Their calm, decisive voices can often have a dramatic impact. I’d like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of the emergency dispatchers and call-takers that help save lives of British Columbians each and every day.

British Columbia emergency health services emergency medical dispatchers and call-takers are the first point of contact for a medical emergency. Through the medical priority dispatch system, dispatchers calmly guide callers through life-saving interventions, from performing CPR to relieving airway obstructions or delivering babies.

B.C. Emergency health services operates three dispatch operation centres around the province, which, during 2015, received over half a million calls. In addition to working with the caller to identify the location and nature of the emergency and providing necessary life-saving instructions, the dispatcher alerts the most appropriate air or ground ambulance and paramedic crews.

Medical dispatchers also coordinate multi-resource transports where a ferry, water taxi, search and rescue teams, or helicopters are needed. They also liaise with receiving facilities, emergency service partner agencies, and police and fire resources in cases that require multiple or layered responses.

[1410]

Today I ask the House to join me in recognizing these often behind-the-scenes heroes and our lifeline in an emergency, the dispatchers and the call-takers of British Columbia.

ALICE MAITLAND

D. Donaldson: At a retirement party, when your boss says he always appreciated your sincere honesty, you

[ Page 12147 ]

know that could mean a whole lot of things — some of them not so positive. But with Alice Maitland, her honesty in dealing with people is what has earned her respect from all and admiration from many, including myself.

Alice retired as regional director with Northwest Community College March 31, with her primary focus during the last 15 years as manager of the Hazelton campus. Alice always put the community first when it came to Northwest Community College and the pressures that it’s been under for the last 15 years.

That is what a community college is for, to serve the vision of the community through educational offerings, rather than an institution serving the wishes of the government of the day through a top-down approach.

Alice epitomized responding to the grass roots, rather than what someone from afar deemed was good for us. That is another reason she is applauded for her sincere honesty. She is comfortable at that strategic level but is also able to connect with young adult learners in an amazing way — again, likely through that honesty that people respond to because it is genuine in wanting people to achieve their goals.

Recently I witnessed a young woman speaking with Alice about her dream of becoming a lawyer after a couple of years of criminology studies and how that dream wasn’t possible because of a lack of financial support. Alice told her of how she returned to school in her 60s to acquire a master’s degree in education and to keep her lawyer dream alive, because there was lots of time in life. You could see the young woman’s eyes flicker with hope as this amazing role model, four decades her senior, told her to not lose her ambition.

Thank you, Alice, for being such a mentor to so many, for being a fighter in a good way all your life for rural northern communities and our shared way of life. It will be the college’s loss, but thankfully, Hazelton and the north will still have you as mayor — the longest serving in B.C. history — to help ensure our grassroots vision is not ignored.

Oral Questions

NEW COAST REALTY TRANSACTIONS AND

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

J. Horgan: Since January, we’ve been raising concerns about realtors who are taking advantage of families by trying to pad their profits in real estate transactions.

In January and February, we wrote to the Real Estate Council with serious allegations of fraud, unethical conduct and illegal behaviour by New Coast Realty. We brought those concerns directly to the minister responsible and to the Premier.

We asked that serious action be taken to protect homeowners and buyers. Well, yesterday the real estate advisory group acknowledged what we’ve been saying for months and what we’ve been calling for, and that is serious penalties for realtors who defraud and take unscrupulous activities to the nth degree at the cost of individuals and homeowners.

Serious criminal allegations have been made against this real estate firm, but no audits of previous transactions will be undertaken. No licences will be suspended. The response from the Real Estate Council is that New Coast is just too big to fail.

My question is to the Premier: will she crack down today on the unethical behaviour of some realtors who are bringing the entire industry in disrepute at the cost of people who want to have a home?

Hon. C. Clark: A home is probably the biggest investment that many of us, most of us, will make in our entire lives, and therefore, it is a very, very important thing to all of us who make that transaction. We need to make sure that it is done fairly, that the people who are assisting us in those sales and purchases are doing it honestly and acting in our best interests.

The issue that the member has raised is one that government has already started to stop — that is, with respect to shadow flipping, putting an end to it. And the member brought forward legislation which would have done the same thing, except that under his plan, in stopping shadow flipping, what the member would have done is made sure that the government got the extra money that the real estate agent would otherwise have received.

Our plan, which we will see in the next few weeks made real in regulation, would mean that the seller of the property, not the government, would get any additional profit that might otherwise have come and that currently people are seeing through what I would argue is a shady and unfair practice.

[1415]

Shadow flipping is done by people who are driven by pure, naked greed, and we are moving to put a stop to it.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: After we took action in this House, the Premier responded the next day, saying she’d had enough. She had had enough. She characterized it as pure greed, naked greed, and she was going to put a stop to it. Just ten days ago people in the Liberal Party received a letter from the president saying the following: “Our government has taken immediate action to end the practice of shadow flipping by implementing new provincial regulations.”

But with most of the things the Premier says, you really have to check that against delivery. I’ve just heard the Premier say now that we are working for something down the road. A month ago it was going to be immediate action. A week ago it had already happened.

What is it, Madam Premier, through you, hon. Speaker — are you going to take action, have you taken action, or

[ Page 12148 ]

is it just another way to move this ball down the field and hope the story goes away?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the purchase of a home is the single most important, most expensive transaction that most of us will make in our lifetimes. We do need to make sure that the changes that we make, while they are urgent and are being dealt with very quickly, need to be done well. This is not an NDP budget. We are not doing it on the back of a napkin.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Yeah, the debt-free was on the side of a bus, not on the back of an envelope. The then communications director for the Premier said: “What would I do with $1 trillion?” That wasn’t on the back of an envelope; that was 140 characters on a tweet.

A month ago the Premier said she was going to take immediate action because she had had enough. We’ve been raising the issue for months in this Legislature. The people of the Lower Mainland have been talking about housing affordability for years, and now the Premier is saying: “This is tough. We’re going to have to take some time.”

When we asked the government to collect data on these instances, they said: “Well, we’re going to put a new box on the form so that we can trust the speculators to fill it in appropriately.” When we said that we should do audits and that we should suspend licences, the Premier said: “I’m going to put some people in charge of that.” They’ve just come back and said that actions should be taken, but not enough action.

My question to the Premier is this. In light of the serious allegations against New Coast Realty, will the Premier write to the Vancouver police and ask them to institute an investigation into the practices there so that we can protect other realtors in this province and we can protect homeowners and homebuyers from shady practices by this firm?

Hon. C. Clark: The government is already taking action. We will also…. We’re waiting now for the final report from the Real Estate Council, and we will take more, as I’ve said a number of times. If they don’t fix this through clear enforcement, through tough penalties, this government will do it for them. We won’t do it on the back of a napkin. We will do it properly, we will do it well, and we will respect the fact that people make a huge investment.

Huge investments are what people are making in British Columbia every day. The member talks about debt-free. Well, British Columbia will be wiping out our operating debt for the first time in 40 years.

Meanwhile, the member opposite…. You don’t get there by doing what the member opposite says. You don’t get there by saying no to Site C. You don’t get there by saying no to LNG. You don’t get there by saying no to trade deals, and you certainly don’t get there by saying no to workers and saying no to jobs. The only way to make sure you get rid of your debt in this province, the only way to make sure that we build a future for our kids, is to find a way to get to yes.

D. Eby: I understand why the Premier wants to change the topic. The allegations against New Coast Realty are shocking. They include that New Coast realtors were trained to deceive clients about property value so the company could sell the properties not once but twice, for two commissions.

[1420]

They include that the realtors were allegedly trained to deceive clients about the need for a fake buyers bonus that was actually going back to the client’s own realtor without the client’s knowledge. That’s fraud. Former New Coast realtor John Zhou told the media: “Sometimes the owner wanted us to do something illegal to make more money.”

A firm of 445 realtors, they advertise themselves as the largest realty firm in the city of Vancouver. Allegations they were schooled in fraud, former realtors alleging they were told to break the law, and the regulator says they won’t suspend the firm’s licence and won’t audit all of the past transactions.

We’ve written to the police. We’ll table those letters. Will the Premier write to the police as well?

Hon. C. Clark: We have taken action when it comes to shadow flipping, and the members will see the results of that in the next week or so. We are, though, also waiting and watching very carefully as we wait to receive the report, the final report, because this needs to be done well. It needs to be done thoughtfully and it needs to be done properly if we’re going to protect people in making sure that when they make that most important purchase of their lives, they are doing it with someone who is behaving ethically and in their best interests in all cases.

Here’s what the Real Estate Council has said so far. They wrote to say that they share council’s view that “maximum fines and penalties need to be increased to allow a greater and more meaningful range of monetary consequences.” The author of the letter says: “I expect the IAG will make a number of recommendations pertaining to penalties in its final report…ensure a robust system that not only punishes those who are caught but functions as a deterrence to those who are considering actions or activities that contravene the act and the rules.”

We are looking forward to seeing the final results of that report, as I said. If we don’t feel like it’s strong enough, we will certainly do more, because we want to ensure that people are protected in this province, that homebuyers are protected in this province. And we want to make sure

[ Page 12149 ]

that people who aren’t doing the right thing, people who are driven by greed, suffer severe penalties for doing so.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: While the Premier has been waiting, while she’s been watching, not a single rule has changed. Not only that, let me give the Premier an update on what’s been happening while she’s been waiting and while she’s been watching. New Coast has been in the news since February with allegations of reprehensible conduct. But the Real Estate Council didn’t feel they were worth investigating until they got an audiotape of an alleged how-to session in fraud.

Now, is the Premier content to let things play out, as they have, with consumers losing confidence in realtors in B.C., hard-working realtors who follow the rules, or will she join us in asking the police to investigate these serious fraud allegations involving this firm?

Hon. C. Clark: By the way, the investigation that’s happened, and this is in the letter that I’ve quoted from earlier, is the result of a request from the superintendent of real estate, who works for the Minister of Finance. This investigation and this work that’s being done was initiated, in part, by the government itself, because we want to get to the bottom of this, and we want to make sure that we are protecting homebuyers in the most important investment that they will ever make.

We are also working with the city of Vancouver and other governments across the region to deal with issues, where we can, on occupancy — nobody wants to live in a hollowed-out neighbourhood; on issues of speculation, to see what we can do around that; and on density.

And I would note that the member opposite who just raised the question, who often talks about housing prices, does not support increased density in his own riding. He is fighting rental housing. He is fighting that housing that would be available to a much broader range of people. And while he stands up and he says that he wants affordable housing in the city of Vancouver, he wants it everywhere else but the neighbourhood that he represents.

[1425]

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

AND ACCESS TO VANCOUVER LISTINGS

M. Farnworth: It’s not just shadow flipping that’s a problem. For British Columbians right across this province, the dream of owning a home is the most important thing they have. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and they save for a down payment. They save for a down payment. The least that they can expect is that when they see a home for sale, they have first crack at that home.

Recent reports of what is taking place, in which offshore speculators are getting first crack at British Columbia homes, offshore speculators are getting to the head of the line, are frustrating the dreams of many British Columbians.

My question to the Premier is this. Does she believe it’s fair that offshore speculators get first crack at homes that hard-working British Columbians are trying to save for and buy?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as the member knows, people from around the world in British Columbia, which is still a free market…. Until we make that great leap forward, we are still a capitalist society where people can invest from around the world. That’s been the case in British Columbia for a long time.

However, our government has reinstated…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …the requirement that people submit, on their purchase, whether or not they are a citizen of Canada. That was something that the NDP took out and that our government is putting back in. Clearly, when we have more information and more data, we will be better off and better able to have these discussions.

The other thing I would add is this. Housing supply is clearly a very, very big issue in the Lower Mainland. When supply and demand — I’m pretty sure none of the NDP went through economics 101, but this is what they teach you — are out of balance, it means that prices rise. We do need to do some work in making sure that there’s an adequate supply of housing.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, this House will come to order.

Vancouver-Hastings, come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: I feel like it’s too easy to get those guys upset, Madame Speaker.

We do need to work on issues of supply, and that’s something that we need to do in concert with local governments. That’s something that our Minister of Housing and our Minister of Finance are currently working on with the mayor of Vancouver. Ultimately, all of the changes that we can make to ensure transparency and ethical behaviour in the system will be important, but we do need to make sure that we address the basic issue of supply and demand, which clearly is out of balance.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What the public of British Columbia wants is some action from this government. What they

[ Page 12150 ]

want is a fair market, not a rigged market where they’re second in line. They want to know that when they go to a realtor, they’re not getting told, “Oh, this price is the best price,” and then find out later that — guess what — it was sold for additional revenue that they are not seeing. That’s what they want. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and when they see a house on MLS, they want to know they’re getting first crack. That’s not taking place.

My question again to the Premier is this. Does she think it’s fair that offshore speculators are getting first crack at family homes that British Columbians want to buy?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, you know, 13,000 people moved from other provinces in Canada to British Columbia over the last three quarters. Almost half of them were from Alberta.

I suppose the member opposite would also like, then, to make sure British Columbians get first crack at those homes that Alberta refugees who are fleeing the economic devastation next door and crossing the Rockies looking for one of those 72,000 new jobs that have been created in British Columbia last year — by the way, the number one economy in Canada…. I suppose the member would like to bar all those Albertans from being able to get a first crack at a home in British Columbia as well.

I hope I’ve illustrated that the issue is more complicated than the member suggests in a free economy. But we do want to make sure that when we welcome people to British Columbia and we make homes available for British Columbians…. When he says it should be only British Columbians that get first crack, I don’t think it’s as simple as that.

[1430]

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND

DIVIDENDS TO GOVERNMENT

A. Dix: In the budget debate on B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy made a series of embarrassing admissions. First of all, he said that under this Premier, the Liberal cabinet had ordered B.C. Hydro to borrow money it doesn’t have; $2 billion left because the B.C. Liberals needed the cash. That’s what we call Premier profit. Perhaps if the Premier took economics 101 again, she’d understand that everyone else calls it debt.

Secondly, the Liberal cabinet ordered B.C. Hydro, even though it knew it would not be permitted to do so by the B.C. Utilities Commission, to create a revenue acceleration account to create accelerated revenue that did not exist in fact.

Both of these things were ordered by the cabinet, not B.C. Hydro and, according to a Moody’s report this week, have transformed the financial position of once-proud B.C. Hydro into one of the weakest in Canada. How can the minister justify this unprecedented and misleading raid that has undermined B.C. Hydro’s financial position?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the Moody’s annual report was not actually a change from previous reports. The province still has a triple-A credit rating, something that the other side would definitely not be familiar with. Moody’s has also stated that B.C. Hydro’s debt service ability is still strong.

What we know, and we’ve dealt with this now in estimates…. We’ve also dealt with it during question period, so we’ll deal with it again during question period. The practice of B.C. Hydro paying dividends to government started in 1992. The media in the 1990s made it very clear that the NDP should stop using B.C. Hydro as a “cash cow.” That’s a quote from an

article of the day. The NDP at the time kept rates artificially high. They bring this upon themselves. They truly do.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me just read a quote, if I can, hon. Speaker, if I can have some ability to actually say something without being interrupted.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

This is a quotation from January 29, 2000. It’s from the Vancouver Sun . “The New Democrats resorted to an extraordinary set of cabinet orders that forced Hydro to keep its electricity rates artificially high, ensuring the flow of dividends would continue. In 1993 and again in 1998, Hydro had to borrow money to satisfy the provincial government’s cash demands.” That’s an

article in the Vancouver Sun from the year 2000.

We have committed to changing this practice by reducing the dividends payable to government by $100 million a year, starting in 2018.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Boy, I’m glad we stayed quiet for that quote. Oh boy.

Interjections.

A. Dix: A 5 percent increase in rates over nine years. The minister said we kept the rates artificially high. But he wrestled them to the ceiling at 28 percent, and he’s defending ratepayers.

None of this changes the fact that the Minister of Energy and the Liberal government…. Under their leadership, the people of B.C., on these questions, were misled. They were misled when the government created $2 billion in debt and claimed it was profit. That was misleading.

[ Page 12151 ]

Who misled the people? I can’t say in this House, but the decision was made by the Liberal government. The people were misled when they created a revenue acceleration account that created revenue out of thin air to help the Liberal government try and balance the budget.

[1435]

They did it. It was unprecedented. It would have been refused by the BCUC, and they did it in the cabinet. Who misled the people? I can’t say in this House, but they’re probably sitting over there. Who will pay the price for it? It’s ratepayers. It’s ratepayers that are paying it now, and they’re paying it into the foreseeable future, and they can’t pay with Premier dollars.

Why has the minister undermined B.C. Hydro? Why have people in this province been misled by the shabby B.C. Hydro policies of this government?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, we’ve misled the ratepayers of B.C. all the way to the third-lowest rates in North America. That’s how bad it is. It’s really bad.

You know, the member sits over there, and he talks to us on this side of the House about misleading. Of all the members on the other side of the House, he sits over there, and he talks about misleading people. You know what? I don’t ride the subway very much, but when I do, I buy a ticket. And the other thing that I never do is I never backdate memos and then lie about it to the RCMP. I don’t do that. Nobody on this side of the House ever does that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let that member not be preaching to us about misleading anybody.

PORT MANN BRIDGE

TOLLING EXEMPTION POLICY

J. Wickens: The Port Mann tolling operator, TReO, offers an exemption for persons with disabilities, but to qualify, one must be the registered owner of that vehicle. This policy leaves parents and caregivers of children with disabilities facing the same or greater transportation demands paying full tolls. While the Transportation Investment Corporation has promised a review of their tolling policy, that is not good enough.

Families have it hard enough in this province. I am sick and tired of families being pushed to the absolute breaking point before this government will look at its ridiculous policies. The breaking point. Families are looking at the breaking point, and having to pay to go back and forth for therapy is completely unacceptable.

Will the minister commit today to extending the exemption to parents of children with disabilities in this province?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I would like to remind the member opposite that the Port Mann Bridge, through the TI Corp, is actually one of the only tolled facilities, one of the only tolling authorities not just in North America but indeed around the world that actually provides exemptions for persons with disabilities, and we’re very proud of that.

Now, that being said, we’re always looking for ways to make further improvements. That is why I’m very pleased that TI Corp has made their intentions known that they are launching a review of their entire exemptions policy. Certainly, we understand the struggles of parents with children who have disabilities, and that is why it will be so important, as part of this review, to hear from those folks, to hear from those organizations. The review is underway now, and we will see where it lands in the coming months.

[1440]

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND

BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Well, despite the minister’s long-standing spin job, people with disabilities are not giving up on their fight to end the bus pass clawback. Today they were on the steps of the Legislature again. Delphine Charmley was among them. She has two adult sons with disabilities who will now each be paying another $624 every year for their bus pass. If they choose not to get out into their community, however, and rather to take that money and buy the healthy food that they need but can’t afford now, they will not have to pay that extra money.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question.

M. Mungall: Delphine knows that this choice that the minister has forced onto her sons is plain wrong. It is mean-spirited, and it needs to come to an end immediately. Why doesn’t the minister know that as well?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The fact is everyone who receives persons-with-disabilities assistance will now receive a transportation allowance. Everyone, including the 45,000 people who were never receiving transportation support, will now receive it.

We have made a $170 million investment to help raise the rates for people with disabilities. Everyone will see a $25 rate increase to their allowance, and they will see a $52 transportation allowance, still providing everyone with transportation across this province, no matter where they live. Now the system will be fair and equitable for everyone.

[ Page 12152 ]

M. Mungall: The minister has no idea why 45,000 people were not accessing the alternative transportation subsidy or the bus pass program because she consulted with absolutely no one on this bus pass clawback. It was something that they dreamed up to give people money with one hand and take away with the other, and that is just plain mean.

The minister ought to know by now that Ms. Charmley isn’t the only mother concerned for her children’s continued ability to be part of their community. There are thousands just like her. Clair Schuman writes about her son. He has autism, is not able to work and needs his bus pass to keep some independence. Getting enough healthy food is a challenge for him, and now he and his mom are trying to figure out whether he should buy more healthy food or if he should buy a bus pass, because with this policy, it just can’t be both.

When will the minister stop putting thousands of families like Delphine’s and Clair’s between a rock and a hard place and do the right thing? End the bus pass clawback. That’s the right thing, Minister. Let’s see it today.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If the member opposite is having such a difficult time understanding what an investment of $170 million means to the people with disabilities around this province, she can come meet with me. It’s been months. She has never requested a meeting with me. She has never come to talk to me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. B. Bennett: I want to withdraw the use of one word. I thought, after I sat down, that it’s not a word that’s parliamentary, and I shouldn’t have used it.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

[1445]

Madame Speaker: We will only proceed, Members, if the Chair can hear the submissions.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

A. Dix: I know it’s the slogan of that government that rules are for other people, but I will reserve my right to raise a question of privilege in this House.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: For the information of members, there will be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education in

Section A. Here in the main House,

Section B, I now call Motion 11. I would ask that members involved in the Education estimates and other duties please depart the chamber before we begin the debate on the motion here in this chamber.

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I seek leave to table the two documents I discussed in my question today — letters to the police concerning New Coast Realty.

Leave granted.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 11 — TRANS-PACIFIC

PARTNERSHIP

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to move a motion in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a motion that asks and urges the federal government to implement it.

There are voices across this country today — we hear them loudly and clearly — that say no to all economic development. They say no to creating jobs for working people. They say no to deals like TPP. In the name of ideology, they claim that it’s time to dismantle our economic foundation. But what they are really saying is no to working people, and they’re saying no to jobs. If those voices had their way, this would be the first generation of British Columbians that left this province poorer than we found it.

I know that we can always do better. We always must strive as a government, and as a society, to do better. But the answer isn’t to disrupt the free flow of ideas and the free flow of capital. It isn’t to disrupt innovation and all of those things that happen in a functioning capitalist system, where trade deals mean jobs.

In British Columbia, we know that international trade is the foundation of our prosperity. International trade is what creates jobs for people across our province, and it always has been. We are Canada’s Pacific gateway, and our future is linked more that any other province in the country with what’s going on in Asia.

[ Page 12153 ]

For over ten years, we have focused on expanding our trade and investment ties in Asia, and it has worked. The results are clear. We’ve seen more opportunities. We’ve seen more wealth. We have seen more jobs in every corner of this province — 72,000 jobs created over the last 12 months in British Columbia.

We are number one in economic growth in Canada, and that’s as a result of the visionary work that the private sector and government have done together in opening up new markets, diversifying our customer base, diversifying the products that we sell to them. Whether it’s sawmills or software, mining or medical technology, we benefit from trade. When I say we, I mean workers and families in British Columbia.

[1450]

There are benefits to trade on both sides. We export clean technology to China. China uses that clean technology to make sure that they have less pollution, that they fight climate change — the same with Korea, the same with Japan, the same with countries around the world.

The TPP is another great step in the right direction for us — a level playing field for a market of 800 million people, a total GDP of $28 trillion, a $235 million boost to British Columbia’s GDP and thousands of jobs that go with that.

We know what happens when provinces rely too much on a single industry. We’ve avoided that in British Columbia by creating one of the of the most diversified economies in North America. We know what happens when provinces and jurisdictions rely on just one trading partner. We’ve also focused on making sure that we diversify our markets. We know what happens when governments focus on growing the size of government, rather than growing the size of the economy.

We need to create jobs in British Columbia. We need to continue along that path if we want to leave our children richer than even we have been. British Columbia and Canada need to keep moving forward. We don’t need to move backward. So let’s encourage Ottawa to do its consultations, as they promised in their platform. Let’s let them hear from Canadians. But at the end of that process, let’s encourage them and urge them to move quickly on passing TPP, because it will be great for workers in British Columbia.

With that in mind, I introduce the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership because: the Trans-Pacific Partnership removes trade barriers and provides preferential market access for B.C. goods and services from all sectors including forest products, agrifoods, technology, fish and seafood, minerals and industrial goods, and through the transition support will be available to our supply-managed industries; the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides more access for service providers in professional, environmental, and research and development fields; and, ultimately, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase investment and create new jobs and opportunities for many British Columbians.]

J. Horgan: Once again, the Premier has called her motion today, absolutely convinced that she knows best. In this case, it’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The CEO of Ford of Canada has said: “There will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing.” But the Premier knows best. The former CEO of BlackBerry Canada said: “I actually think this is the worst thing that the Harper government has done for Canada.” But the Premier knows best. The CEO of an investor in a B.C. tech start-up said: “Potentially dangerous for several innovation-driven sectors such as tech.” But again the Premier knows best.

A Nobel Prize–winning economist has said the deal “was done in secret and with corporate interests at the table.” Again the Premier knows best — which perhaps explains why the Premier is so comfortable with this. It’s because there is an expert whose opinion she values more than all of these others, who said: “Ten years from now, I predict with 100 percent certainty” — 100 percent certainty — “that people are looking back, and they will say: ‘This was a great thing.’”

The Premier supports that. That, of course, was Stephen Harper who said that some time ago. You might remember Stephen Harper. He was the Prime Minister of Canada. The public responded to his certainty by dispatching him to the opposition benches, and I expect that that may well happen to the Premier as well. But the Premier knows best — 100,000 jobs in LNG. Focusing all of her energies on one sector, the Premier knew best. “Debt-free in British Columbia” — the Premier knew best. A $100 billion….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1455]

J. Horgan: The Premier specializes in 100 percent certainty. That’s how she rolls. That’s why we have a dead-in-the-air prosperity fund that’s being now populated by increases to MSP premiums, not by revenues from LNG but from increased costs year after year after year that have been brought in by this government. Stephen Harper got his feedback on the TPP, and it was pretty clear.

On Monday, in this province, the new federal government will be in Vancouver as part of their public consultation with Canadians to hear what we think about this important issue — what regular people think about this important issue. Regular people — people that the Premier doesn’t spend having dinners at $10,000 a pop — ordinary folks. They’re going to have their say, and it would be nice if the Premier agreed with that.

Interjections.

[ Page 12154 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier is going to leave that to the federal government. She is absolutely certain that she knows best about how we’re going to grow our economy. I’ve seen that from her for the past five years. [Applause.]

I see almost all the seals are here today, and that was a resounding blast from those on the other side.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, parliamentary debate is characterized by moderation.

J. Horgan: If the Premier wants to carry forward her 100 percent certainty that she knows best and that this is in the public interest, I’m proposing that she take the opportunity to actually ask the public what they think — not to come out of her private meetings and say: “This is going to be grand for everyone.”

I’m hopeful that she’ll support the following motion. I will move:

[That Motion 11 be amended by deleting the text after, “Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports” and substituting, “referral to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for robust and transparent discussion and public consultation on the long-term job creation and employment impacts for British Columbia of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”]

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: The motion speaks for itself. The federal government, as I said, is going to be here on Monday. They’re having open hearings. They’re going to talk to British Columbians to see how they feel about the TPP and whether it’s going to be in the best interests of their sectors, of their communities, of their jobs.

The federal government understands that people have concerns and questions, and they need to be addressed. The certainty that the Premier has is not shared by the new government in Ottawa. They’re going to go out and consult and talk to the people of British Columbia, the people of Alberta — right across the country — and that’s as it should be.

A confident government would ask the people what they thought. A confident government would not just say: “I know best.” A confident government would say to people: “What are your views? What do you think? I appreciate we’ve been here languishing on the government side for 15 years doing whatever the heck we want, but now we’ve decided we want to talk to you. We want to talk to you about how you feel about this motion.”

When this motion was moved, I had a hope that the Premier would recognize that this was an opportunity for her and her colleagues to say to British Columbians: “We care about what you think. We care about your concern that other trade deals in the past have had a negative impact on job creation” — and a negative impact on their jobs.

B.C. is a trading province. We all understand that. There’s great hope and potential and opportunity across the Pacific Ocean. I agree with that statement. But I’m not necessarily convinced that the CEOs that sit down with the Premier and tell her that she should be 100 percent certain that it’s in their interests are speaking for the people of British Columbia.

With that, I’m hopeful that other members of this House will support this amendment and join with me in saying that the people of B.C. should have a say in the TPP, not just the Premier and the people she dines with.

[1500]

Hon. T. Stone: On the amendment. First, I want to say that it actually really takes courage to stand up and tell British Columbians what you actually stand for. I know the members opposite, and the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, would like to gloss over the fact that the federal government is on the front end of a cross-Canadian engagement. That’s their job. This is a federal trade deal. They’re going to do engagement. They’re going to be out there, and they’re going to talk to people across the country.

What British Columbians want to know is where the parties in this province stand. Where is the…?

Interjections.

Hon. T. Stone: I know we touch a nerve when we talk about standing up for jobs. But, you know, the unfortunate reality…. And we certainly saw this play out at the national NDP convention, which many members opposite attended this last weekend, where the great leap forward, the manifesto, was endorsed. We now know why members opposite are so reticent to support jobs in this province, so reticent to get behind projects that will put British Columbians to work.

When you look at this, you quickly realize that it’s actually the B.C. NDP, the members opposite, who are the intellectual inspiration for the Leap Manifesto. Every opportunity that the members opposite have had in this House to support major projects, job-creating projects in this province, the members opposite have said no.

Every major transportation infrastructure investment that we have moved forward with as a government in the last 15 years, the members opposite have voted against. We see that pattern continue with the Port Mann Bridge. We’re seeing it with the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. Site C — there was a tremendous opportunity…. It was a tremendous opportunity and continues to be, because they can change their minds. We encourage them to do so. There was a tremendous opportunity for

[ Page 12155 ]

the members opposite to stand up and to support Site C, and it was another big, fat no from the members opposite.

LNG. Now, members opposite try to walk a line. Some of the members opposite say that they support some aspects of LNG. Some are opposed to fracking. Some support this project but not that project. But when they had the opportunity to stand up on the largest investment, the potential investment in the immediate term, the Pacific NorthWest LNG, the members opposite decided to say no yet again. While they like to put out press releases by the dozen on a daily basis, on that particular point, there was no press release. It was a simple letter sent secretly to the federal CEAA process. But at the end of the day, it was another big no from the members opposite.

It’s not that difficult to actually get behind these projects and support the thousands of British Columbians who stand to benefit in the form of really good-paying, family-supporting jobs. I mean, perhaps the members opposite should spend a bit more time with the building trades folks than they obviously do. If they did, they would understand that there are tremendous opportunities, whether it’s with Site C or with LNG or with any number of major transportation infrastructure projects in this province. The members opposite consistently say no to those projects.

[1505]

Then we see this Leap Manifesto come forward last weekend. This is where all the dots are starting to connect. This is where, I think, British Columbians are really, truly going to see what the agenda of the B.C. NDP, the members opposite, really is.

This is a manifesto, as they like to call it, that, among many things, says: “There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future…. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.” The manifesto says that there must be “more localized and ecologically based” agricultural systems. Their manifesto calls for an end to trade deals. It goes on and on and on.

Many members opposite were at this convention, because they’re all members of the NDP, as the NDP. They participated in the vote on the resolution that was put on the floor and that was endorsed by the members at the convention, the resolution that said: “Be it resolved that the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history and values of the party.”

The Leader of the Opposition has had ample opportunity to distance himself from the Leap Manifesto. Instead, he goes back and forth, as he does on most issues. In the radio interviews that he did this morning, he talked about how he doesn’t agree with all of the Leap Manifesto. But there’s a good amount there that he can work with, he says.

I think British Columbians are looking forward to finding out, you know, what…. Is that the “no more fracking in British Columbia” part? The “keep the resources in the ground forever” part? Is it the “no more big infrastructure” part? Is it the “let’s not import and export agriculture products” part? What

part is it?

This brings us back to the TPP motion, to the amendment to the motion. We know where we stand when it comes to jobs in this province. We consistently approach these major projects from a perspective of: how do we get to yes? How can we bring all the parties together, resolve any issues that there might be, get to yes and create jobs? The members opposite start from a place of no, and their track record consistently demonstrates that.

With respect to the amendment, again, I would remind the members opposite that this is a Canadian federal government trade deal. It’s an international trade deal. The federal government is in the midst of a significant consultation across the country.

We encourage all British Columbians to participate in that engagement, obviously. But part of that engagement is for the province of British Columbia, the people who are duly elected by the people of this province, to also stand up and to let British Columbians know where they stand.

This is a good trade deal for British Columbia. It’s a deal that’s going to create thousands of jobs in British Columbia. It’s going to ensure that British Columbia, as the Pacific gateway for this great country of ours, continues to benefit from our place in geography and our place in history.

It’s time for the members of this chamber and the members opposite to stand up and let British Columbians know whether they support this trade deal or not. With that in mind, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

B. Ralston: I rise to support the amendment. The Premier’s motion is clearly — unfortunately, in my view — not the result of profound or considered deliberation that this topic deserves but rather is based on a very simple political calculus, and we just heard that exemplified by the Minister of Transportation.

[1510]

The Premier and her Minister of Trade supported the Harper government in pursuit of this deal long before they had any idea what was actually in the deal. The deal was negotiated in secret, yet they profess support simply, I suppose, because it had the “trade deal” label on it.

The approach that the Premier offers today is a continuation of that very view. In contrast, the new federal Minister of International Trade has spoken of her strong belief “in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP.”

Now, we haven’t heard much from the Minister of Transportation nor from the Premier, other than a few

[ Page 12156 ]

shibboleths about Asia-Pacific trade, which everyone agrees with. But in a trade deal as complex and detailed as this, the detail is really required to be examined in considerable length.

Let me give you an example of this, the approach that the government has taken on this issue. When I asked the Minister of International Trade in estimates debate, she spoke of her belief that the agreement will result in a net gain of jobs for British Columbia. Net gain implies, clearly, that there will be some gains and some losses and that the net will be a balance of gain.

When I asked her where the losses would be, she refused to answer. The report that she relies on, this study that she claims demonstrates this fact, is still secret. Contrast that approach — a secret study that she will not reveal, that talks about job losses and job gains — with the approach taken by the federal government, the new federal Liberal government. Her strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP are very different.

Of course, over on the other side, it’s the last bastion of Harper Toryism there. They’re still in mourning for the loss of the Tory government and the approach that he took: vituperative, nasty personal attacks on opponents; secrecy; using parliament as a rubber stamp; no transparency; no democratic discussion. That’s the legacy. Indeed, they’ve imported some people from Alberta and from Ottawa to continue that at the staff level here.

The agreement is long and complicated, and it’s not just about lowering tariffs. Many knowledgable voices have raised concerns, deep concerns, about the effect the TPP has on raising global IP, intellectual property, standards agreed by the World Trade Organization by extending and enforcing the American IP regime and interest to all TPP countries.

Arguably, the proposed agreement marks a shift in global value creation from tangible to intangible goods by providing unprecedented advantages to current holders, large holders and producers of IP. The creation of value in the 21st century will be led by the holders of IP. Some have described the deal as a charter of rights for the U.S. entertainment and pharmaceutical industries.

Let me quote from Blackberry’s co-CEO Jim Balsillie, who is blunt in his assessment of how the deal affects the technology sector, arguing Canada lost, and potentially lost big. He says:

“I would argue that the innovation part of TPP is ten times more important than manufacturing and dairy combined. The U.S. intellectual property economy is $3.5 trillion a year. Their objective is double that to $7 trillion through TPP. Traditional stuff is bits and bites for them. The real pony for the U.S. is selling their ideas…. Half their exports are IP, intellectual property. Basically, the U.S. wanted a bunch of rules to lock in their leadership.”

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, has said that his biggest issue with the treaty revolves around the investment

chapter and the right it would give corporations to sue governments if they think rules and regulations contravene the terms of the TPP.

He also expressed concern, and he’s expressed this concern to the federal Minister of International Trade, that the deal would do little boost growth and would hurt Canada’s job landscape. “Canada is a country which, on average, will be importing labour-intensive goods and exporting capital-intensive goods so that on net, there will almost surely be job losses.” All this deserves careful scrutiny in the public realm, not the rhetorical harangue provided by the Premier.

[1515]

We have time to debate this. We know that in the United States, the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both oppose the TPP deal. For balance, the leading Republican contender for their nomination, Donald Trump, also opposes the TPP deal. So the likelihood….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: That’s to satisfy some of the members from the Fraser Valley.

The Globe and Mail , in an editorial, said this:

“There is no rush. This deal needs to be ratified by the partisan, electioneering Congress, and Mr. Obama is facing an uphill battle on that front. That’s part of the reason why he’s appealing…to the American people to read the TPP, in the hope they will see its appeal and pressure their representative to ratify it.

“It doesn’t have to work that way in Canada.”

This is the Globe and Mail , in an editorial.

“The defeat of the Harper government, a government that reduced parliament to a rubber stamp, is solid evidence that Canadians want their representatives to do the work they were elected to do — that is, to protect Canadians’ interests in an informed, non-partisan way. The TPP debate is the place to begin.”

We’ve seen exactly the opposite. The Liberals have initiated a process, what the minister has called a robust and transparent examination. We have had no such thing here in British Columbia. There are particular interests in British Columbia that merit examination by the chamber, and the committee is certainly the best way in which that could be done.

At this point in the economic cycle, it is a moment to pursue, vigorously, innovation. While our traditional resources are the bedrock of our economy, Canada can be hurt by an overdependence on a single resource. Losing the ability to innovate is foolish. We need to carefully analyze the proposed agreement to see what the implications for British Columbia and Canada would be.

That really is the job of parliamentary representatives. That’s the job that a committee of this House could undertake. Rather than the rhetorical overkill and excess and the vituperative attacks on opponents that seem to now characterize the government daily, it’s time to have the kind of debate that this very serious topic deserves.

With that, I will conclude. I definitely support the amendment, and I hope — against hope, perhaps — that the members opposite will support it as well.

[ Page 12157 ]

Madame Speaker: Just a caution, Members. It is possible to disagree in this chamber without resorting to personal attack.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment — not because I don’t understand the direction that the official opposition is heading, but because the TPP is bad for British Columbia. I have heard so much rhetoric coming from the other side, but let’s be very clear. The motion that we are debating today was brought to this Legislature initially in the fall. It was brought to this Legislature before the text of the TPP was even available.

That tells me that members opposite…. Frankly, I would bet a lot of money that not a single member opposite has actually taken the time to read the agreement. Members opposite, honestly, I would argue, are just touting government lines. They talk about this being good for jobs. Well, let me give you some evidence here that I’ve actually got in studying this.

I’m holding a document called Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partner Agreement , written by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta from Tufts University as part of the Global Development and Environmental Institute. Let’s be clear what they say. Overall, the TPP is going to be a job loser. How much so for Canada? Canada will lose 58,000 jobs through the passage of the TPP. This isn’t about creating jobs; this is about losing jobs. Net exports in Canada will go down by 6.6 percent of GDP. This is not good for Canada; this is not good for B.C.

[1520]

The reason why the government is touting job growth numbers is because they’re quoting from economic models that had a fundamental error in them. The fundamental error was that they assumed 100 percent employment,

whereas if I can give you a wonderful example of what it means and how perverse that is in this context. Full employment is not a good start for economic analyses to make estimates on job creation.

Here’s the example. Let’s say, for example — it’s coming from this Tufts document — that the demand for cars were to drop below producers’ expectations. The economic model that this government is relying on, assuming full employment, assume that car prices will fall, ensuring that all production is sold. Faced with lower-than-expected profits, car producers who want to cut costs may reduce the number of workers employed. However, since labour markets also supposedly enjoy price flexibility, wages will fall, ensuring that all auto workers remain employed, either in the car industry or in some other sector.

That’s clearly an incorrect assumption. If prices fall, companies close down plants and workers lose their jobs, which is why, with the more realistic assumption of not full employment, we understand that this agreement will lead to 58,000 job losses in British Columbia.

Coming back, let’s be clear again. This government puts a motion on the table before they have even seen the text of the agreement, because the text is not public. Can you believe this, hon. Speaker? We are not making this up. It’s a reality and a matter of public record. Go to Hansard on the day that this motion was tabled. I tweeted out that day.

The text isn’t even available, yet this government is touting the TPP as good for British Columbia. Why? Because today’s B.C. Liberals are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories. This is a play out of the Harper Tory playbook, which is negotiate the deal, come hell or high cost, for the best interests of the corporate entities and the multinationals, not in the best interests of Canadians.

Let me outline some other reasons I disagree with the TPP as being good for Canadians and, hence, why I am not supporting the amendment because I’m opposing the actual motion in the first place. I do not think we should be discussing these matters further in light of the fact that it is federal jurisdiction, and this is not in British Columbia’s best interest.

The first and most obvious reason to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership is because of the threat it poses to the sovereignty of our province, primarily because of the investor-state dispute settlement clauses found in

chapter 9 of this agreement. This government clearly hasn’t even read the document. It’s essentially saying that we’re tying future generations to investor-state dispute clauses that then have provisions that allow for a company to sue our government if that government implements a regulation, law or policy that affects the future profits of the company.

Such claims would be settled in secret, through secret tribunals outside of our justice system. This is what this government is putting forward in a rah-rah, cheerleading fashion. Why? Because Petronas told them to do this. Because one of the very few jurisdictions, in the 12 jurisdictions that are part of this, that benefit is Malaysia.

This government is so desperate to deliver on an election promise they knew had no hope of winning — it was purely an election strategy — that they’re selling out future generations yet once more in an irresponsible manner here.

Why would we support a trade deal that limits our sovereignty, that places the interests of multinational corporations above the interests of British Columbians? As legislators, it is our duty to act in the best interests of the electorate, not in the best interests of multinational corporations based elsewhere.

This type of provision is not new. It currently exists under NAFTA as well, but let’s outline that it’s quite different in NAFTA. Under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, we know we can end NAFTA, as a nation, within six months, but with the TPP, we have little clear indication of how easy or difficult it is to withdraw from the agreement.

[ Page 12158 ]

“Sign a blank cheque,” this government says, “and give our British Columbia sovereignty, our Canadian sovereignty to multinational corporations based elsewhere,” in a desperate attempt to land a Petronas deal that they’ve already written an agreement for that, frankly, we should be debating about eliminating because it’s such a giveaway. We’re debating greenhouse gas reduction bills in this Legislature yet once more, to give yet another giveaway. Reckless, reckless economics.

[1525]

Opposition to this bill comes from across the political spectrum. When you have every presidential candidate on both sides in the United States opposing the TPP…. By “every” I mean Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and, bless him, Donald Trump. Now, I couldn’t see people further across the political spectrum than Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But they’re joined by other perhaps more economically savvy, because that’s their background, viewpoints.

Let me quote, for example, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. This isn’t some Johnny-come-lately who has taken first-year economics at perhaps some local university and failed it twice, and maybe the third time they passed it. This is a Nobel Prize–winning economist, and he says this:

“‘I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations.’

“‘It used to be the basic principle was polluter-pay,’ he says. ‘If you damage the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, for example, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars.’

“‘This deal was done in secret with corporate interests at the table,’ he said.”

And he described this, succinctly, as the “worst trade deal ever.” And that’s not a failed economist; that’s a Nobel Prize–winning economist, Joseph Stigler.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Stiglitz. Sorry. Thank you to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education for correcting me — and from the appropriate ministry, as well. The ever-helpful minister.

Honestly, it’s mind-boggling that we’re doing this.

Let me quote another person. This is David Wolfe. David Wolfe is a co-director of the innovation policy lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs and author of the introduction to the second edition of Trade, Industrial Policy and International Competition . This is another esteemed academic, and he says the following:

“As Canada’s negotiation strategy for TPP, the previous government adopted the traditional approach to international trade agreements. They bargained for increased access to international markets in the economic sectors where Canadian trade performance is strongest, while sacrificing some protection in the domestic market, especially in the manufacturing sectors. The trouble with this approach is that it is a 20th-century trade strategy applied to a 21st-century economy. Canada negotiated TPP in the rearview mirror.

“The United States,” he said, “did the opposite in their negotiations. They aimed to secure competitive advantage for knowledge-based, high-growth sectors with the greatest potential for expansion in the 21st century. The 21st-century business world is less and less a material enterprise that builds physical products and more and more a virtual enterprise that is driven by software and technology. Think Google, Monsanto, even Tesla. In the 21st-century economy, it is the algorithms which drive the success of the enterprise and the intellectual property that underlies companies’ business models that are most critical for economic success.”

When I hear this government argue that this is good for the tech sector, I’m wondering what they’re taking, because it is very clearly in the worst interest of the tech sector, as highlighted by industry after industry after industry rep.

Why do you think that both the Republicans and the Democrats in the U.S. are opposing this? Why they’re opposing it is because it takes too much power away from the elected governments, and it favours international corporations over the interests of the people. We have been elected here in the province by the people of this province to represent their interests, not the interests of corporate donors.

I also wish to raise another concern — that signing this deal will undermine our ability to be climate leaders. This government wants to have it all, and they’ll say anything they can to tell the people just anything. “We are going to sign TPP because it’s going to increase jobs.” They don’t even recognize that the only analyses out there say that we’re going to lose 58,000 jobs in Canada. “We’re going to do TPP because it’s good for the tech sector.” It’s the exact opposite. “We’re going to do this. We’re going to do that.” Say whatever it takes. “We’re going to be leaders in climate, but we’re going to go natural gas expansion.”

It just doesn’t work that way, and it’s about time that this government stands up and be truthful with British Columbians. If we’re serious about being climate leaders, we’ll have to implement more aggressive policies to reduce our emissions, and the Premier has committed to do that.

[1530]

Whether we believe it or not is another thing, but the Premier has committed to do that.

This deal will put us at a distinct trade disadvantage as follows. If other countries don’t follow suit, we’re in trouble. For example, if we want to reduce the emissions from our farms in order to combat methane, we might require or put incentives in place for farmers engaged in animal husbandry to install some methane-capturing technology. Maybe….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Innovative technology. I’m giving an example. No, it’s actually…. The Minister of Advanced Education…. I need to educate him. It is the cow burps, not cow others, that cause the methane. It’s from the

[ Page 12159 ]

multiple stomachs in their digestion. It’s coming from the mouth.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s right. Nasal juice.

However, it could make them uncompetitive against farmers, say, in New Zealand. Under TPP, Canada would not be allowed to put up trade barriers to level the playing field. So let’s suppose that New Zealand doesn’t put any innovative measures in place and we do, and then we say: “Hang on. Our farmers are now at an unfair disadvantage, so we’d better put some barrier up. They don’t have a carbon price. We do. We’d better put a carbon price on the boundary.” Well, we can be sued by the corporations involved, even though we’re operating as a Legislature in the best interests of the people.

There are a number of other problems around intellectual property, labour standards, agriculture, food and medicine. I have, frankly, a huge issue with the fact that the deal was negotiated in secret, and I think there’s ample evidence, as I’ve outlined, that this will cost our economy thousands upon thousands of jobs.

While I stand in opposition to the amendment to the motion, and I will stand in opposition to the motion itself because of these substantive concerns about the TPP, I also question this government’s cynical approach to this issue. At 6,000 pages in length, I seriously doubt that a single member in this House has even read a fraction of the provisions. I doubt that a single member in this House — with the exception of the member for Surrey-Whalley, because I know he’s probably read the whole thing — has actually read even a fraction of what’s there.

This is not the type of issue that government should be swinging wildly at, hoping to score cheap political victories by trying to put the opposition up about the Leap Manifesto, which some people brought from the floor in a conference. Shame on the government. Shame on the government for belittling the importance of the economy in B.C. by playing cheap political points.

Madame Speaker: On the amendment.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, on the amendment, the government’s…. As I point out, why I’m not supporting the amendment is that the political posturing that we see on the issue has real consequences for one of British Columbia’s greatest sectors, the technology sector.

This is a sector that this government is trying desperately to bring forward in a desperate hope to find something for the next election campaign. Yet this is the single worst thing that they could do to the tech sector in this province: support this bill. They need to come out unequivocally and say: “We’re opposed to this motion and the amendment.” If the amendment were to pass, inherent in that is that we’re going to study it some more, but ultimately, the decision we should be making today is that this is a bad motion.

These aren’t just my concerns, nor are they partisan concerns. This is what experts are actually saying. Another one: Jim Balsillie, the former co-CEO of BlackBerry. He said this, “In ten years from now, we’ll call that the signature worst thing in policy that Canada has ever done,” and that it threatens to make Canada a permanent underclass in the economy of selling ideas. Hardly supportive of the tech sector. The former CEO of RIM says it threatens to make Canada a permanent underclass in the economy of selling ideas.

What about Michael Geist, the Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa? Well, he said this is a made-in-America approach that’s advanced by the TPP. In an interview, he said it further: “I think when you look at the digital policies, things like copyright, intellectual property, privacy rules, Internet and Internet governance rules, there are some real harms that we find in this agreement.”

[1535]

Real harms to a sector that this government is claiming they’re supporting. Yet they’re throwing that sector collectively together under the bus in one fell swoop by putting this motion forward and even by taking it forward through the amendment to a committee for further discussions. There’s a huge hypocrisy out there.

Government has been going out of its way to try to court technology companies, talking about leadership in the sector and how government was there for them. Today we see that was all talk, as they swiftly cut the legs out from under this industry by making this signal to the market that technology is not welcome in B.C. We are speaking daily to Petronas, and Petronas is the one guiding British Columbia policy. Shameful.

I cannot support the amendment because, fundamentally, supporting the amendment implies that I see hope in the original motion as it’s written. As that motion represents a betrayal to B.C.’s technology industry, it’s a betrayal to the creative economy in British Columbia, it’s a betrayal to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, and it’s a betrayal to the democratic process that this cynical motion brought to us today is being debated here.

The government is saying: “We have no real desire to lead in this area, and we’re willing to use you, the technology sector, for political gain. We’ll take some photo ops with you. We’ll throw a conference, pretend like we’re doing something.” But this motion, even if sent to committee through the amendment, fundamentally throws the technology sector under the bus.

Let’s call it for what it is: a sellout — a sellout to Petronas, a sellout to British Columbians, a sellout to Canadians — and, let’s be honest, 58,000 job losses in Canada if the TPP were to go forward.

[ Page 12160 ]

V. Huntington: I’m somewhat hesitant to stand in the midst of a discussion that’s deteriorated into raw politics in this House, but I think it’s important to comment on the amendment from my perspective. I will also add: the politics of it is so apparent, when both the mover of the main motion and the mover of the amendment are no longer here to hear the discussion.

Madame Speaker: Member, it’s never appropriate to comment on the presence or absence of members in this chamber.

V. Huntington: I beg your pardon. I withdraw that comment. You’re quite right, Madame Speaker.

I am here under the obviously misinformed hope that I might learn something about what is becoming one of the most important trade agreements this country will ever sign. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is something that all of us need to understand if we’re going to represent our community in any public debate whatsoever on the issue. I wanted to find out and hope to find out from a debate in this House…. Even though we very seldom find out anything in debate in this House.

I wanted to find out: is it a good agreement? Is it a bad agreement? Is it going to create jobs, or is it going to cost jobs? Is it going to help the tech industry or hurt it? Is it going to kill the auto parts industry in eastern Canada or help it?

That’s not what we’re obviously here to discuss today. In an effort to support the amendment, I believe that it would be wise to send this to the Finance Committee; to send it to a public discussion with the people of this province; to learn from experts who might have a comment on it; to hear the public’s interest in it; and to, for once, participate in a public discourse that is an attempt to understand one of the more important economic initiatives that the Pacific Rim has undertaken, ever.

I support the amendment. I see no harm in sending this to a discussion that would invite the public to participate and in which all of us could learn something more about this important trade agreement.

C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment to Motion 11. Just to clarify for those who are watching, this is an amendment to refer the motion to the Select Standing Committee on Finance “for robust and transparent discussion and public consultation on the long-term job creation and employment impacts” for British Columbians of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[1540]

I think it’s important to state that that’s what we’re talking about in this amendment. I appreciate and — with great respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — I never believe it’s wrong to give the public a say. I never believe it’s wrong to give an opportunity for the public to give their opinion on this agreement. I would agree with the member about the concerns that he’s raised, and I believe that the public will come forward with those concerns.

I believe making sure that we shine a light on this document is one of the most critical pieces that we need to do in all of this, because from the start, this has been an agreement that has anything but the light, that has been done behind closed doors, that has been secret, that has been done in the dark. We need to shine a light on this agreement. We need to shine a light and let people have an opportunity to be able to have a say.

I have to say, you know, that I never imagined that I could continue to be amazed by this government, but I am. I continue to be amazed by this government’s refusal to simply support what is a straightforward democratic principle: public consultation, listening to the public. That is an extraordinary statement — to think that a government would be against listening to the public.

Isn’t that why we all ran for office? Isn’t that why we are all here? Because we are here to represent the public? Not represent ourselves, not represent the friends that we have, but represent the public. Perhaps that is a symbol, and this motion is a symbol, of this government and how they’ve lost their way, a symbol of this government and the lack of interest they have in listening to the public or anyone who has an opinion that might be divergent from their own, that might be different than the Premier’s.

Asking the public what they think — a shocking amendment to bring forward. It’s amazing to me that we would even have to debate the opportunity to take what will have a huge impact, regardless of which side of this agreement you’re on, regardless of which side you feel is important and all of the issues. I’ll talk for a couple of minutes about those. Regardless of which side you’re on, it’s important for people to have a say. It’s important for people to be able to be part of a consultation for something that is going to have such an impact on our province, on our economy, on our public and on our country.

We have seen previously from this government, whether it’s people living in poverty, whether it’s the issue of the bus pass…. You could get into a long list. I think the best, or the worst, example of a lack of consultation, as we’re talking about in this amendment, would be the HST. I certainly would have imagined that this government would have learned something through the process of the HST and bringing in the HST about the importance of public consultation, about how critical it is to take issues to the public.

I heard the member across the way say: “Well, it takes courage to make a decision.” Well, you make smarter decisions if you listen to the people impacted first and then make the decision. It doesn’t mean everyone will be happy. It doesn’t mean you’re going to satisfy everyone. But it will be a much smarter decision. It will have a much better basis if you take the opportunity to actually listen to the people who are going to be impacted.

[ Page 12161 ]

On a trade agreement like this, with all of the concerns that have been raised, with all of the issues that are here, it’s basic to say: “Let’s give the public an opportunity to be heard.” I guess I’ve answered my own question, which is: the government learned nothing. The government learned absolutely nothing through the HST process.

I don’t understand why a government would be afraid of this. I don’t understand why a government would be afraid to take something like a trade agreement out to the public to have a discussion. Who acted like this? Who would do this often? Stephen Harper would do this often. Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada, would do this often, and we know what happened to him. We know the end result.

People don’t like it when their politicians think they know best without having a discussion with them first, without listening to their concerns, without standing up and taking the good and the bad, without listening to the issues that are raised. Yet that’s what we’ve seen.

I think it’s interesting to take a look at the direction that the federal government is taking in all of this, as I speak to the amendment. In fact, the federal government is looking at consultation. I want to quote from an open letter. That may be shocking, as well, that this actually went out from the minister.

[1545]

It says: “Many Canadians still have not made up their minds, and many more still have questions. That’s why our consultations” — and this is the federal government — “with the provinces, municipal officials, students, labour leaders and members, business representatives, academic experts and others are just the beginning of the examination needed to fully understand the TPP’s impact.” Some very important words and very important direction in that quote — transparent, a full discussion, including everyone.

Another part of that quote from the federal minister: “I have a strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP. In particular, that should include extensive non-partisan considerations, analysis and testimony from all regions, all sectors and all backgrounds.”

Why wouldn’t B.C. also consult? Why wouldn’t we take an opportunity to learn and listen from the businesses, groups and organizations who are all going to be impacted by this agreement? Important critical questions have been asked. I know we’ve heard other quotes, but I’d also like to include a quote from Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, who says the deal — which is a 6,000-page, mammoth and extremely complex document — should have been negotiated openly.

Michael Geist, the law professor, said: “There’s certainly a need for more study. The analysis to date suggests very limited economic gains for Canada in the TPP. That may be unsurprising, given that Canada already has trade deals with half the TPP. But it should leave government wondering whether the costs and regulatory upheaval are worth the effort.” Again, another idea, another approach, another argument for making sure that we have a public consultation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, David Lametti, said: “In our consultations thus far on the TPP, we have heard opinions for; we have heard opinions against. We have seen studies for; we have seen studies against. We’ve had representations from all sides. And it’s important that all of this be taken into consideration. That’s the work of a committee. That will be a decision that will come in front of parliament.”

Well, that’s what this amendment proposes. This amendment proposes that we give an opportunity for the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a structure already in place — we’re not creating a new structure; in fact, it’s a committee already in place — to take on an in-depth discussion and a proper consultation on the impacts that this agreement will have on British Columbia.

Again, Joseph Stiglitz says…. He’s speaking about a particular part of the TPP agreement, what he calls the worst part of the agreement. “It used to be the basic principle was polluter-pay,” Stiglitz said. “If you damage the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts the ability to pollute or does something to climate change, you could be sued and have to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars.” He also says there’s a provision that could be used to prevent the raising of the minimum wage.

Well, I would expect that that’s a fair concern for every legislator. It should be a fair concern for every legislator in this House. It should be an issue that matters to everyone in this House. Why wouldn’t we consult?

The TPP covers 40 percent of the world economy — 40 percent. And the Premier believes she knows better than everybody else — that we can simply pass this, and it’ll be done and agreed to? There have been businesses that have said this will open up foreign markets. We certainly believe in trade. We believe in a strong economy. That’s critical for our province. But there are other business leaders who have come forward with some real, genuine concerns — issues around intellectual property. Those are big worries for our province, for our country.

Given the opportunities for high tech in British Columbia, given the incredible contribution that they’re making to our economy — and have the opportunity to continue to make to our economy — why would we not consult on an agreement that concerns have been raised about, having a huge impact on high tech in a negative way?

[1550]

There are concerns about digital policies that, in fact, will benefit big corporations at the expense of the public. There are worries about the lack of transparency. Intellectual property I’ve mentioned. There are worries about copyright. I mean, these are just basic questions that we should have the opportunity to be able to explore.

[ Page 12162 ]

They bring concerns about new threats to journalists and whistle-blowers, who won’t have the opportunity to be able to be upfront about the kinds of concerns that they want to raise and bring forward.

Barriers in protecting personal privacy. We know the issues around privacy. Certainly with this government, you would think that that’s something that we should explore and that we should have an opportunity to deal with.

Prohibit open-source mandates. Well, again, if you’re looking at the high-tech industry, open source is an area where people are looking at expanding opportunities. I know many of the universities are looking at open source around textbooks and around getting information to students. Again, a huge concern.

Just in closing on the amendment, I have to ask the basic simple question of this government, which is: why? Why is this government afraid? Why is this government afraid to ask the public what they think of something that’s going to have such a huge impact on British Columbia and Canada? Why doesn’t the government want these questions raised? Why does the Premier think she knows better than anybody else?

Well, that’s not what we feel on this side of the House. We want an opportunity for business, for labour, for communities, for the public to engage in a robust, good discussion on the TPP, come forward with their issues and concerns. Let’s make sure that that information is gathered before the Premier decides that she’s going to jump and suggest that we approve it without any kind of transparency issues done — and so many other issues.

[1555]

Madame Speaker: The question is on the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

[1600]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Conroy

Chandra Herbert

Fraser

Huntington

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Bains

Elmore

Wickens

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Trevena

D. Routley

Macdonald

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 42

Lee

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

Clark

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Bernier

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Foster

Weaver

Dalton

Gibson

Madame Speaker: The Minister of Community and Sport seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming a class of students from Surrey Christian school, their teacher Lorraine Whitmarsh and their chaperones. Please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

On the main motion.

Hon. T. Wat: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the main motion. As Minister of International Trade, I would like to speak to the reason that led our government to introduce this motion.

Before that, I’m going to speak about the importance. I would like to inform the House today that I wrote to the federal Minister of International Trade expressing our government’s strong support for Canada’s ratification of the TPP. This is one of the largest and most competitive trade deals to ever be established. Including my letter, there are more than 70 companies that are supporting our motion and our effort to urge the government to ratify the TPP. Seven of them are technology companies.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The importance of the TPP agreement cannot be overstated for its potential to grow the B.C. economy and create jobs for British Columbians. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the largest and most comprehensive trade deals in the world. Being a part of it means that B.C.’s high-quality goods and services will be on equal footing in a market of 800 million people and a GDP of $28 trillion.

The greatest opportunity for B.C. business comes in sectors like seafood, agrifoods, forestry, technology and

[ Page 12163 ]

manufactured goods, where high tariffs will be reduced or eliminated. British Columbia also has some of the world’s brightest engineers, technicians, international education firms and environmental service providers who will all benefit from increased access to this market.

B.C. has now pressed the federal government for better access to the Asia-Pacific market. Through this agreement, we would get that access in key markets such as Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore. Currently, British Columbia ships $23 billion in goods to member countries. That’s two-thirds of our international exports. Lifting trade barriers so this market will grow exports even more will be a major benefit to B.C. companies and the provincial economy. For example, B.C. has forecast that the reduced duties and trade barriers will increase B.C.’s exports by $320 million each year.

The agreement also has many other benefits. It covers all aspects of trade, including improved market access for financial services and government procurement; strong standards for the protection and the enforcement of intellect