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)

Monday, February 15, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Fire Safety Act

Hon. T. Stone

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Hon. N. Letnick

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Brenda Gillette and Chilliwack Society for Community Living

J. Martin

Lunar new year celebrations

B. Ralston

Lifetime Learning Centre in Mission

M. Dalton

West End Business Improvement Association

S. Chandra Herbert

B.C. Winter Games in Penticton

D. Ashton

Kensington Community Centre Association

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Drinking water protection and contaminated sites in Shawnigan Lake watershed

J. Horgan

Hon. M. Polak

B. Routley

Water quality in Spallumcheen area

L. Popham

Hon. T. Lake

S. Chandra Herbert

Prosperity fund and LNG development

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Cancer treatment case

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, report, December 2015

J. Martin

Petitions

C. Trevena

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

Hon. A. Wilkinson

S. Fraser

B. Ralston

S. Gibson

V. Huntington

J. Tegart

S. Hammell

Hon. T. Stone

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

K. Conroy

[ Page 10355 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: It gives me a great honour to be here in the House today to introduce Arzeena Hamir, secretary of the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia.

Would the House please make Arzeena feel welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d like the House to welcome my constituency assistant, Jason Craik. He has been with me about six months and has, with no political experience prior to coming to my office, fit in like a wonderful glove as he takes on the complex challenges of a constituency office.

Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: Ninety-four percent of seniors in B.C. live independently. In fact, the vast majority own their own homes. But for those seniors who make their homes in residential care communities or in assisted living, the B.C. Care Providers are a very important partner. It represents operators of assisted-living and residential care facilities across the province.

In the gallery today we have Irene Lien, Vikki Marrs and Arnold Bennewith, all to whom I will have the pleasure to present awards at this evening’s B.C. Care Awards.

[1335]

Joining them are their family and friends as well as B.C. Care Providers CEO Daniel Fontaine, board president Elaine Price and board vice-president Karen Baille.

Would the House please make these guests feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: As the spring session has begun, also has the arrival of the parliamentary interns for the 2016 spring session. Joining the New Democrat opposition to help us out in casting our rocks across the floor at the government benches are Chardaye Bueckert from Simon Fraser University; Rowan Laird from Dalhousie; and from the University of Victoria, right here in my hometown, Robert Hill, David Macauley and Michael McDonald.

These five will be assisting critics in bringing forward questions during the estimates process. They’ll be having a lot of fun. We party fairly hard down in the basement, as everybody knows. We on this side of the House are very much looking forward to introducing these five individuals to the fun that can be had with politics in British Columbia.

Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Today we’re joined by another former MLA, joining us on the floor of the House today. Iain Black served in this parliament. He, in fact, served from 2005 to 2011. He was Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services and Small Business. He has a number of accomplishments. He currently serves as the president and CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade. I know he’ll be visiting with both sides of the House as he does his work in that capacity, so we certainly want to welcome Iain.

Joining Iain today is Rob MacKay-Dunn, who is the director of public policy and communications at the Vancouver Board of Trade. Rob also worked in this building and has served a number of ministers, including myself. I can tell you he is an incredible young man and served very well. I know he is doing the same in his new role and capacity at the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Please join me in making both of these past participants in the process here welcome back to the House.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome Natalie Drolet, who’s visiting us here. It’s her first visit to the Legislature, and she’s looking forward to observing question period. She’s an immigration lawyer and the executive director for the West Coast Domestic Workers Association.

She also happens to be my lovely and brilliant partner. It was a lot of fun. She came down yesterday for Valentine’s Day in Victoria, which I hear is the most romantic city in Canada — so putting that to the test. Also, looking and doing some research to show her a good time…. On every single list of the top dating recommendations of romantic things to do in Victoria was, if you can believe it, a trip to the Legislature. I guess I’ll check in later and see if it actually meets that test.

Everybody, please join me in welcoming Natalie.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today we’ll be introducing a new act that will replace the Fire Services Act. I’m pleased to introduce three guests today. Tim Pley is the fire chief of the city of Port Alberni and the president of the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. Stephen Gamble is the fire chief of the township of Langley and past president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. Chris Jancowski is the fire chief of the township of Esquimalt.

Thank you to the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. for your input and guidance during the consultations and the work done in considering legislative changes. Thank you very much for all you do for British Columbians to keep us safe.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome to the House Ken and Shannon Holowanky. They are two constituents of mine.

[ Page 10356 ]

Ken is a regular emailer. When I was on city council, I heard regularly about monster houses, and now I hear regularly about run of river and energy policy.

I would like the House to please make Ken and Shannon very welcome, as this is their first time to actually witness a question period.

Hon. C. Oakes: I have two constituents in the House today. I have Lorrie and Rick Rhodes.

Would the House please help make welcome them.

[1340]

J. Darcy: I’d like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the B.C. Care Providers today, including my constituent Daniel Fontaine. I want to thank them, in particular, not just for what they come to the House and share with us, but for the kind of folks that they honour, which I think is really wonderful.

Tonight…. I don’t think its a surprise — is it? — who’s being honoured. In recognition that it takes an entire team to care for our seniors, they will be honouring a housekeeper, who is also with us today, and they’ll be honouring a spiritual care adviser, who also put together a very innovative program for easing the transition into residential care.

If you haven’t signed up for tonight’s event, I would encourage you to do so, for the entire evening’s event but especially to honour these folks who do so much for our seniors every single day.

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents from Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, I would also like to welcome the CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade, former MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam and former minister, Mr. Iain Black. Would the House please join me in a warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — FIRE SAFETY ACT

Hon. T. Stone presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fire Safety Act.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the Fire Safety Act be introduced and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: The Fire Services Act is existing provincial legislation outlining the regulatory framework for fire safety in British Columbia. In the three-and-a-half decades since the last substantial update, there have been substantial changes in fire safety and prevention. Naturally, we need to look at modernizing the regulatory framework for fire safety in British Columbia.

That is why we are pleased to introduce the Fire Safety Act, a piece of legislation that would repeal and replace the Fire Services Act. The new act will include changes to improve fire code compliance monitoring by making it risk-based; enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, investigations and evacuations; and establish an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and effective manner.

During consultations with a number of key stakeholder groups across the province, we heard the importance of proposing these changes. We consulted with the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the UBCM, Local Government Management Association, B.C. Fire Training Officers Association, Fire Prevention Officers Association of B.C., Volunteer Firefighters Association of B.C., B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and the B.C. wildlife service. The input of these organizations has been critical to the process that has led to the introduction of this act.

Ultimately, we determined that with these recommendations, we will modernize the legislation and improve fire safety throughout the province. The name of the act will also be changed from Fire Services Act to the Fire Safety Act to better reflect the new intent and scope of the legislation.

I move that the introduction of the Fire Safety Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Fire Safety Act, 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 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

Hon. N. Letnick presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: Today I am pleased to introduce the Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act. This act will replace the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act and the Food Products Standards Act.

[1345]

The new Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act maintains current authority to prescribe voluntary food certification programs and standards for food qual-

[ Page 10357 ]

ity. The new act will also allow government to prescribe certain phrases as protected labels which must not be used unless specific standards are met. This new authority will enable government to create regulations setting out standards that will have to be met to use the term “organic” in marketing food and agricultural products.

Updating and consolidating these three statutes continues the ministry’s progress on modernizing its legislation, much of which is very old. Some of those changes include updated provisions for inspector appointments, recordkeeping requirements, and compliance and enforcement.

The Food and Agriculture Products Classification Act represents the ministry’s commitment to growth and development of B.C.-produced food and to increase consumer confidence and awareness about the quality of B.C.-produced food.

I move that the Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 11, Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act, 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)

BRENDA GILLETTE AND CHILLIWACK

SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

J. Martin: It is my absolute pleasure to stand in the House today and tell the members about a resident in the constituency of Chilliwack who has been referred to as a titan of inclusion and human rights.

At the end of 2015, Brenda Gillette retired after leading Chilliwack Society for Community Living for an outstanding 40 years. Working to support the many families who stood for the right of their children to truly belong, Brenda was often a pioneer for programs in B.C. that provided services to people with developmental disabilities and to their families. Serving on numerous local and provincial boards and committees, Brenda helped established CSCL as a leading advocate for B.C.’s community living initiatives.

CSCL, of course, is one of the oldest organizations of its kind in the province. As CSCL continued to grow, Brenda and her staff assessed the needs of those they served and developed programs for employment, clubs and interest-based groups, homecare, and community inclusion opportunities.

When CSCL celebrated 61 years in the Chilliwack community, with 40 of those years with Brenda at the helm, her message was simple: it’s not about disability; it’s about seeing each one as an individual person and seeing how we can help them.

Would the members of the House please join me in congratulating Brenda Gillette on 40 years of service to Chilliwack Society for Community Living and thanking her for the significant contributions made to the community living field in British Columbia.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

B. Ralston: Yesterday in Vancouver, the Chinese New Year Lunar Parade took place in the historic Chinatown district of the city. A major event that more and more has become a celebration of British Columbia’s breadth of cultural diversity, it drew huge crowds despite what Vancouverites told me was a rare soggy day. Among many celebrants was the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the Premier.

Lunar new year is celebrated by Canadians with connections not only to China but to Korea, Vietnam and Mongolia. As members will know, celebrations take place throughout communities in British Columbia. In my part of Surrey, the Henlong Market on 104th Avenue hosted a lively celebration two Saturdays ago, compete with an energetic lion dance and firecrackers. However, the Vancouver parade maintains its position as the most well-known annual celebration of the lunar new year.

A committee of leading organizations directs the parade and the accompanying events: the Chinese Benevolent Association — James Chu, president; the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver — Fred Kwok, the acting chairperson; the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association — Willie Chan, the chairman. The other organizations involved are SUCCESS; the Chinese Freemasons, Vancouver branch; and Shon Yee Benevolent Association of Canada.

Congratulations to everyone involved for another successful year. If I may say, Xin nian kuai le, San nin fai lok, Chuc mung nam moi, saehae bok mani badeuseyo . Happy year of the monkey to everyone.

LIFETIME LEARNING CENTRE IN MISSION

M. Dalton: I’m glad to have this opportunity to speak about a real gem in Mission. It’s the Lifetime Learning Centre located on 7th Avenue, an independent, non-profit organization that has been in operation in the community for the past 30 years. They have done exceptionally well, accomplishing their goal of providing active living, healthy aging and lifelong learning to our older adults and making their programs accessible to all members of the community.

[1350]

Executive director Diana Muntigl, admin assistant Lexi Richards, board members, volunteers and instructors have been doing an outstanding job responding to Mission’s needs by developing innovative programs and activities such as regular field trips and outings, educa-

[ Page 10358 ]

tional lectures on a variety on topics, arts and cultural programs, fitness activities, health workshops and preserving Mission’s history, as well as French conversational classes.

Intergenerational relationships and activities are very important to the organization. It helps that our school district’s alternate school, the Fraserview Learning Centre, is on the same premises. Seniors really appreciate the youth giving them workshops, helping them with computer applications and other activities.

Throughout the year, the Lifetime Learning Centre holds various fundraising events, including a fashion show, a walkathon and a golf tournament. Not only do these events provide the society with additional funding, but they also bring participants, volunteers and the community together.

I always enjoy visiting the centre. It’s a hub of activity where relationships are developed, bodies get strengthened and minds are engaged. Would the House please join me in extending our thanks to the Lifetime Learning Centre for 30 years of service and for making such a positive contribution in Mission.

WEST END

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to invite the House — indeed, I want to invite all of British Columbia — to come visit “Three great streets. One amazing neighbourhood.” What are those three great streets? Well, they’re Denman Street, Davie Street and Robson Street, of course in the West End.

This has been the campaign of the West End Business Improvement Association for a number of years, and it’s working well. But I want to thank them for so much that goes unnoticed in our community but is so vital for the success of our community and of our businesses, more importantly.

I want to thank them for their hands-on leadership. You might see members of the board, the executive director himself going out and removing graffiti. In fact, he has brought me along on a few occasions to do just that. You might see them advocating around the Jim Deva plaza, a new plaza coming to the West End which will bring community vibrancy if it’s done right, and they’re working to ensure it’s done right.

I’d like to thank them for making our community more artful, more interesting. We’ve had mural projects. We’ve had support for the West End arts group. We’ve had large-scale murals on the sides of buildings, with more to come; lighting projects at King George high school, partnering with local businesses and with the school; and street cleaning, as I mentioned.

Of course, something that you wouldn’t know is that many of the board members and staff work to try and convince some of the landlords in the area, if their shops have been waiting empty for a long time, to lower the rent so we can get more folks in there providing great business for locals and of course all the many, many thousands — tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions — of people that come through our community every year.

I’ll just name them. Michel Duprat, the chair, the Fountainhead Pub; Lisa Arthurs, with the Quick Nickel; Prima Properties’ David Buddle; John Nicholson, with Listel Hotel, who’s really very important in his work, as the past chair, to reset the organization and who should receive special mention; James Steck, with Celebrities Nightclub; Coast Plaza Hotel’s Brian Rohl; Gary Gohren, with Gohren and Associates Accountants; Joe Skokan, with Joe’s No Frills — great deals; Mary Phelps, with Vancity bank — thank you, Mary; Jacqui McMullen, with Times Square Suites Hotel; and, of course, their executive director, Stephen Regan.

West End — come visit; you’ll be amazed. We amaze.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN PENTICTON

D. Ashton: On the 25th of February, some of British Columbia’s most talented young athletes will converge on the South Okanagan Events Centre, in Penticton, for the opening ceremonies of the 2016 B.C. Winter Games, British Columbia’s premier winter sporting event.

The athletes come from all areas of the province and have been working tirelessly, with the help of seasoned coaches, for the chance to compete, all in the good spirit of competition. The games represent a stepping stone towards higher-level competition for many of these incredibly talented athletes, with the ultimate goal being the Olympics.

The expectations of the athletes, imposed on themselves, is very high. It is remarkable to see the dedication of the competitors, and it’s a reminder of how much talent we have here in British Columbia. Through hours of practice, sweat and tears, these athletes have realized their dreams and something to behold that is really special to them. They are role models to their peers and community, proving that anything is possible when you put your mind to it.

It is special to see how the games bring people together. Volunteers have lent their expertise year after year, allowing the competitions to succeed. Parents have spent countless mornings driving to and from practice, being supportive of their kids.

Penticton has had the privilege of hosting either the B.C. Summer Games or the Winter Games for a fourth time, once again showing it’s an ideal location for events such as this. Even in a province as beautiful and as diverse as ours, Penticton continues to stand out.

[1355]

With more than 1,700 participants set to compete, this year’s games will surely be one to remember. I encourage everyone to tune in and cheer all their local athletes.

[ Page 10359 ]

KENSINGTON COMMUNITY

CENTRE ASSOCIATION

M. Elmore: Madame Speaker and colleagues in the Legislature, please join me in congratulating the Kensington Community Centre Association, KCCA, as it marks its 60th anniversary this year.

The KCCA is responsible for developing and maintaining the excellent diversity of programs that the Kensington Community Centre offers in our neighbourhood. From acrobatic dance to Zumba lessons and most everything in between, they truly have something for both the young and young at heart.

With all due respect to other Vancouver community centres, I’ve been told that this association hosts more events than any of the others, thanks to the support of the KCCA board members and volunteers.

Some examples of the popular events they hold throughout the year include Grays Park Day, Jones Park Day, Music in the Park, Canada Day and their first lunar new year celebration.

This year, they marked their 60th anniversary on Family Day, last February 8, with lots of great activities like high tea, a barbershop quartet, a photo booth and old-fashioned games. Overall, it was a fun afternoon. I was happy to be there to share in their memories.

They are the recipient of the Child Care Legacy Award, which recognizes facilities that have provided more than 40 years of licensed child care. They have provided more than 50 years.

To conclude, please join me in again congratulating everyone involved in the KCCA over its many years and, in particular, its current board members: president Milan Kljajic; first vice-president Mary Sutherland; second vice-president Brad Tamplin; treasurer Margaret Law; and directors Eddie Wong, Joyce Wong, Usher Hammer, Virginia Lew, Bev Gajsek, Elizabeth Enright, Jim Louie, Doug Starink, Peter Kotagiannis and Louise Boutin.

Oral Questions

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

AND CONTAMINATED SITES

IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

J. Horgan: The rains are falling hard, as we all know, here in the rainforest. When that happens, the people of Shawnigan Lake again are concerned about their drinking water.

When I raised these issues last fall, the minister at the time told the House that the residents had nothing to fear and that the contaminated dump site, right in the heart of their watershed, just above the lake, run by South Island Aggregates, was not a threat to their health and well-being and that residents were safe.

Last week, however, the minister made a surprise visit to the Cowichan Valley regional district, held an in-camera session and said to the members there at that time that she was now going to conduct, with their assistance, reviews for the next year of the water coming off of lot 23 and lot 21, currently owned by South Island Aggregates.

Can the minister tell us why it is that she is going to continue to allow millions of tons of toxic, contaminated soil to arrive in that watershed before she knows just what the consequences will be?

Hon. M. Polak: Far from my visit to CVRD being a surprise…. In fact, I have even indicated previously in this House that we are working closely with the CVRD and had hoped to have some ways in which we could go forward together.

This was one proposal put forward by my staff. Understanding that the community is feeling a very high degree of concern, we felt it was important to propose a process that would be outside of a government process, would directly involve CVRD and would enable us to provide some data to the residents in and around Shawnigan Lake to confirm for them the confidence that they can have in their water.

I will repeat that our staff continue to monitor the site very closely and to enforce where there are issues of compliance to ensure that, in fact, the water remains safe. For those who are interested, data with respect to their analysis of some of the other testing that has been done by CVRD and others is all posted on our website.

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

J. Horgan: With respect to lot 21, when we asked the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Mines last fall about that particular piece of land, the minister said the following. “With respect to lot 21, it is private property.” We have “full authority to be able to enter that property, conduct testing, investigate” if there are any concerns with respect to pollution.

[1400]

That was the answer last fall. Since that time, on January 22, the province advised the former owner of lot 21 — South Island Aggregates — that it had now been forfeited to the Crown. So now lot 21 no longer is the problem of South Island Aggregates. It’s the problem of the people of British Columbia. I find it passing strange that it wasn’t till after lot 21 transferred to the hands of the people of B.C. that the Minister of Environment took the initiative to go to the Cowichan Valley regional district and try some damage control.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. In 2012, her ministry wrote to the owners of lot 21 the following: “We are concerned that the subject soil is contaminated at levels that represent risk to human health and the environment.” My question, again, to the minis-

[ Page 10360 ]

ter is: are we now, the people of British Columbia, on the hook for someone else’s contaminated dump site?

Hon. M. Polak: First, I should clarify that the contaminated soil facility is on lot 23. Lot 21 is a former quarry and was the subject of a Mines Act permit. Nevertheless, when a property such as this forfeits to the Crown due to delinquent payments of taxes, this begins a fairly lengthy process during which time the now previous owners do have a number of opportunities to redeem that property through payment of taxes. That process will unfold, as it does, obviously, separate from the work of the Ministry of Environment.

The Ministry of Environment has continued to monitor what is coming from the site, both 23 and 21, and to date has not found that there are elements of concern for human health or the environment. Again, this is part of their ongoing monitoring and compliance work. It is not to be interfered with by those in the political process. It is conducted by qualified professionals in the ministry who operate independently. That is an important feature of our regulatory process in British Columbia and has been for generations.

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

J. Horgan: Perhaps the briefing notes don’t go back far enough for the minister beyond last fall. But in 2012, her ministry was of the view that lot 21, which now resides in the hands of her and the executive council, had contaminated soil on it sufficient to risk public health and the environment. That’s not lot 23. It’s lot 21, which the minister now owns, on behalf of all of us.

If the minister had gone to the site, she would see that lot 23 is, conveniently, right beside lot 21. The people of Shawnigan Lake know full well that there may well be a survey stick between one and the other, but the dump is the dump is the dump, and the anxiety levels are through the roof in that community because of the actions — or rather, the lack of action — by this government.

The statutory decision–maker did not visit the sites. I’m sensing that the minister has not visited the site. The people in Shawnigan Lake are absolutely beside themselves. The rain is coming down. There’s a tumult outside. That water is collecting contaminants and making its way straight down the hill, as gravity will allow it to do, into the drinking-water source for 12,000 British Columbians.

My question to the minister is, will she reduce that anxiety, reduce that fear and pull the permit now?

Hon. M. Polak: For opposition members to suggest that somehow no action has been taken on the part of the Ministry of Environment is absolutely false. Staff have continued to monitor the site very closely. They have also continued to conduct testing. They have reviewed testing that has been conducted by outside sources. They continue to respond to complaints when concerns are raised from the community. It is their obligation.

These are qualified professionals who have the expertise to analyze this data and respond accordingly. I know they take their obligations very seriously. They have dedicated their careers to ensuring that the way we manage water from sites such as this is a way in which we protect human health and the environment. That is what they are dedicated to do. They are fulfilling their obligations, and they will continue to conduct themselves appropriately, without political interference.

[1405]

B. Routley: This ministry was in such a rush to get to yes that they failed to release important scientific data to the community about contaminants at South Island Aggregates. The residents are now out of pocket over $1 million in legal fees between the CVRD case and the one that started today, the judicial review. These cases are before the Supreme Court. One is examining the conduct of the company, including allegations of fraud and misleading the Ministry of Environment.

Can the Ministry of Environment tell this House: how much more B.C. taxpayer money are we going to have to shell out before this mess is cleaned up, a mess that should have never happened in the first place?

Hon. M. Polak: While the member may wish to substitute his political judgment for what ought to take place here, I will not. We have qualified professionals who operate independently of our political process. They make their decisions for granting of permits, for evaluation of compliance and for enforcement on the basis of their professional opinion, based on their technical expertise. If the member wishes to substitute his judgment for theirs, he should say so, but I will not.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: The minister may not be aware, but the statutory decision–maker did not even go to the site. That’s your science.

You know, this is all about getting to yes. Yes, two local First Nations say they were not properly consulted. Yes, the ministry ignored scientific data and withheld evidence from the public. Yes, an entire community and region feels totally betrayed by this government.

Could this Minister of Environment give Shawnigan families just one more yes? Will she say, “Yes, we’re going to put the environment and the health of Shawnigan residents first,” and will she say yes to suspending this permit?

Hon. M. Polak: The health of the residents of the area and the safety of the environment are, in fact, what staff

[ Page 10361 ]

at the Ministry of Environment are dedicated to upholding. They are dedicated to ensuring that they fulfil their obligations. For the member to suggest that somehow the politicians in the room should substitute their judgment for that of dedicated professionals within the ministry who have the scientific expertise is fairly disturbing. We operate within a system that respects…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. M. Polak: …the rule of law, and that means that there is an appropriate process that we will follow.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

L. Popham: We’ve just heard the member from Lake Cowichan describe how the residents of Shawnigan Lake fear for their drinking water. Well, I want to talk about a group of homeowners whose water is contaminated and is undrinkable. It happened on the Minister of Agriculture’s watch in Spallumcheen.

Instead of taking serious action when learning about a threat to the Hullcar aquifer and halting activities that led to this contamination, the minister took a casual “watch and see what happens” attitude. Now the aquifer is damaged. The residents are trucking in water at their own expense, and their homes have lost value.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Why did he let this happen?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to correct the member, because Interior Health has a water quality advisory in effect — not a do-not-drink or do-not-use order. So while there is a level of risk associated, it does not meet the threshold of a boil-water or a do-not-use order. I think that’s important clarification, firstly.

The public can be assured in this case that extensive coordination is occurring between the Ministries of Health and Environment to mitigate the risk to public health and safety. The Ministry of Environment conducts testing regularly and works with Interior Health to ensure results are shared appropriately and public health is not at risk.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: In the Steele Springs waterworks district, the Hullcar aquifer is contaminated by nitrates. The nitrate levels are above ten, which is deemed unsafe by our province’s health officers. The homeowners believe that the contamination is caused by agricultural activity in the area, and the Ministry of Agriculture appears to believe this is also true.

The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for this damage because he’s failed to act on the information given to him. My question, again, is to the Minister of Agriculture. Why did he let this happen?

Hon. T. Lake: The agricultural waste control regulation is the regulation that is involved in this particular situation. The Ministry of Environment continues to ensure compliance with that regulation, and Interior Health works with the Ministry of Environment. They continue to test and monitor water quality within the aquifer, as does the water supplier. If issues arise, Interior Health works with the operator to issue a drinking water advisory so residents are aware of any precautions they need to take.

We will continue to work diligently within our ministries to ensure a coordinated, comprehensive approach to address water quality issues for this area.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, there is little that could be of higher public importance than protecting the safety of one’s water supply, but what has this government done? What have three ministries done? Absolutely failed.

Nitrates in the water supply have gone up. And while the minister might not think it’s a big deal, nitrates in water are bad for babies, bad for pregnant women, bad for sick people, bad for infants. They are bad for your health. That community cannot drink its water supply. To suggest, “Well, no big deal….” Well, I think the minister is out of touch.

This government couldn’t even get its facts straight of who was responsible for dealing with this issue. They passed the buck so many times. And they continued to let the manure be sprayed four more times, even though they knew that the water was undrinkable and they wouldn’t drink it themselves.

My question to the Minister of Health. He says he’s working on it. What has he actually done, and which one of his ministries, if it’s not him, failed to protect the people of the Steele Springs water district?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I need to clarify, because the members opposite are, I guess, in the business of making sure that misinformation is out there in order to scare people when it’s not necessary.

There is not a do-not-use or a boil-water advisory. The Interior Health has issued a water quality advisory. It is still drinkable.

The levels of nitrate have increased slightly, and that may be related to the farm that is in question. This is a farming area, and I presume the members opposite do support farming in the province of British Columbia. And that’s why the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health work together to ensure safe water for the area. That is what’s happening, and that is what we’ll continue to do.

[ Page 10362 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Water quality advisory. Well, what does it say? Water quality, bad — not good for women who are pregnant, not good for babies, not good for infants, not good for those with compromised immune systems. Oh, but we shouldn’t worry. Yeah, that gives me a lot of confidence in this government.

The manager of infrastructure at Interior Health summed up this government’s approach very well. He said:”On a personal note, I am very frustrated. As you know, nitrates have been a concern in this area for many years.” I was optimistic that collaboration between the Rob Birtles and his colleagues in the ministries was a first step towards a meaningful solution. A year later, these efforts appear to have gone nowhere.

[1415]

Efforts have appeared to have gone nowhere. The nitrates go up in the water, people shouldn’t drink the water, efforts going nowhere, yet the minister thinks everything is a-okay.

When is the Minister of Health going to do his job, stand up for people’s health and say: “This situation has to end”? When is the Minister of Health going to actually make sure people get clean drinking water?

Hon. T. Lake: As I want to clarify, this is a water quality advisory. It is the result of nitrates in the water and most likely is from dairy practices in the area. We work closely with those farms. We understand that farming is very important to the area and to the province of British Columbia.

Sampling through most of 2015, in fact, showed that nitrates were within Health Canada guidelines for drinking water for most of the year. However, in the most recent findings in December, they were elevated — 13.5 milligrams per litre versus ten milligrams per litre.

I guess the members opposite would like us to just shut down that farm. No, we are working with the producer to ensure that the practices will result in safe drinking water for the community. That’s the kind of approach we take, a collaborative approach to support agriculture — not shut down a dairy operation, as the members opposite would have. We are going to continue to protect and make sure there’s safe drinking water for the North Okanagan.

PROSPERITY FUND AND LNG DEVELOPMENT

C. James: The Premier has apparently found $100 million lying around. Instead of keeping her own promise to taxpayers and reducing debt — I’m sure most of you remember on the side of the bus, it said “Debt-free B.C.” — the Premier has decided instead to create an LNG fantasy fund, even though she has failed to actually sign up any LNG projects.

So if not one dime is coming from LNG, where did the Premier find the $100 million? Well, she found it directly from taxpayers. The latest increase to the medical services tax will bring in $100 million.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Does he think it’s okay to gouge British Columbia families for an extra $100 million to make a deposit into the Premier’s political fantasy fund?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m looking forward to the debate that will kick off formally tomorrow with the presentation of the budget. It’s a debate that I hope will take into account some pretty important features of where we are as a province.

We are, for example, leading the country in economic growth. We are, alone amongst all of the provinces, regularly posting budgetary surpluses — alone amongst all the provinces. We are close. We are four years away from achieving something that has eluded this province for almost half a decade, and that is totally eliminating the direct operating debt.

And in those circumstances, I think it is entirely appropriate — as foreign a concept as this may be to members opposite — to tap into the wealth, to tap into those benefits and ensure that there is something there for future generations of British Columbians. That’s what we are doing as well.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I’d like to say to the Finance Minister: “What you’ve tapped into is taxpayers’ pockets to collect MSP premiums.” That’s what you tapped into.

[1420]

There is no money coming from an industry that has not materialized. That’s what we are talking about here.

No matter how the Finance Minister spins it, families are going to get gouged another $100 million from MSP premium hikes alone. The government’s taking that money. They’re going to put it into a political fantasy fund, instead of protecting hard-working families, with more MSP tax hikes. They’re using it, once again, to play politics instead of paying for necessary health services or giving families a break or paying down the debt.

Again to the Finance Minister: is an empty fantasy fund for the Premier a higher priority than helping hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess you have to be a member of the opposition to dismiss as inconsequential the literally billions of dollars that have already been invested in British Columbia relating to LNG development. I guess that’s something that the member chooses to do.

Interjections.

[ Page 10363 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Starting tomorrow, I’ve got great news for the opposition. I’ve got great news for the crew of the good ship HMCS No. Starting tomorrow, they are going, as one, to be able to rise up and say no to all of the capital infrastructure that the government is investing in on the strength of a fiscal balance sheet that is the envy of the nation. They are going to be able to rise up as one and say no to the added benefits that a surplus balanced budget is providing to British Columbians, and particularly those that need it most. They’re going to be able to say no to that.

On this side of the House, we’re saying yes. We’re saying yes to leading the country. We’re saying yes to fiscal discipline. We’re saying yes to balanced budgets, and we’re saying yes to the benefits that that will bestow on the British Columbians that need it most.

CANCER TREATMENT CASE

J. Darcy: Last April we raised the story of Fred Cosman in this House. He was a 58-year-old Princeton man whose face was completely disfigured by cancerous lesions almost beyond recognition. Even after he was diagnosed with lymphoma, he went for months without treatment. It wasn’t until Fred went to the media that he finally got an appointment with the B.C. Cancer Agency.

In January, just a few weeks ago, Fred died. Fred and his family deserved better health care from this Liberal government, and he didn’t get it. Will the Health Minister apologize to Fred’s family for the poor health care he got on this government’s watch?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly our condolences go out to the Cosman family, to any family that loses a loved member of their family. While I can’t comment on individual cases, I know that Interior Health and the ministry want to ensure that we understand a patient’s journey in this particular case. Interior Health is doing an investigation through the patient care quality office. Those offices were established to ensure quality of care. We are going to, through that process, look at Mr. Cosman’s journey and see that if there were gaps, we can close the gaps. We’re committed to doing that.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

[1425]

J. Darcy: An investigation is a good thing, of course, but an investigation will not bring Fred back to his family. The fact is this government failed Fred Cosman in his hour of need.

After Fred’s story was on television last year and after we raised it in question period last April, the minister said that he was “happy to report” that Fred was finally getting an appointment. This was months after his diagnosis. We now know that that treatment was not successful.

I’ve spoken with Fred’s widow, Tina. Doctors have told her that faster treatment could have saved Fred’s life. She’s speaking out now because she doesn’t want any other family to go through what Fred and his family went through.

Does the minister think it’s acceptable that Fred and his family had to go public and embarrass the government before he finally got treatment for the cancer that he was suffering from? Does the minister think that’s acceptable?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I want to extend my condolences to the family for their loss.

Health care, as the member well knows…. She’s been in the health care field for a very long time, and every case is not simple. Health care is complex. I, as Minister of Health, am not going to second-guess decisions made by physicians in terms of referral. Every physician has the ability, if they sense an urgency to a case, to ensure timely access to specialists.

Now, that’s not to say that, at times, people would be able to be seen sooner if conditions were different. That’s what we’re trying to find out from this particular case. This is a sincere attempt to understand the patient’s journey, to find out if there were gaps in the service, and if there are, if we can close those gaps so that people do get the very best service in a timely manner.

That is our goal, and this process is designed to accomplish that.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Thank you, colleagues. Joining us in the gallery today is a very smiling face, a friend of mine and a friend of all British Columbians, the president of the BCGEU, Stephanie Smith. Joining Stephanie is another very good friend of mine, a local boy, coordinator from the BCGEU, Mike Eso, as well as communications officer Evan Stewart and researcher Simon Kelly.

The four of them are here to watch the proceedings of the Legislature and, I believe, interact with members of

[ Page 10364 ]

the Legislature to talk about the important work that the members of the BCGEU do to bring good business to British Columbia each and every day.

Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for the fourth session of the 40th parliament.

On December 15, 2015, the committee undertook the examination of the revision of the Local Government Act, pursuant to the Statute Revision Act, and recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor that the revision be approved and brought into force.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition to table. It has 1,340 signatures on it. These are from people in Campbell River, particularly the Oyster River area, who are opposing the closure of the Oyster River Elementary School.

The petition states that “students and families of the rural community of Oyster River would be severely harmed by diminished access to educational services being provided at Oyster River Elementary” if the school were to close.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, on the occasion of the throne speech, it’s an opportunity to reflect on how we came to be where we are and to anticipate the budget tomorrow, which will demonstrate our ongoing path to prosperity, which is built upon the opportunities that have developed in this province over the last century and more.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s also a time to reflect on the role of my own ministry, Advanced Education, and the role of our institutions in building the opportunities that lead to the kind of prosperity we now enjoy. It’s a good time to reflect, because it’s the 100th anniversary of the University of British Columbia and the 50th anniversary of BCIT, Vancouver Community College and the preliminary steps leading toward the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University. We can look back and say how these institutions contributed to our current state of well-being in this province, our prosperity and our very bright future.

Back in 1915, the population of British Columbia was 450,000, and UBC was founded and opened in some rather unassuming shacks in Fairview Slopes, which is the current site of the Vancouver General Hospital. UBC set up there and operated there for seven years.

In the subsequent 50 years, this province’s population grew by 30 percent every decade, continuously, resulting in a rapidly expanding population such that, in 1922, pressure was felt to move UBC to a permanent site at Point Grey, which it occupies today.

This is the time, of course, when…. Some British Columbians will remember that motor vehicles in this province drove on the left-hand side of the road until 1922, reflecting the British imperial heritage that we were exposed to from the foundation of this province until that time. In 1922, the road to Seattle was completed, and American cars started to appear on our roads. Of course, they presented a challenge, being driven on the other side of the road.

As UBC opened, we changed sides of the road, and the prosperity of driving on the right-hand side of the road was, of course, assured for the next century.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m glad at least one member picked it up.

Shortly after World War II…. This province had been importing talent and skilled people for decades. Finally, a law school was founded at UBC. The first class appeared after World War II, when our population reached one million.

This province still did not have a medical school, even though our population reached 1.1 million in 1950. The government of the day finally saw the need to put together a medical school for British Columbia. We were the last major jurisdiction in North America to set up a medical school. Alberta had set one up in 1907, with a population of 350,000. For reasons unknown to me today, it took us another 43 years to set up our own training programs.

We were importers of talent until that point. When one thinks about it, the vast majority of our professionals came from elsewhere. They were trained either in the U.K., in eastern Canada or in the United States, for the most part. That situation began to be rectified.

In 1965, as I mentioned earlier, some major institutions were founded so that we could become self-sufficient in educating our population. The population of our province reached 1.8 million in 1965. These extraordinary institutions were set up, which have now become enormously successful and have, between them, hundreds of thousands of students: BCIT, SFU, UVic and Vancouver Community College.

[ Page 10365 ]

We subsequently became self-sufficient in our educated and talented population. We no longer needed to import skilled people. We produced them on our own. This continued with the foundation of the University of Northern British Columbia, UBC Okanagan, Kwantlen Polytechnic University and the remainder of our 25 public post-secondary institutions.

By the year 2000, our population hit four million and we had become an exporter of talent. We had developed a situation where 200 private institutions were providing higher education in this province in addition to the 25 public post-secondary institutions, meaning that British Columbia had become a source of services in terms of educating people and either permitting them the opportunity to stay in Canada and settle in British Columbia or to return to their home countries and contribute to the well-being of those societies.

[1435]

So we come to 2015, the centenary of the University of British Columbia, which has now risen from a few unattractive buildings on Fairview Slopes to being ranked No. 34 in the world and No. 6 in the Americas amongst public institutions. I believe the Deputy Speaker himself has a connection with UBC, which warrants his pride in this organization.

Being amongst the top six public institutions in the Americas is no small feat. We fall into the same rank as Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Washington and, with some reluctance, the University of Toronto. These are extraordinary world-renowned institutions, and now we have amongst us one of them — the crown jewel of higher education in western Canada, which we founded in 1915.

Our population is now at 4.7 million, and we attract more than 100,000 international students each year. Those students pay market rate tuition — which is, with the decline of the Canadian dollar, even more attractive to international students. That market rate tuition subsidizes the education of the other students in our system. That provides the opportunity to provide programs which otherwise could be less affordable, but they are, in fact, subsidized by international students. Part of my mandate is to increase the population of international students so that we can reach in the range of 140,000 students in the near future.

This represents a coming of age. This society has moved from being a frontier society to a self-sufficient one, to a sophisticated diverse economy which is able to export services as well as goods. That, of course, is the underlying purpose of our government — to create a climate where people can prosper, where they can acquire the skills they need to be the best they can be. This is something we are very proud to do and something that we have accomplished with great success over the past 15 years. This provides a state-sponsored path to opportunity and the opportunity for prosperity for everyone.

The results have spoken for themselves in a variety of fields in our government. In education, we now have a situation where British Columbian K-to-12 students are ranked at the highest in Canada in terms of their success and No. 3 in the world. This is no small feat and is a tribute to our educators, to our systems and to the schools that we operate.

My own children have now experienced a total of 39 years of public sector education with extraordinarily successful results because of our commitment to public education. We’re very pleased and proud to have put our children through the K-to-12 system right here in British Columbia, in the public system, because it works.

The health system, of course, is another hallmark of our success, with the No. 1 health outcome results in the country, with a remarkably healthy population and with a medical care system that works remarkably well.

Our technology sector is another testament to our success — 86,000 people working in 9,000 companies throughout British Columbia and becoming world leaders in their fields — as diverse as data storage in the form of global relay; stem cell laboratory supplies in the form of stem cell technologies; and satellites for the civilian sector, produced by MDA right here in Richmond. We have found that we are no longer dependent on multinationals and on withdrawing resources from our landscape, but we can also build on the benefits that are available by adding value to those experiences.

We have a situation where we are attractive to the big multinationals, whether they’re Microsoft or the movie industry, Google, Twitter and the rest. But we can also look forward to the situation where the employees of those companies look around and decide to spin off their own company and do their own project and build up an opportunity for themselves right here in B.C. This is a blossoming field, and we are proud to be part of it. Of course, the Advanced Education investments we have made have led to the environment where this is possible.

We are also fortunate to realize the social dividends of this prosperity. We have produced, in this past year, the single parent initiative, providing $25 million initially in an unlimited amount for single parents who elect to go back to higher education. We will provide them with daycare, with transportation and with books and supplies and tuition. This presents yet another opportunity for British Columbians in all parts of our society to better themselves and to share in the prosperity that the rest of us enjoy.

This has led to us taking an increased place in Canada. We are no longer just the west coast port, the place beyond the Rocky Mountains. We are now leading the country in so many ways, not just fiscal but in terms of our innovative economy, our educated population and our benefits of being part of a prosperous regime of government.

[1440]

We’re also earning our place in the world. We know this from the number of international students seeking to

[ Page 10366 ]

come here and by the significant number of immigrants, like me, who came here seeking prosperity and found it in a fair, just and productive society.

We’re seeing this currently in the return of substantial numbers of Canadians from other locations, notably Alberta. We’re also seeing this in Americans starting to appear on our shores because of the opportunities here, and also many Canadians who’ve decided to return to Canada from elsewhere and have decided that British Columbia is the most promising environment for them to prosper, and they do exactly that.

We are able to do these things because we’ve had a responsible government. We’ve been investing in many different fields and in my special area of interest, post-secondary education.

The budget for post-secondary institutions involves transferring $1.8 billion from our government to 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. In 2017-18, we will provide $822 million in new capital projects, with a new Emily Carr University campus, which is under construction right now, and we’ll open a new trades building at Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt. We’re about to open new trades-training buildings at Camosun College here in Victoria and in Kelowna at Okanagan College.

These are just a few of the many capital projects we’re engaged in at our universities and colleges so that we can provide the tools and the opportunities for the next generation of learners, no matter how old they are, to prosper in British Columbia and be their best.

I digress a minute to tell you a short story of visiting the University of the Fraser Valley campus in Chilliwack and sitting in on a class of students studying heavy-duty mechanics. A man stood in the back of the room, and I mentioned to him that this was for students only. He said: “I am a student.” He was 45 years old, and he had finally taken the leap of doing what he had always wanted to do: taking the heavy-duty mechanics course to upgrade himself, to increase his prospects and increase his income. And he was doing it because it was affordable, accessible and of high quality, which is true of all of our educational programs.

Overall, we have put $2.6 billion into more than 1,600 capital infrastructure projects since 2001 in the post-secondary sector. This is an enormous commitment. It’s not an easy task, and it’s something we are thoroughly committed to.

But building facilities doesn’t accomplish the task. It’s people who teach, not concrete and steel, so we have embarked upon the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint. This provides that $460 million annually of our post-secondary institution operating grants will be targeted in 2017-18 to in-demand education and training. This figure started at 10 percent in 2013-14 and will thereby increase to 25 percent by 2017-18. This, again, demonstrates our commitment to the people in British Columbia who want employable skills quickly and who want them to be entirely and fully useful in the workplace.

We’ve aligned student financial assistance grants to in-demand occupations. B.C. access grants, announced in September 2014, have helped more than 1,350 students to receive $5.6 million in educational financial assistance.

The B.C. completion grant for graduates was launched in April 2015, and roughly 100 students have applied to date into this new and exciting program.

We have $13 million allocated for 2,917 additional critical trade seats — well above and beyond the thousands that we already produce — at 14 institutions, because we are very much attuned to the needs of the future.

All of this is driven by the fact that we are facing large numbers of retirements in the next decade, including many members in this House who will probably not be here in ten years. We will need to be replaced. Sadly, there is no useful training program for this particular task, so we focus on things that are actually in demand, like critical trades instead.

With that in mind, we are looking forward to roughly 700,000 retirements in this province, and we will have to train the people to replace every one of those skilled individuals. We intend to do that on time and in an affordable fashion.

We are investing $185 million in infrastructure and equipment for skilled trades and training, including, as I mentioned earlier, $33 million for the Okanagan College trades renewal project, scheduled to open later this year; $30 million for the centre for trades education and innovation at Camosun College, of which the province is providing $29.2 million, which should open in the next few months.

We have dedicated $18.9 million for new trades-training facilities at Selkirk College’s Silver King campus in Nelson. This is an interesting situation because the population in the West Kootenays is not growing.

[1445]

The number of young people is shrinking, but we are reinvesting in that population because we want that population to have the maximum skills available to them so that they can make their own life decisions, whether it’s to work in their local communities, seek employment elsewhere, start their own business or in some other way decide what to do with their newly acquired skills.

First Nations have by no means been left behind in this, in that we have dedicated $11.1 million to support aboriginal community-based education and training partnerships. We have also embarked on a widespread program of trades training trailers, which are facilities which are right up to the minute and are portable and can travel to communities where the candidate students have difficulty getting to educational institutions and might find it intimidating or daunting to travel a distance to go for their education. We take the education to them so

[ Page 10367 ]

that they can explore the field and decide whether they want to pursue that as a career.

We provide on-line trades seat finding tools to help students to find the available seats in their programs. We go out of our way to keep our education affordable.

We hear, periodically, calls for free tuition. Free tuition, in my experience, was a complete flop in the United Kingdom, where the member for North Island came from. She, like many others, obtained an education at no charge, which was provided by general taxation, which meant that people with lower incomes were transferring their assets to people from the upper middle class. So the higher-income people benefited at the expense of the lower-income people.

We do not believe in that approach. We believe that every British Columbian should have access to high-quality, affordable education. We have the fourth-lowest tuition fees in Canada. An undergraduate degree runs an average of $5,305 per year in tuition. Tuition increases in B.C. have remained below the national average for the past ten years and are faced with a 2 percent cap on growth for the past ten years. This has been an extraordinarily successful model for students and provides a predictable revenue scheme for the institutions.

Our student financial aid program helped 67,000 students in 2014-15 to make their education entirely accessible. Those loans are provided interest-free as long as the student is in studies. After that, they are provided with a reasonable interest rate and they’re asked to embark on a repayment program. We find that the median debt incurred by students who turn to our student loan system is $20,000 for a bachelor’s degree and about $11,000 for a trades diploma.

This is extraordinary affordability, because their lifetime income is projected to increase by more than half a million dollars because of this training, and yet this is an investment of $10,000 or $20,000. It is an extraordinarily successful program. And we must remember that 70 percent of eligible students don’t turn to the province at all for these interest-free support programs. Only 30 percent of students are turning to the province for financial aid support, and we are pleased to provide them with it.

We have provided $55 million in targeted grants, including approximately $32 million for the B.C. completion grant, benefiting almost 23,000 students. Of course, in the

summary for the amount of student loans in a particular year, in 2014-15, we provided $211 million in student loans. This is an exceptionally successful program, which is provided in conjunction with the federal government, to make sure that our education is affordable and accessible to everyone who wants it.

Aboriginal education is a particularly important focus for our ministry, because this is the path to prosperity. We have heard it time and time again from aboriginal leaders — that they want their children to be the ones who will benefit from the kind of prosperity that’s available through higher education.

Now, 3,241 credentials were awarded to aboriginal learners in 2013-14. That’s an increase of 23 percent over 2009-10. Our goal is to increase the number of credentials awarded to aboriginal learners by 75 percent in the next four years. This is critically important for our society. The aboriginal youth population is growing at triple the rate of the non-aboriginal youth population, meaning that this is a cohort that requires credentials, requires opportunity and will look into this century with a proud and prosperous face.

In terms of aboriginal education, we’ve invested $25 million since 2012 to support aboriginal community-based training partnership programs. We’ve put $4.3 million into one-time funding since 2012 for an aboriginal emergency financial assistance fund. This provides for those special circumstances, which are not entirely unique but certainly are emphasized in our indigenous populations, that when family crises occur, the student must go home.

[1450]

We allow for that, we provide for that, and we fund that movement, so that the student is not caught between a rock and a hard place, between their studies away from home and their obligations at home. We facilitate that transition in both directions so that the student can continue to succeed, rather than be drawn away from their studies by financial pressures.

We’ve provided $15 million for 31 aboriginal gathering places at all 25 post-secondary institutions. This is a place where indigenous students can gather, have the support and advice of elders and commiserate with each other about the challenges they’ve faced moving from an indigenous environment they grew up in, into a generally more urbanized post-secondary environment education circumstance. This has been enormously successful throughout the province, and we now have them in place at all of our institutions.

We’ve provided $4 million in annual funding for aboriginal service plans at all 11 public post-secondary institutions that specialize in this field. This is because we firmly believe that the future for our indigenous population, as they become more prosperous and become more heavily integrated into the economy, lies through higher education, and we intend to pursue this into the future.

On a more broad-based student access issue that is dear to my heart, we have launched the open textbook initiative. Most of us will remember going to the university or college bookstore and facing daunting prices for textbooks that seemed to be the same year after year. The publishers were clearly making a tidy profit by recovering the same old books and rearranging the same old content. We have taken this on, head-on.

We now have more than 130 free open textbooks available on line to students, faculty and staff. They can

[ Page 10368 ]

We’ve estimated that 11,500 students have saved more than $1.1 million, so far, using on-line textbooks. In a single course, physics 100, at UBC, $93,000 was saved by using the open textbook rather than the commercial textbook. We have more than 100 faculty members at 20 of our public post-secondary institutions who are participating in the open textbook initiative.

These open textbooks range from popular first- and second-year books, which are fairly static in their content, such as math and chemistry, through to skilled and applied subjects, as well as adult upgrading. Some are these require frequent upgrades; others are more static. We have embarked on this. We will continue to fund this. We will continue to provide it to students as a free service.

Our international education has been a roaring success. Right now 115,000 international students are studying in public and private post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, in private language schools and K to 12. This is an increase of 22 percent since 2009, and as I said earlier, we’ll continue to do this.

The number of international students in our public post-secondary institutions has grown by 40 percent since 2009, through to 2013, to roughly 40,000 as of two years ago. As the numbers come in, we expect that to get closer to 50,000 this year, because we are facing a situation where our services, our know-how, our skills are in worldwide demand.

We intend to capitalize on that by making the best of the post-secondary institutions that we have built. We have invested heavily in these institutions, and we intend to capitalize on them for the benefit of our society. We intend to be a government that is fully engaged in the world. We are not shy of engaging the world, like some members in this House. We are confident. We do not depend on anyone to take care of us because we are proud of who we are, and we’re a government that does its best to deliver for young people in this province.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim to continue his speech.

S. Fraser: I believe I took my space back in a debate here. I think I have maybe five minutes left. I’m not entirely sure, but I’m sure I will be told that. Four minutes, I’m told.

Recapping, last week, as I ran the clock, I was referring to the government’s throne speech and the mantra and slogan of getting to yes — a very subjective and divisive statement that really means nothing. Getting to yes and vilifying those that don’t agree with that type of yes is problematic, to say the least. Getting to yes, when it helps people that need it, would be a good thing.

[1455]

However, let me give you an example. On May 5, 2014, I had a meeting with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations regarding the loss of at least 50 jobs from the Franklin crew of Local 1-85 Steelworkers. That was to facilitate…. Land was removed. Twenty-five percent of the annual allowable cut was removed from Western Forest Products’ annual allowable cut. It was used as a means to deal with the Maa-nulth treaty issue — something that all sides of the House support.

What we didn’t know at the time was that there would be no compensation coming forward for the workers who would lose their jobs. In other words, the treaty was settled, really, on the backs of the workers and the community of Port Alberni. That’s a problem. However, when I raised it with the minister and, of course, the representative from the Steelworkers at the meeting almost two years ago now, we were told that there would be subsequent meetings and that there would be an investigation done. None of that has happened. That’s almost two years.

We need to get to yes here. This is a government that has a formula. They already developed the formula when they removed forest lands from the same tree farm license 44, back in, I think, 2004 — a 20 percent clawback. The government decided that for every 2,000 cubic metres lost, it would mean one worker loses his job, and they determined and set the precedent for that compensation.

There are 50-plus workers who have been waiting years now for their compensation for a loss of 25 percent of the cut to facilitate the Maa-nulth treaty. Even with an assurance of follow-up meetings and the work to be done, we’ve had no follow-up meetings and no work apparently being done by the government.

That’s counterintuitive, of course, to getting to yes. It’s the polar opposite of getting to yes. The government shouldn’t have the ability to throw a slogan out — getting to yes — and use that, cherry-pick that, any way they want to so that their yes is the right yes.

The people of British Columbia and the workers in Alberni–Pacific Rim get a no, or they get short shrift, to say the least. Not only that — there was a yes. The yes was to follow this up with meetings and the work being done by the minister and the ministry. None of that has happened. So yes, when it was yes, didn’t mean anything. It’s left my community and workers, the Steelworkers 1-85, without the adequate compensation that they are due.

What is wrong with a throne speech that runs just on a slogan? It takes people’s attention away from the real issues of the day. And employment is an important issue in my area. We have some of the highest poverty levels in the province.

[ Page 10369 ]

B. Ralston: It gives me great pleasure to rise and respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Before I begin the more substantive part of my remarks, I do want to acknowledge some changes that have taken place in my community of Surrey, coincident with the last federal election. Jasbir Sandhu, the MP for Surrey North, was defeated, as was Jinny Sims. Both contributed, I think, incredibly to the political development and growth of Surrey and will be missed. They were both hard-working, well-liked Members of Parliament.

But elections are hard-fought battles, and two others, now Members of Parliament, prevailed. I want to congratulate them on their victories. I look forward to working with them in my area. Randeep Sarai is now the member for the newly named Surrey Centre riding, and Sukh Dhaliwal returns as the Member of Parliament for Surrey-Newton. I look forward to working with both of them.

Indeed, the Minister of Infrastructure was out in Surrey just on Friday at a breakfast event hosted by the Surrey Board of Trade. He has continued to make some commitments about spending on infrastructure, which I think need some more detail to be fully satisfying.

[1500]

Certainly, there is a desire and a wish among the people I represent that there be funding for better transit, particularly in Surrey, as Surrey is one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing, cities in the province and will overtake Vancouver in population very shortly.

I also want to acknowledge some of the work that I’ve done, some of the people that I’ve met in my riding in the recent past. Much is spoken of the quality of education in Surrey. My children attend public schools in Surrey. I had the occasion to visit a couple of classes, one at James Ardiel Elementary, where Donna While and Sandy Nazarchuk are grade 7 teachers.

I was particularly pleased to go back to James Ardiel, because my two sons attended James Ardiel from grades 1 to 7. The teachers, the quality of the instruction there, are excellent. In some ways, it’s a school that probably doesn’t get the attention that it deserves. It’s classified, for some purposes, as an inner-city school, but nonetheless, I can attest that the quality of the teachers and the instruction there was excellent. My children, the two boys, certainly benefited from their time there and really enjoyed it and learned a lot while they were at James Ardiel. I spoke with the grade 7 class there.

I also was the guest of Ms. Sukhjinder Sidhu at a grade 5 class in Cedar Hills Elementary, also in my riding — an unusually well-informed class of students. I often ask students: do they follow the news? How do they get their news? Do they read a daily newspaper? Do they look at something on line? Do they watch television news?

Much to my surprise, because there’s a little bit of variation among classes, this class seemed particularly well informed and particularly interested in the political process. So that was an interesting exchange at Cedar Hills Elementary and I think bodes well for the future of public affairs and the development of an informed citizenry in British Columbia.

My riding — especially after the new boundary changes have moved the division line between my riding and the riding of Surrey-Guildford, which will be a renamed riding — has moved west and increasingly focuses, as it did much before, but to a greater extent, upon Surrey city centre. The development of a vital downtown core with all that one would expect in a vibrant urban centre, whether it’s business, residences or cultural amenities, is underway in Surrey — perhaps, having participated in it for a long time, a little bit too slow, but it is gaining momentum.

There are a couple of organizations that are devoted to assisting that development process, whether it’s on the side of physical infrastructure and buildings or whether it’s on the side of cultural amenities or social services. One of them is the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association. Elizabeth Model is the CEO, Bonnie Burnside is the manager, and Tracy Gravel runs the office. It’s funded, as these kinds of organizations are, by an additional tax levy on benefiting properties within the designated area. They do a very good job of raising a number of issues.

One issue that they raise and that they’ve undertaken as a campaign — unfortunately, this seems to have fallen on deaf ears; successive Ministers of Advanced Education and the current one are particularly uninterested in this issue — is the development, the following through of a commitment made by the government some time ago, of about 5,000 full-time-equivalent student spaces in the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University.

Notwithstanding that commitment, a solemn commitment of the government…. I’ve pursued this each year in my questions of the Minister of Advanced Education. There have been a number of Ministers of Advanced Education. No one seems to stay very long in that job. Yet last year, the minister rebuffed my inquiry.

[1505]

But I’m optimistic that this year, because we’re going to hear a budget tomorrow, that commitment will be renewed and the funding will flow. Certainly, the parliamentary committee, the legislative committee that advises the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget, unanimously….

This is significant, because the Finance Committee is composed of a majority of government members who are not in the cabinet but are other members of the Legislature and a minority of opposition members. They recommended it unanimously. So it’s significant that the majority of the committee, a Liberal majority, recommended that this commitment be fulfilled.

Not only is the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association advocating for this, but the legislative

[ Page 10370 ]

committee, the B.C. Finance Ministry…. They’ve done this before — again rebuffed, rebuffed.

I’m not sure who the Minister of Advanced Education or the Minister of Finance listen to, but I would recommend that they listen to the legislative committee — a majority of Liberal members — and that they listen to the Downtown Surrey BIA and, indeed, listen to the repeated polite and diplomatic pressure applied by successive SFU presidents, whether Andrew Petter or his predecessor, who’ve put forward this idea.

Surrey is a growing area. The university is a dynamic one. It’s clearly underserved, proportionate to its growth. There’s a really strong case for making that commitment and, indeed, once that commitment is made, a longer-term plan to grow that university because a dynamic, open and growing university in the heart of the Surrey downtown will benefit not only the university and its students but will benefit the whole region and, indeed, create the kind of dynamic and diverse downtown core that we’re looking for.

The other group that I meet with regularly is the Whalley Community Improvement Association. It’s a little more of a low-key organization. We generally meet once a month, on Wednesday mornings at 7:15 a.m. It’s an early start because most of the people there are heading off elsewhere. It’s composed of merchants, service providers…. The police are there and city bylaw enforcement officers.

That group deals in a very, I think, expeditious way and with a lot of open discussion about some of the concerns that arise, more on the social side, in the city core. That exchange is really important for the development of a great city. I want to just make public and give recognition to the work that that Whalley Community Improvement Association does and the solutions that it brings about.

The other organization in Whalley is the Surrey Urban Mission Society. Leadership of that organization has recently passed to a new executive director, Mike Musgrove. Jonquil Hallgate is the founder and has stepped aside. Mike Musgrove is the new executive director. He’s an exceptional person with strong values and a very supportive family. He has taken over.

I’m confident that this society, which provides a meal program, provides some temporary shelter, generally assists those who are less fortunate people on the street, homeless people…. We have big-city problems in Surrey as well as big-city successes.

Mike will do a great job. When it was announced that he was going to be the director, I was a little surprised, because he’s my next-door neighbour and has been for a number of years. I had no influence over the selection, but I’m very pleased that he was selected, because in addition to everything else, he and his wife are great neighbours, and we’ve enjoyed a very harmonious relationship with them.

He lives in the community. Indeed, he walks to work, which is a bit of a hike, maybe 25 minutes, but he said it clears his head in the morning. He’s off to work, generally, at I think 7:15 or 7:30 in the morning. I think that’s something worth mentioning here.

I want to turn to some of the issues that have arisen in the throne speech. There are a couple of issues.

[1510]

In the throne speech, the government has talked about…. This is not something that hasn’t been said before. They have a catchphrase, and we hear it from the minister responsible for liquid natural gas development. I’m going to read from the throne speech. “B.C. has the potential to be a clean energy superpower, helping others reduce emissions — whether by replacing coal-fired plants with LNG overseas or by supplying hydroelectric power to Alberta.”

We’ll get to the relationship with Alberta. There’s a long history of cooperation, joint cabinet meetings, with the government of Alberta, but that has recently come under a very sharp, vitriolic political attack from the Premier. We’ll deal with that a little bit later.

What I want to talk about is this notion that the export of LNG will reduce GHG emissions in China. In fact, surprisingly, that’s not accurate. One of the people who has addressed this issue, I think in a very thoughtful way and in a very informed way, is a man named David Hughes. He’s a scientist. He’s described as an earth scientist of the Post Carbon Institute. He has researched the energy sector for 40 years, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada.

In an interview that was published — he has written papers, but this is a more succinct view of his — in the Squamish Chief , a newspaper or an on-line publication, obviously, in the Squamish area, the question is: “One argument is that we are not being fair to the people of China who are suffering from coal production and that liquefied natural gas from here will save them from that.”

His answer. I’m going to read it, because I don’t want to be accused of misquoting or distorting, and that’s sometimes the first resort of the 225 people in the government communications department that monitor these communications and attempt to pick fault — the largest newsroom in the province. At a time when the journalism industry is suffering and encountering layoffs, the largest newsroom in the province is employed by that side of the House to pick away at what opposition members say.

Let me give you his answer.

“On a full-cycle emissions basis, the planet would be better off if China built state-of-the-art coal plants rather than burning B.C. LNG for at least the next 50 years. It is true that at the burner tip, gas produces about half the CO 2 of coal, but you have to consider full-cycle emissions from the wellhead to the burner tip for gas.

The hydraulic fracturing process and the supply chain — pipelines, processing plants — emit considerable amounts of methane, which is 73 percent as potent as CO 2 on a 20-year time frame and 25 times as potent on a 100-year time frame, because methane leaves the atmosphere more quickly than CO 2 . Plus, about 20 percent of the gas must be burned to provide power for the liquefaction and shipping process.

[ Page 10371 ]

“If you compare full-cycle emissions from B.C. LNG burned in China to the state-of-the-art Chinese coal plant, which runs at 46 percent efficiency, compared to the 33 percent efficiency of an old coal plant, B.C. LNG is 27 percent worse than burning coal.”

So 27 percent worse than burning coal over a 20-year time frame and 7 percent better on a 100-year time frame. You’d have to wait more than 50 years until you break even, while suffering the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the meantime.

What that person is saying is that the argument that’s made by the minister, by the Premier, that somehow this huge benefit, this GHG emission reduction benefit, is going to be conferred upon China — indeed, the peoples of the world — by them taking on B.C. LNG, is just not accurate. It’s just not accurate.

As they did in the debate about the emissions of the LNG process, they consider — this is the government, the B.C. Liberals, the minister, the Premier — only the emissions of the plant and not the full cycle, as Mr. Hughes calls it.

[1515]

In other words, you’ve got to get the gas out of the ground, into the pipeline to the plant, liquefy it, ship it over to China, regasify it, take it to a source and burn it. The total amount of emissions is greater in that process than it would be if they adopted — which they are adopting — efficient coal burners. In addition to that, they are doing more. They’re doing more in China than the minister of LNG is prepared to consider.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: What is happening there in China is…. China is also engaging itself as a major wind power. What recent sources say — this is the Global Wind Energy Council — is that China has overtaken the EU, the European Union, to become the world’s top region for wind power, thanks to a burst of turbine installations in the past year. A new report has found that China installed nearly half of the 63 gigawatts of wind power added globally in 2015 and now accounts for about a third of the world’s installed wind power capacity — twice the figure for the U.S. and three times that of Germany, biggest by capacity.”

The Minister of Natural Gas Development has said China is not moving to wind. “They’re not.” That’s what he said. That’s an exact quote: “China moving to wind? They’re not.” That is clearly not accurate. The central argument that is made on occasion by the Premier and by the minister of LNG is clearly challenged by objective scientific evidence, which of course, probably means nothing to that process over there. But that’s what Mr. Hughes said, and I think that’s a fair assessment of the argument that’s sometimes made.

Recently, last week, in addition to that consideration of the emissions of these plants, the draft environmental assessment report of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was released. It assessed the potential GHG emissions of the project — that is, the Pacific NorthWest LNG project — and the total emissions, including the upstream emissions. What it said is that….

We have to remember that in the debate, what those on the opposite side said was that this was going to be the cleanest LNG in the world. There’s a plant in northern Norway, and the emission intensity of CO 2 was going to be equivalent to, if not lower than, that particular plant in Norway.

It’s significant what this report says. “Even a project with an emission intensity of 0.16 tonnes CO 2 per tonne of LNG, at a maximum capacity of 19.2 million tonnes of LNG per year, would still be one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.”

In addition, what they also say is that the project “would result in 5.12 million tonnes ofCO 2 per year — 0.27 tonnes of CO 2 per tonne of LNG.” That’s “a marked increase of greenhouse gas emissions at both the provincial — an 8.5 percent increase — and national — 0.75 percent increase — level. Upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project of 6.5 million to 8.7 million tonnes CO 2 …would represent 10 to 14 percent of provincial emissions and 0.90 to 1.1 percent of national emissions.”

The fact that was refused, ignored, sidestepped, obfuscated, omitted by the government in this report — and this is a report by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency — is that the upstream emissions of this plant would represent 10 to 14 percent of the total provincial emissions. That’s a huge increase in provincial emissions.

[1520]

They go on to provide this assessment in the same part of the report. What they do say is:

“The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 to 8.7 million tonnes CO 2 per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. Accordingly, the upstream emissions could be considered likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This information will provide additional context for the environmental assessment decision and help inform the government’s development of a national climate change plan.”

The new incoming Liberal government, which has now been there for approximately 100 days, has signalled an intention to evaluate projects in terms of their impact on climate, and it would seem that this report set the objective conditions for a serious evaluation of these projects.

Now, that’s a new approach in assessing these projects. It’s outside the environmental assessment plan or the environmental assessment that was taking place prior to their coming to power, but nonetheless, the government has signalled. It will be interesting to see. When you have the report saying that the upstream emissions, “similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent…likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects….”

We have heard the government talk about LNG for some time, and notwithstanding the debate that we had

[ Page 10372 ]

here about emissions, it’s clear that the government was either mistaken in its view of the GHG impact of these plants and the total system for delivering the gas to the plant, or they were simply ignoring it or hoping it would go away or, by rhetorically stressing the emissions of the plant, that the other part of the emissions process would be ignored.

It’s over to the new federal Liberal government for that assessment. I know members opposite have recently visited Ottawa and spoken with senior ministers there, so I’m sure that they have some sense of how this process will play out. I’m hoping that the Minister of Natural Gas Development or the Premier will advise the public, given this report, what that impact will be upon LNG developments.

And this is only for one project — a major project, granted, but only the impact on one project. A number of the people that the government consults with from time to time on climate effects have stressed this for some time, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out and how this is resolved, because obviously, it has significant impact on the decision whether or not to go forward with those projects.

As much as we may wish or expect…. And certainly, Pacific NorthWest LNG is well advanced in the approval process, as is the Shell project, although the Shell project has been deferred now until at least the end of 2016 and perhaps into 2017. Certainly, all their approvals are in place. This project — the Pacific NorthWest LNG project — has an additional hurdle to overcome.

We’ll see how that plays out. Certainly, for those of us who are interested in the future of LNG in the province, that will be a significant decision.

The other thing that was striking in the Speech from the Throne and some of the subsequent commentary was what was said about the province of Alberta. I’m looking for my exact quotation here. “Over the decades, Alberta lost its focus. They expected their resource boom never to end, failed to diversify their economy and lost control of government spending.”

[1525]

This comes in an unusual context, because what has happened since at least 2003 is that there have been regular meetings between the cabinet of British Columbia and the cabinet of the government of Alberta. In fact, I have a document here. It’s probably the closest thing to a sacred document we have here. It’s a document signed by the hon. Gordon Campbell — I know that the member for Kootenay East was a big fan — and the hon. Ed Stelmach.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Well, we don’t want to retail those kinds of old stories now, member for Kootenay East.

A commitment to partnership between the government of Alberta and the government of B.C. There are a number of areas. There’s an agreement. As far as I know, this agreement is still in effect, because there’s no time deadline on it. It can be terminated.

They were going to work together on economic matters. They were going to work together on improving services, sustainable economic development. Pretty well anything that you can think of in the economic and political sphere, those two governments were going to work together on. Now, this was somewhat superseded.

There were regular meetings. If you go back and check, there were a number of meetings. Let me just give you some detail on those meetings: October 8, 2003; May 26, 2004; May 18, 2005; April 28, 2006; May 18, 2007; October 1, 2008.

Then with the signing of the new west partnership, there were joint meetings between B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan on May 12 and 13, 2009; September 11, 2009; April 30, 2010. There were continued meetings. There were even recent releases, as recently as 2014 and one relating to a meeting in February 2015. So the government of Alberta and the government of B.C. — and certainly, this Premier is probably no different from the previous Premier — participated in these meetings and had a joint discussion.

How did it come about that Alberta lost its focus all the while, over these many years getting advice from British Columbia? That view was never expressed by the Premier until there was a change in government in Alberta. I think what it demonstrates is that there is no relationship, no network of cooperation, no partnership, no friends or associates that the Premier is not prepared to burn if it serves her immediate political interest.

It’s a sad commentary, but that is what I draw from this, given the lengthy cooperation between these two governments at the cabinet level. This is not public servants, although I’m sure they were involved at the senior level. This is at the political level, the highest political level — meetings of the Premiers of Alberta and British Columbia and meetings of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. So there’s a whole history there of that kind of cooperation — yet burned to serve the immediate political purposes of the Premier.

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure to be back here for the fifth session of the 40th parliament. I’m feeling very optimistic today. I’m feeling very optimistic about our government and the exciting vision we have for this province.

You know, I was out for a run this morning, as is my case. I like to run in the mornings. It was absolutely soaking. It was just a horrible day, but I ran. I got really wet, but as I ran, I saw all these little flowers peeking out. They’re just starting to peek out in my home riding of Abbotsford-Mission, but they’re really peeking out here. You can’t help but feel optimistic and excited about the future of our province when you see all those cheerful little flowers peeking out and saying hi. It’s a good

[ Page 10373 ]

world we’re getting into here, and it’s a good time to be in our province.

I want to acknowledge the good work that went into the speech. I was impressed, and I want to share a bit on that.

[1530]

It’s a pleasure for me to represent two great communities, Abbotsford and Mission. How many people get to drive across a majestic bridge to work virtually every morning, across the mighty Fraser River? That’s my pleasure, that I get to do that.

Our two communities are vibrant. If you travel around you, can’t help but to get excited about the agricultural possibilities — the raspberries, the blueberries and the big dairy farms. It’s an exciting place to be, and it’s a real honour and privilege for me to represent the people of the Abbotsford-Mission areas.

A lot of great work is going on. With thanks to the province, we recently completed a $21 million seismic safety upgrade to the Mission Bridge, which is a key connector.

A lot of people, when they think about Mission and Abbotsford, think of those towns. But there are a lot of cute little communities — small, vibrant agricultural communities — throughout the entire area that I represent. McConnell Creek. We have the Ten Oaks area, Auguston, Deroche, Dewdney, Matsqui Prairie, Lake Errock, Hatzic and so many more delightful little communities.

There is a lot of pride there. For some of the MLAs that come from urban areas, it can be kind of amorphous. You can go from one area to another, and there’s not too much change. But in my communities of Abbotsford and Mission, you’ll see a certain vibrancy. There’s a real pride in those little communities.

I also represent two school districts in the area, and we’ve committed a lot of capital funding. In Abbotsford school district 34, we’ve provided over $1 million last year for three schools to improve such things as roofs, air units and hot water tanks — all well needed. In Mission, school district 75, we’ve invested over $675,000 last year for three schools to upgrade heating and hot water and air systems. There’s good money being invested in education in facilities, and these investments increase the longevity of our schools.

Well, we know about the community gaming grants and the contribution they make. It’s always a pleasure for me to visit community organizations and hear how happy they are with our grants that we have through community gaming. Over the past year, we’ve provided almost $850,000 to organizations in Abbotsford and $613,000 to organizations in Mission through the program.

It’s all good. It’s good progress, and everybody is really appreciative. On top of that, we’ve got grants going to the Abbotsford Community Services and also for Mission Community Services to provide programs such as the food bank.

We welcome new British Columbians to our province, refugees from Syria, perhaps, and other countries and people moving to B.C. to take advantage of our growing economy. It’s one thing I noticed as I travel around the Abbotsford-Mission riding. A lot of new homes are being built, and there’s a real kind of ebullient mood in the air. People are just pleased to call Abbotsford or Mission their home.

The B.C. jobs plan is our plan to keep B.C.’s economy diverse, strong and growing, and that plan is working. We’re investing in skills-training programs to ensure British Columbians have the skills they need for the jobs that are available — future jobs that will be opening up thanks to a growing and vibrant economy.

We want British Columbians to be first in line for jobs in this province. In my own riding, we’ve provided funding to Sprott-Shaw Community College and also the University of the Fraser Valley, where I taught for some 13 years to train students in a variety of various programs. These programs are for in-demand jobs: electricians, carpenters, plumbers and welders. New trainings program to support students as they train for new occupations.

We have partnered with the Industry Training Authority for the secondary school apprenticeship program that places students with local employers to attain practical experience.

There are eight key sectors in the jobs plan, and currently, the fastest growing is the tech centre, as we’ve heard frequently here in our Legislature. We launched our #BCTECH strategy to support the growth of our vibrant tech sector. We want to ensure that B.C. has the talent and investment needed so that companies can develop innovative products and ideas to fuel our economy and create the jobs that we all know that we need for our young people as they grow in our province.

Having a diverse knowledge-based economy that supports innovation will have very positive implications throughout our province. The strategy highlights the K-to-12 curriculum, which provides the opportunities for students to gain basic skills needed for careers needed in technology, like coding. We’re hearing about that, and I think we’re all pretty excited about the opportunities for coding for our young people.

In addition, incorporating into the K-to-12 studies, we’ve also introduced a new curriculum to better meet the needs of all learners. We are focusing on preparing students with the skills they need to succeed in the 21st century.

[1535]

It is a privilege for me to serve as parliamentary secretary for independent schools in the ministry and being able to observe firsthand the excellent progress we’re making to the benefit of British Columbians.

It is not just the beauty of our landscapes that makes B.C. such a wonderful place to live, but it’s the people that are here. The hard work, continued focus on con-

[ Page 10374 ]

trolling government spending, balancing budgets and building a strong and diverse economy — we just heard this a moment ago, with one of our presentations here in the House.

We are leading the country in economic growth. Last year we led Canada by creating more than 50,000 jobs. That’s more than the population of Mission, in my community. We’re on track for the fourth consecutive balanced budget. Despite the fragile global economy, we’re remaining vigilant, and we’re doing well. We’re creating a climate where businesses can thrive and create jobs.

As a former owner of a business, I know how hard it is when you have to meet a payroll — have to pay your taxes, pay utilities, lease payments, all those things. I admire those people willing to got out and create their own businesses. This government is creating a vibrant environment for that, cutting red tape, making it easier for people to start businesses and flourish.

We recognize that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand. We can sustain both, even with the challenges that sometimes come with that.

Our dedicated social workers work hard in some of the most difficult situations and touch the lives of thousands of families. In the past year, good news: 274 children were placed for adoption. We saw more than 111,000 licensed child care spaces funded. We are committed to maintaining the stability in the ministry, as has been recommended. We’ll be hiring even more social workers as well.

Our trade strategy — raising our game in Asia — is paying off. We’re planning on opening even more trade and investment offices. As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, B.C. is well positioned to access all those countries. By strengthening and diversifying trade in our Asian markets, this helps grow our economy. Trade and investment are proven contributors to job growth.

With our strategy, we are expanding B.C.’s presence in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations region and seeing successes, with total exports well over $35 billion, annually.

As well, 2015 was a great year for agricultural exports. Of course, that’s an important part of my constituency of Abbotsford-Mission, which is tops in agriculture in all the province, in farm-gate revenue.

As well, 2015 was a great year for agricultural exports. Some $3.8 billion worth of B.C. agrifood and seafood were shipped around the world. Our reputation is wonderful around the world. This positive trend will help B.C. meet its goal of seeing revenues in agrifoods and seafoods reach up to $15 billion by the year 2020. What a great story to report to our friends around the world.

We will capitalize on our successes in agriculture by encouraging and supporting British Columbians to buy local and grow local. With our moderate climate, particularly in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland, that growing season makes that possible — and, of course, into the Okanagan as well.

B.C. has the potential to be a clean energy superpower and help others reduce emissions. B.C. was one of the first jurisdictions to not only set a price on carbon but to use that revenue to cut taxes at home. We’re currently consulting with British Columbians on our climate leadership plan.

We achieved the Great Bear Rainforest agreement, a monumental and globally significant agreement that conserves an area along the beautiful coastline of British Columbia.

I had the privilege as a young man, as a university student, of working with B.C. Ferries. I worked on the Queen of Prince Rupert ferry up and down the coast between Port Hardy, that part of the world, and Prince Rupert and have real memories of the majestic coastline of British Columbia, as a student at university, working with B.C. Ferries.

We have done everything we set out to do to attract investment for the cleanest LNG in the world. As companies move forward toward final investment decisions, we continue to work on bringing the opportunity of LNG to B.C. We’re going to ensure equity for future generations by establishing a prosperity fund to pay down our debt and invest in vital services.

With developing and growing economies in countries like China and India looking for cleaner energy to power their future, we can help them reduce emissions by replacing coal-fired plants with LNG. By being a vital supplier, this means jobs in B.C. and reducing global emissions.

[1540]

Forestry is a critical industry for British Columbians. We have forestry, actually, in my riding of Abbotsford-Mission, and we’re committed to working with the federal government to renew the expired softwood lumber agreement — very important.

We continue to stand up for B.C., defending the interests of our natural resource sectors and the hard-working families that support them.

Housing affordability. We’ve talked about that today, even here in the Legislature. The rising cost of living pressures are important to British Columbians. We will be taking steps to give British Columbians a better opportunity to enter the housing market and encourage more of a housing supply.

There’s no single solution, but we’ll work with the municipalities to ensure hidden costs are clear and transparent to the homebuyer. As a former council member in Abbotsford for many years, we were conscious, as local government, about the cost of housing and trying to keep those costs as low as possible for residents. We want to protect the savings and equity that existing homeowners have placed in homes.

I’m pleased to stand here in this House and support the hard work of this government as we grow our strong and diverse economy. We have a lot to be thankful for. We have a lot to be optimistic about. I’m proud to be a govern-

[ Page 10375 ]

ment MLA, and I’m proud to stand here in the Legislature today to support, enthusiastically, the throne speech.

V. Huntington: Once again, we stand in that strange hiatus between throne speech and budget — a time in which members get up and either praise or critique the government message just before they get up to either praise or critique the government budget, a time in which all that work and energy vested in preparation disappears into the ether of what supposedly constitutes debate in the House of the people.

It’s also a time in which members can more broadly speak to issues that face their constituencies, that face the province, that concern our citizens. And it is a time to pause at questions and whether the policies of government are moving us forward economically and socially.

As such, I’d like to begin by speaking to the government’s claim that B.C. is ready to take over Alberta’s role as Canada’s energy superpower. But an even more hyperbolic statement of B.C.’s new role is the claim that we are going to be the global clean energy superpower. I do have to say: wouldn’t that be nice?

But LNG is not a clean source of energy; it is simply a cleaner source of energy. Yes, it will be important as a transition fuel, but that’s all it is — a less dirty transition fuel. I would be willing to bet that the transition to truly clean, green energy power sources worldwide is going to be much faster than this government apparently believes. What happens to B.C. if that becomes fact?

There is a battle of epic proportions facing humanity, and while governments pretend to recognize the coming reality, most are doing too little to prepare. Bits and pieces occupy them when, in fact, we need a huge overarching, pan-provincial plan that can give us a goal that everyone understands, trusts and will work together to achieve.

But what do we have? Bits and pieces. No forward plan. We need higher dikes. Really. Who will pay for this broad social necessity? Who will compensate the homeowners and businesses who presently sit on our dikes? Who will rebuild the roads that will disappear as the dikes are raised and thus widened? How can municipalities possibly cover the cost? Yet that is what the province is intimating. A goal with no plan.

The government appointed a climate leadership team. The first set of recommendations have been made. They are a compromise developed by the government’s own independent team. Has the government listened? Will they listen? Will they bite the proverbial bullet and figure out how to reduce — truly reduce — emissions by 40 percent?

Probably not, because they know what that means. They know that it would require a radical rethinking of how our economy and society will need to work, and because everything they stand for is unequivocal support for a dying and increasingly deadly fossil fuel-driven economy.

I’m going to say right now, before the masters of yes start calling “no” across the floor, that we all support a healthy economy — tax measures and royalty structures that encourage investment and make sense. Any responsible government must do that, and in many respects, this government has been very successful.

[1545]

Where they have gone wrong is the utter failure to understand that what they have concentrated so many of our intellectual resources on is a faltering industry. They count on LNG income because they made impossible political promises and because there is no other plan, no other battle, no other promise to protect the real future of our people and our province. Thinking in bits and pieces and counting on a single golden commodity won’t do that job.

How unclean is LNG, and what does the federal environmental assessment office say about the emissions of just one of the developments, the Pacific Northwest LNG or Petronas-led project? “It is high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. Accordingly, the upstream emissions could be considered likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”

That single sentence confirms every caution the government has heard from members of the opposition — cautions that suggested you can’t have an LNG industry of the size and impact that they have supported and meet their climate emission goals. That one project, according to the federal government, will eat up roughly 25 percent of B.C.’s entire carbon budget for 2020.

We were right, and the government knew it, and the government tied itself in knots. “We will leave the reduction problem to the Chinese,” you said. “We will double our emissions so that they can reduce theirs.” What kind of sorry intellectual joke is that? Stop the propaganda, and talk intelligently about how to face the future about what LNG really is — a transition, a stopgap to a new type of economic growth.

As I said previously, what is so sadly lacking is any leadership from government on understanding what the new economy will look like and how we will get there with as little disruption as possible.

The throne speech also speaks to our mining industry. I am as proud as any member in this House of the resource industry in British Columbia. I agree with the government that it has been the foundation of our general well-being and prosperity. I have supported the government’s budgets that recognized the importance of attracting, maintaining and supporting the extraction and forestry components of our economy.

Resource industry–driven economic growth needs to be rethought to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and I see nothing in the throne speech, or in action, that government is preparing for the long-term changes that are coming — changes that will see a gap developing between the consumption of resources and continuing economic growth.

[ Page 10376 ]

How will B.C. position itself? How are we trying to understand the future? How are we preparing in the back rooms of government to meet these changes in the world economy?

I don’t presume to understand what the future will wholly look like, but I do know that the great think tanks of the world, including the United Nations Resource Panel and Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, to name just two, are beginning to look at what is called the decoupling of resource use from economic growth.

Is government trying to understand what the impact of this decoupling will be on the British Columbian economy? Does it care that the consensus-based international goal will soon be to reach the green economy and that many countries are light years ahead of us?

This is the long term, the real meaning of leadership and guidance, preparing this province for the inevitable change that is happening faster than this government realizes. Whether it is forced upon us by reality or whether an outstanding morality suddenly hits the nations of this world, we need to know what lies ahead, and we need to plan for it.

It isn’t just LNG. As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has oft repeated, the basket of LNG eggs can break, and nothing but a slimy mess can pool at your feet.

Where is the plan to encourage diversity? Why has it taken so long for the government to develop a tech strategy? You only moved in that direction when LNG looked like it was stumbling. You moved in that direction only last summer, a tech strategy hurriedly put together to make it look like government had been looking all along at fostering diversification — $100 million, which is wonderful; a new website; another

chapter in the B.C. jobs plan; a tech summit.

[1550]

Don’t misunderstand me. I applaud anything that will let this sector know it has the full support of government, that it is a major component of an economic outlook. I’m just disappointed that encouraging economic activity and diversity has had such limited imagination and innovation in the halls of government.

The day is coming when per-capita consumption will be frozen, when decoupling human well-being from resource consumption will be the norm. To face that future, we need massive investment in technological, financial and social innovations — not bits and pieces but a consistent, complex and mandatory game plan going forward. That is the leadership we need, and which the throne speech failed utterly, not only to deliver but to even contemplate or — in the face of government groans decrying the opposite — to outline for the people of this province.

What did I like about the throne speech? Well, the short statements about assisting the agricultural industry, for one. For how many years have the farmers of B.C. been asking the government to reinvigorate the buy-local program? It’s very nice to know that it finally may be happening, and it’s a welcome move, to be sure, as is the adoption of an Ontario-style tax credit for farmers who donate food to non-profits — a helpful decision for all concerned, for the farmer who in Delta is extremely generous with donations of food, for the non-profit organizations who work so hard in their communities and, especially, for the people who need it most.

I have to say, though, that the increased funding for the Agricultural Land Commission is nothing more than what government ought to be doing and should have been doing over the last 15 years. The commission was underfunded for so long that it became almost toothless, and I’m glad to see this further support for the work of the ALC. The claim, however, that government has grown the size of the ALR is absolutely laughable, egregious propaganda that is a sorry indicator of how little it truly does support the protection of arable land in this province.

Finally, finally, we are seeing a move toward a public discussion on food security. It’s perhaps a bit hypocritical, given the loss of class 1 northern agricultural lands to Site C and the weakening of the ALC legislation, but at least it’s a