Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 16, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 114

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

The importance of B.C. as Canada’s Pacific

Gateway

B. Stewart

J. Rice

Mental health

B. D’Eith

J. Thornthwaite

Proud to be Canadian

N. Letnick

L. Krog

Public auto insurance

B. Ma

J. Yap

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 18 — Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain

pipeline

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

M. Bernier

M. Dean

D. Barnett

R. Glumac

M. Morris

N. Simons

R. Sultan

J. Routledge

R. Coleman

10:45:52, L. Krog, “Olduvai Gorge or something look that” changed to “Olduvai Gorge,

or something like that”

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: It gives me great privilege today, and great honour, to welcome into the

House my best friend, my lifelong partner, my wife of 37 years, the rhythm of my

heart. Could the House please make Helene Letnick very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF B.C.

AS CANADA’S PACIFIC

GATEWAY

B. Stewart: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to move a private member’s statement today

for this House to recognize the importance of British Columbia as Canada’s

Pacific Gateway. As British Columbia’s former special representative in Asia,

this is a topic in which I am well-versed — to act in my role as the province’s

official on-the-ground representative in Asia and to further strengthen B.C.

government-to-government relations in the region.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The most important part of this was to maintain good relations with

countries and companies in fostering trade relationships. Selling B.C. isn’t

that hard thanks to the incredible resources, products and industries that we

have in this province, as well as the indelible memories that people have from

visiting here.

However, none of what we’ve accomplished would have been possible

without the groundwork laid decades ago. It was former Premier Bill Bennett who

opened up Canada’s Pacific Gateway by putting British Columbia on the radar in

Asian markets. He took the unique step, as a provincial leader, of meeting with

a foreign head of government. This meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan set

in motion everything that has led us to where we are at today.

Bennett, along with Don Phillips, made the bold move of establishing a

B.C. trade office in Tokyo, Japan. By making a full-time commitment to trade

relations, this showed Japan that we were serious. This was B.C.’s first foray

on its own into the world of international trade.

In the late 1980s, Canada began pursuing and adopting a series of free

trade agreements. The effective tariff rates on imports gradually came down

over this period, from 3½ percent in 1988 to around 1 percent today.

In 2007, under Premier Gordon Campbell, B.C. became the first province

to release an Asian strategy. This Asia-Pacific initiative highlighted the

importance of Asia for the future of the province and the need to build on its

strong economic, cultural and personal ties with Asia to boost B.C.’s economic

prosperity. The goal was to increase trade, investment and knowledge

cooperation, mainly with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Southeast

Asia.

In 2011, the province released Canada Starts Here: The B.C. Jobs

Plan . The plan emphasized Asia’s potential to help shape our province’s

prosperity, and it made the expansion of market access for its products and

services, particularly in Asia, its third pillar.

Building on these two initiatives, the province released the B.C.

Jobs Plan Trade Strategy: Raising Our Game in Asia in 2015. This set

out a plan to diversify and strengthen our province’s trade in Asian markets.

The strategy’s three goals were to increase the number of B.C. companies that

export to Asia; to increase investments to make B.C. sectors competitive; and

to reduce barriers that impede the flow of goods, services, investment and

people between B.C. and Asia.

[10:10 a.m.]

That lone trade office in Japan is now joined by offices in China,

India, South Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines. In

2016, B.C.’s goods exports were $39.4 billion — an increase of 9.8 percent over

2015, 20.8 percent over 2011 and 56.3 percent since 2009.

While B.C. trade remains oriented to the U.S. at 51 percent in 2017,

this is changing fast. That is down from 54 percent in 2016. By contrast, the

share of trade with the Asia-Pacific region is rising. In 2017, the share of

Asia-Pacific was up nearly 40 percent, up from around 25 percent in 2000. B.C.

sends far more of its exports to the region than any other province. Thanks to

these increases in exports to Asia, the stagnation of exports to Europe in

recent years was offset.

B.C.’s top exports in 2017 were…. Natural resources, wood products, pulp

and paper, metallic minerals and energy alone accounted for nearly 70 percent

of B.C.’s total exports. Agriculture and fisheries are also significant exports

on top of these. These exports, directly and indirectly, accounted for more

than 2.9 million jobs in Canada in 2011, according to Statistics Canada, or

16.7 percent of all employment.

How has B.C. managed to come so far? It’s simple. On top of labour

market stability, B.C. has the best products, the best people and best

commitment. When we put our minds to something, we’re in it for the long

haul.

I remember a few years ago when bureaucrats in China made some

regulatory amendments which resulted in a ban on Canadian spot prawns. This

wasn’t a shot across our bow. It was just a boring regulatory update that

suddenly put our prawn industry into jeopardy.

What did we do? We worked with the embassy. We called Ottawa. We set up

meetings with the ministries and the AQSIQ, which is the equivalent of CFIA in

China.

Through the great relationships that we developed and the fact that we

were alerted to the problem quickly by our exporters and the networks we had

built up over the years of working together, we got over the impasse. China

announced exemptions for Canadian spot prawns. That is the value and the

commitment to trade — not just the economic benefits but the

relationships.

In Japan, the world’s largest consumer of haskap berries, they were

running low on labour and producers due to an aging population. Emi Kelver, who

works in our trade office in Tokyo, identified the supply issue. Today Monte

Creek Ranch in Kamloops is now among several B.C. producers working to grow

haskap berries to help meet that demand for the future. This is the value of

our commitment to trade.

J. Rice: Thank you to the member for Kelowna West for his comments. I appreciate

his expertise and experience and the little bit of history that we’ve learned

about Canada’s Pacific Gateway.

B.C. is Canada’s export gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. The Pacific

Gateway initiative has been an initiative with multiple levels of government

and the private sector to improve trade-related infrastructure. Our largest

trading partner is still the United States, which is the destination for 51

percent of our exports. B.C.-origin exports to the Pacific Rim were $16.2

billion last year, 37 percent of all B.C. exports. In the last ten years, it’s

grown by 52 percent.

[10:15 a.m.]

That is why our government is committed to creating strong, sustainable

relationships with Asia. In January, our Premier and Minister of Jobs, Tourism

and Technology; Minister of Tourism; and Minister of State for Trade went on

trade missions to China, Korea and Japan — our second-, third- and

fourth-largest trading partners.

During these meetings, our government promoted many sectors of B.C.’s

economy, such as tourism, wineries, wood products and our tech sector. These

meetings included several bilateral discussions with the goal of deepening

existing relationships. The former government put all its eggs in the LNG

basket while ignoring other sectors of our economy, but by building strong

relationships with our partners abroad, we’re supporting a growing, diverse

economy with good-paying jobs here in B.C. and connecting B.C. businesses to

new markets abroad.

B.C. goods exports to China totalled $5.9 billion in 2016, making China

B.C.’s second-largest export market. China was also Canada’s second-largest

export destination, with 4.3 percent of Canadian goods shipped there. The 2018

Canada-China Year of Tourism is an initiative launched by the governments of

Canada and China to celebrate and promote tourism opportunities.

China is a burgeoning market for tourism, with a 22 percent increase in

overnight visits to B.C. in 2016 over 2015. Tourism visits to British Columbia

from residents of China, South Korea and Japan in 2016 were: mainland China,

over 312,000 overnight customs entries. This has more than tripled since 2009,

and mainland China is now B.C.’s second-largest market after the U.S. Japan,

over 151,000 overnight customs entries. This is B.C.’s third-largest

Asia-Pacific market after China and Australia. South Korea, over 108,000

overnight customs entries. This is B.C.’s fourth-largest Asia-Pacific

market.

Canada and South Korea share a thriving, two-way trade relationship

totalling billions of dollars every year, particularly in the natural resource

sector, agrifoods and seafood, international education, technology and tourism.

B.C. exports to South Korea were $2.2 billion in goods exports in 2016,

accounting for 51 percent of total Canadian exports to Korea.

Destination B.C. purchased and served B.C. wines at events in South

Korea and Japan. Japan is B.C.’s third-largest trading partner at $3.7 billion

in goods exports in 2016. B.C.’s total exports to Japan, which are primarily

commodities, are nearly double that of the next leading Canadian

province.

The Pacific Gateway also relies on infrastructure to get B.C.’s and

Canada’s projects to market, and we’re continuing that work. We’re upgrading

three interchanges to improve residential and commercial traffic along the

South Fraser Perimeter Road and on Deltaport Way to serve Deltaport.

In my riding, the Port of Prince Rupert recently unveiled its expanded

terminal. We’ve had over $1 billion worth of investment in the last year in the

Port of Prince Rupert. Multiple partners, including the province, also

contributed to improving the road-rail utility corridor that serves the

port.

We’ve eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, which

will reduce costs for trucks serving the ports. In short, we are working

extremely hard to support sustainable B.C. jobs via our trade relationships in

the Asia-Pacific region in order to ensure that the economy of this province is

as diverse and robust as possible.

B. Stewart: I just want to thank the member for North Coast for her remarks and

recognition of the value in international trade to British Columbia and even

her riding, where the Port of Prince Rupert is. These numbers…. I mean, I lived

in Kitimat, just south of her riding, a number of years ago, and I can relate

to the fact that the Port of Prince Rupert has changed dramatically and is a

key part of Canada’s success in receiving and shipping goods into

Asia.

I’m encouraged by the fact that both the Premier and the Minister of

Trade saw value after a lot of, perhaps, criticism of my role in Asia and what

it really meant and the fact that they visited the very markets that we’re so

dependent on over there — China, Korea and Japan. It’s not that long ago that

Canada received an exemption from China, or the allowance to have been able to

allow Chinese nationals to get a visa and come here. The results have been

nothing short of staggering, in terms of tourism, flights into YVR and the

amount of traffic that we receive.

[10:20 a.m.]

More importantly, it has familiarized the Asian markets — not just Japan

and Korea, which are very familiar with Canada, but with China — in terms of

the value of our international education system.

Since 2012, we went on a mission to promote two-way trade of students

and educators between these countries. The fact that…. We have over 51,000

students enrolled in British Columbia from China; South Korea, almost 13,000;

India, 12,000; Japan, 6,500; and the United States, only 4,780.

It goes to show that the value of a growing relationship with these

markets is extremely important, vital to the success of our economy. I think

that it’s most important that we not lose sight of the fact that we jeopardize

these things by sending messages of uncertainty — that we’re not open for

business. The fact is that we need stability. We need confidence to make

certain that we continue to grow and develop and build on those relationships

that go back to when Premier Bennett, back in the early ’80s, opened up that

first trade office in Tokyo.

I look forward to the minister’s and the government’s continued support

and working with them to help build that trading relationship, which I think is

most important for all of the natural resource industries and all of the other

industries that are dependent on those new markets — and the fact that it’s

inevitable that the growth in other products, which are being hotly debated

today, is something that is valued by all Canadians.

MENTAL HEALTH

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

health.

The last time I was able to spend any time with my brother Guy when he

was well was 1984, when he was 16. We went on a trip together to Europe, and we

travelled around Germany. We saw France and England, and we had a wonderful

time, but that was the last time that he was well.

Now, when I went back to university that year, he entered grade 12. He

went in with good grades, looking forward to going to college and a life ahead

of him, but unfortunately, during grade 12, his marks slipped. He started

trashing cars and acting erratically and hanging out with a bad crowd. Things

just went really wrong, and my family didn’t know what to do.

He barely made it through, but he ended up going to college. But he

didn’t go to class, and he dropped out. My parents sent him to England. When he

got there, he became catatonic. He ended up in hospital in England. He was

talking strangely and acting in a very, very odd manner. It was very difficult

for my parents and the family to understand what was happening.

For the next few years, he was in and out of hospitals in England, in

the States and in Canada. Eventually, he was stabilized, but he’s never worked,

he’s never had a family, and he’s been mentally ill for decades. Our parents

spent, and still spend, a great deal of their time advocating for him, even

though now he’s in a safe residence. He has 24-7 help.

Guy was one of the lucky ones who had a family who fought for him. Many

people with mental illness struggle alone, with no one to be their champion.

With a system that has severe and significant limitations, many, many people

fall between the cracks, and that’s one of the key reasons I ran to be an

MLA.

It’s also why I’m so excited that we have a Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions. We actually have a minister now who wakes up every day and

tries to make life better for those people who are suffering. In her own

words:

“Mental health issues affect British Columbians in so many ways, and

mental illness doesn’t discriminate. Parents, spouses, siblings, children

throughout our province are deeply affected when they or someone in their

family is dealing with a mental health issue. We worry. It puts immense strain

on our relationships. We try to hide what’s going on because of the stigma we

face. Mental illness also touches so many of us through our workplaces or

circle of friends. People we care about deeply and see every day often end up

feeling isolated and alone, and we struggle to figure out the best ways to help

them.”

[10:25 a.m.]

What are we doing to try and fix this? Well, the new ministry is

focusing intently on developing a comprehensive strategy for mental health and

addictions care so that British Columbians can ask once and get help fast. This

work is being done in close partnership with all B.C. ministries, partners and

stakeholders that need to work together to break down silos.

That is why a separate ministry is so important. The minister can focus

various ministries and stakeholders on actions that will help tackle this huge

societal issue, and she’ll make sure that each ministry is aware as to how

their ministries touch on mental health issues. This strategy will create the

building blocks for a seamless, coordinated system to focus on prevention,

early intervention, treatment and recovery for people and their

families.

We also need to address the social factors that contribute to mental

health and addiction issues, such as poverty, housing, education,

intergenerational trauma and stigma. Stigma starts early on, and that’s why any

plan for mental health must include a strategy for dealing with youth with

mental health.

My community has actually been working on this for some time. Our Youth

Wellness Centre is a great initiative. The Youth Wellness Centre is a one-stop

location where children and youth between eight and 24 can receive responsive

care for psychiatric assessments, medical care, community resource information

and support services, all within one convenient, youth-centred location at the

Greg Moore Youth Centre, provided by the city of Maple Ridge.

The Youth Wellness Centre’s Dr. Matthew Chow has conducted 150

psychiatric assessments and 180 follow-up visits for youth. That’s actually a

400 percent more efficient strategy than traditional psychiatric settings. This

means more kids are receiving service in a timely way and less than 5 percent

are being redirected to hospitals, meaning they’re proactively reaching

children in a state of crisis.

In fact, the ministry is working to provide timely access to a full

spectrum of mental health and addictions care for children and youth throughout

the province, where you can ask for help and get it fast. The ministry is

trying a whole-person, whole-government and whole-province approach to address

the gaps in mental health and addictions.

The centrepiece of Mental Health and Addictions is a plan for child and

youth mental health. As part of the cross-government approach, the ministry is

working with the Ministry of Education on what more can be done within the

education sector. This work will focus on prevention and early invention to

ensure that students in K to 12 struggling with addiction and mental health

issues are well supported within their school setting.

The ministry is taking action to improve mental health and addiction

services for our youth with the development of the Foundry centres across the

province. These life-changing centres bring physical health, mental health and

substance-use services and social support under one roof. Foundry centres have

been opened in Vancouver, North Van, Prince George and Campbell River, and work

is underway in Maple Ridge, Abbotsford and Penticton. We’re really pleased that

a Foundry centre will help build on the Youth Wellness Centre.

In the words of our minister, again: “One in four British Columbians

will deal with a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many people suffer in a

dark silence, a silence that exists because of shame and judgment, instead of

talking openly about this illness.” We need to work together to eliminate the

stigma and start creating a more seamless and coordinated system where people

who are struggling with mental illness can ask for help and get it

fast.

I know from personal experience how important the proper supports are to

ensure that we help people suffering from mental illness. If we can intervene

early with our youth, we can also potentially treat mental illness before it

leads to suicide or more profound mental illnesses.

I can only imagine what might have happened had my brother had this

early intervention, but my family will never know that. The families of

thousands of suffering British Columbians need the resources to help their

loved ones with this often terrifying struggle with mental illness.

J. Thornthwaite: I always enjoy taking the opportunity to talk about mental health and

try to stop the stigma surrounding it. As you know, I’ve been a huge advocate

of prevention, early identification and treatment when children are young, and

I, while chairing the select standing committee special project on mental

health, pushed for a strong focus and subsequent recommendations for more

preventative help in the schools. Yes, it was our government that introduced

the Foundry one-stop shop centres for children and families.

Another program I’m very proud of is the FRIENDS program. The FRIENDS

program is a longtime program available in our school system. It is

preventative. It focuses on increasing the emotional health of all children in

a classroom. It is facilitated by classroom teachers or school counsellors

using hands-on, peer-supported learning.

[10:30 a.m.]

There are ten-plus sessions that address emotional awareness,

relaxation, problem-solving, self-management, goal-setting, interpersonal

communications, support networks and more. Optional take-home activities for

parents reinforce the FRIENDS concepts outside of school, and the program plays

an important role in ensuring that B.C. kids have the life skills and resources

they need to cope with difficult situations and challenges they may face

throughout the year.

On April 5, I attended a presentation called “Stories and Inspiration to

Thrive with Mental Illness” at the HOpe Centre in North Vancouver’s Lions Gate

Hospital presented by the inspirational figure Brent Seal. Brent believes in

following his dreams. It’s the foundation of his life. He started to follow his

dreams, as many do, by attending university. He struggled. At age 22, Brent was

diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was hospitalized and suffered from psychosis.

He had delusions and entered treatment. He even tried to commit suicide. Today

he’s doing much better, with treatment and medication, and has dedicated his

life to helping youth who face mental illness.

Brent started Mavrixx, a Vancouver-based social enterprise created to

promote mental health and wellness to youth, professionals and organizations.

Brent’s speaking program is called the Edge. It has the goal of giving youth

opportunities and skills to deal with stress through physical

activity.

The Edge is a high-performance wellness training program designed for

youth and young adults who want to overcome mental health challenges and stress

so they can have full and productive lives. As their website states, the

program covers a variety of often overlooked areas that impact our mental

well-being, including mental health awareness, stress management,

self-confidence, mental filters, support systems, rest strategies and

more.

Another one of Brent’s programs, called Mind vs. Mountain, has been

featured on CBC, the Huffington Post , the Georgia Straight ,

Global, the Province , Hitcase and the Vancouver International Mountain

Film Festival.

Brent now calls mental illness his driving force. One of his dreams was

to climb Mount Everest. In January 2016, Brent became the first person living

with schizophrenia to summit South America’s highest mountain, Aconcagua. In

June 2016, he did the same on North America’s highest mountain, Denali. He has

run marathons, climbed mountains and, most difficult of all, dedicated his life

to overcoming the stigma of mental illness. As Brent says: “They never told me

I couldn’t do it. I started to realize, on this journey of climbing bigger and

bigger mountains, there’s so much parallel between that and climbing out of a

mental health struggle.”

We need to end the stigma around mental health. We need to continue to

have an open and frank conversation about the struggle that so many face. We

need to stand beside them and hold them up when they stumble. As Brent says:

“You can’t stop the waves, but you can learn to surf.”

B. D’Eith: Thank you very much to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for her

work in this area. I truly believe this is a non-partisan issue. Mental health

affects everyone, no matter what your political belief system or anything. It

affects all our families, and I wanted to thank her for her work on this

file.

I did want to mention that the Children and Youth Committee did

recommend a separate ministry, which the previous government failed to deliver

on. At any rate, they did start the Foundry system, and there’s no question

that the Foundry centres are a wonderful model for moving forward and, in fact,

provide safe, barriers and judgment-free places where the children can get

support to create the pathways of hope and empowerment that they need to get

well.

Our government is building a provincewide network of Foundry centres to

provide a one-stop shop for young people, to ensure that they have the supports

they need. Foundry centres are a critical part of building this more seamless,

coordinated mental health and addictions system in British Columbia.

We know that as many as 84,000 children and youth between the ages of

four and 17 in B.C. experience one or more mental health disorders at any given

time and that only one-third of them receive specialized treatment. Many more

children and youth struggle with milder forms of mental issues, in particular

anxiety and depression, and often remain untreated.

[10:35 a.m.]

We also know that because of intergenerational trauma, Indigenous

children and youth are at a higher risk for mental health and substance abuse

challenges. Indigenous youth aged ten to 19 are almost five times more likely

to die by suicide compared to non-Indigenous youth.

What that tells us is that we must focus on prevention by giving

children and youth the tools and resiliency they need to maintain good mental

health and wellness. We must start intervening early to support children and

youth who begin to show and exhibit signs of mental illness. The key to that is

doing a better job in supporting youth to link to appropriate services and

youth centres. These one-stop shops are a wonderful way of achieving

that.

In closing, one in four British Columbians will deal with mental health

issues in their lifetime. Mental health issues do not discriminate. People

suffering will often try to hide what they’re going through because of stigma

that they might face.

That is why this government is committed to the “ask once; get help

fast” approach. It is committed to providing timely access to a full spectrum

of mental health and addictions care for youth and children around the province

— including the Foundry centres, which are a great mechanism to deliver that.

It’s time that we all work together to ensure that we can care for people

suffering from mental illness. We need to fight the stigma of mental illness

and focus the resources that this wonderful and rich province has to help

people.

PROUD TO BE CANADIAN

N. Letnick: I stand before you today as a proud citizen of British Columbia and a

proud Canadian. I was recently reminded of Canada’s majesty and grandeur while

listening to Gordon Lightfoot’s song, Canadian Railroad

Trilogy .

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

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

long before the white man and long before the wheel,

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

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

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

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

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

all.

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

As some of my legislative colleagues will know, my own life has allowed

me to wander this country from sea to sea, to climb its mountains, to build

businesses, to partner with my wife, Helene, in raising our family and to

provide public service in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2018, for the third year in a row, Canada was ranked as one of the

top two countries in the world — No. 2 only to Switzerland as the best country.

We also have placed well in other global surveys — No. 3, best country to live

in by the United Nations; No. 5, best country for business by Forbes ;

No. 2, best country for starting a new business by the World Bank.

Consistently, all these reports point to several key factors for our top

rankings.

Number 1 in quality of life. This includes how we treat our citizens,

from broad access to food and housing, quality education and health care to

economic stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Number 4 in

citizenship, leading the world by example in areas such as human rights, gender

equality and religious freedoms. Number 7 in being open for business — levels

of bureaucracy, freedom from corruption, transparency of government, tax

environment, etc.

I could go on with statistics, but I can also personalize this with my

heritage. My heritage alone has evolved from Jewish grandparents, fleeing Minsk

in 1924 to a Catholic, bilingual upbringing by a French-Canadian

mother.

Within my constituency of Kelowna–Lake Country, we magnificently blend

preservation of the pristine environment with world-class entrepreneurial and

innovative agriculture, tourism, recreation and education experiences that are

the envy of many locations of the world, regional health care excellence and

care for the elders and retirees. I have had the honour and pleasure of seeing

the spirit of our community firsthand in all of these aspects and smile with

great pride at the unique and special balance we have achieved in these

areas.

I note with pride our ability to extract, process and distribute some of

our natural resources with care and ensure ethical practices of employment;

care for and restoration of the environment during and after use; provision of

shared benefits to many interests, including those of companies, shareholders,

pension plans, provincial residents through funding of common services and

Canadian residents through federal taxation.

I will also note that there is no evidence of environmental harm in the

Salish Sea after 45 years of U.S. tankers bringing Alaska crude to the U.S.

refineries in Bellingham and Anacortes, which happens to be part of the

Vancouver fuel supply.

[10:40 a.m.]

In addition to our work of providing a world-leading quality of life,

so, too, have I witnessed across British Columbia a very passionate pursuit of

world-leading citizenship by immigrants and refugees seeking to resume life in

British Columbia, plus being one of the leaders in our country in the

championing of gender equality and religious freedoms and tolerance. Our

communities are incredibly proud of their diversities of culture — their foods,

customs and languages — including our many Indigenous nations and

communities.

In addition, both in British Columbia and across Canada, we live the

concept of freedom to its fullest. One can only look in today’s newspaper to

see the awful situation in Syria, on the one hand, feeling fortunate that we do

not have these issues in our own province and country, yet providing compassion

to their refugees in resettling and restarting their lives right here. And then

we also see the incredible compassion and caring for those who have lost loved

ones and friends in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and the incredible personal support

they have received from neighbours, from people in other provinces and

territories across Canada and, indeed, from strangers around the

world.

These two tragic circumstances make us realize our good fortune to live

in Canada and the incredible strength of heart and soul and resiliency of our

communities. As a province and a country, while we may be satisfied with the

No. 7 position in being open for business — this is a good ranking — we can do

better, and we should always strive to improve. Indeed, we are being seriously

tested right now in our province to provide a stable and trusted environment

for economic growth and continued prosperity.

However, some of the great areas of pride I have as a Canadian in this

regard include respect for the rule of law and a fair balance between

individual rights and collective rights; copyright treatment, where we are much

more fair than our neighbour to the south for our artists; with such things as

pharmaceuticals and intellectual capital in general; with academics, inventors,

knowledge workers and more.

There’s our respect and recognition, protection and celebration of

Indigenous peoples, minorities, immigrants and the disabled, yet protection of

our own distinct Canadian culture and values. Managed capitalism, where

business is encouraged and innovation supported by compliance to reasonable

community protection, is also protected. As community leaders, we provide gun

and weapon control, and vigilance and protection against crime and

exploitation, malfeasance and corruption, extremism, and fear of our own

leaders and protectors.

These are some of the things I’m particularly proud of as a Canadian, in

addition to our ability to forgive and love one another.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to follow the member and his wide-ranging discussion of

why he’s proud to be a Canadian. There are a multitude of things that make me

proud to be a Canadian. I’m sure every member in this chamber draws on some

experience or some past relationship with other parts of the world in coming to

understand fully, therefore, how lucky and fortunate we are to live in this

country. We are a fortunate people in a fortunate time in a fortunate

land.

So much around the world gives us pause for concern every day. Although

the risk of international terrorism dominates the news, the reality is that

Canadians, by and large, go every day into safe workplaces. They don’t face a

dictator who’s going to poison them with sarin gas or chlorine gas. They get to

vote regularly in well-managed elections. They don’t have to struggle with

gerrymandered electoral districts, as they do in the United States.

They can rely on a public health care system which is the pride of this

nation. Of course, I have to be slightly partisan here and remind everyone in

this chamber that the implementation of public health care as we understand it,

was a CCF invention in this country, nationalized by the government of Lester

Pearson, with the support of most Canadians, after the wonderful

recommendations of Justice Hall, a John Diefenbaker Conservative appointment to

the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think where we may differ, though, around why we’re proud to be

Canadian…. The member talked about being open for business. That’s a wonderful

thing. But of course, we need to rely on our own selves. We have an excellent

banking system which, if properly utilized and encouraged, provides more than

the necessary capital to build the kind of economy that we want to

build.

In British Columbia, the emphasis in that economy is around protecting

and respecting our natural environment. I come back to where I started. We have

the opportunity, given our small population, to be a leader in the world when

it comes to protecting our natural environment.

[10:45 a.m.]

People come in droves from all around this planet. It was interesting to

listen to the previous topic this morning, “The Importance of B.C. as Canada’s

Pacific Gateway,” with some of the statistics provided by members earlier

around who comes to visit Canada and why. They come here because they can

breathe the air and they can walk the streets in relative safety. If they

choose to immigrate, their children will attend a good public education system.

They know that they don’t have to bribe the police officer or a government

official to get something done.

They have come to paradise, just like the ancestors of everyone in this

chamber this morning, save those of Indigenous descent. And even those,

thousands of years ago, were immigrants, arguably, to this country. It appears

the evidence is that there were no peoples here like at the Olduvai Gorge, or

something like that.

Everyone came to North America, and everyone came for various reasons.

Land was amongst one of them and, indeed, probably the most important thing.

side. The opportunity to actually own 160 acres of land was completely out of

the question, given their class and their time, growing up in the old country,

in England.

Laurier said, with great optimism, that the 20th century was going to be

Canada’s. I don’t want to praise a federal Liberal too often. He was only a

century out. I think the 21st century is going to be Canada’s, and I’m not the

first Canadian to say it. The 21st century will be Canada’s because we have put

in place all the foundations of a great nation: diversity of population, a

welcoming immigration policy, environmental regulation, public health care,

public education.

We have created a land of true opportunity, unlike the Americans to the

south of us. Of course, no Canadian can ever talk about Canada without those

comparisons. The reality is, if you wish to be socially mobile — and most of us

do — you’re far better off in Norway today than you are in the United States of

America. Chances are, if you’re born poor, you have a significant chance of

remaining poor. Not so true in Canada.

It is here in this country, with our developing relations with the

Indigenous peoples now — they’re finally being opened up and recognized and

developed in a way that will finally bring about true reconciliation in this

country — that we have every opportunity. We have every reason to be

optimistic. As long as we continue to participate fully in our democracy and

elect leadership that cares about the environment, that cares about social

services, this will be a great country.

N. Letnick: I’d like to thank the member for his comments. I stand, as he does,

before this assembly both as a proud British Columbian and a proud Canadian,

because I believe that it is entirely possible to be both simultaneously and

that I should never have to choose one over the other.

My pride is anchored by three key facets. One, being a citizen of B.C.

and Canada calls on us to respect our commitments when we entered Confederation

of this great nation. At that time of entering Confederation, of course, we had

our own interest in having the national railway extend to British Columbia —

uniting us with the rest of Canada — and recognizing the importance of this key

piece of infrastructure, providing to B.C. a fast, safe and cost-effective

manner to transport goods and resources within Canada and for export to boost

our economy — also to move troops and weapons to us to strengthen our border

security.

Then as a signatory to Confederation and now today, we recognize that

jurisdiction over matters of national interest resides with the federal

parliament, including trade and commerce, international affairs and

interprovincial works and undertakings. We also recognize, with our provincial

counterparts, that through our interprovincial trade agreements, ensuring that

the free flow of goods and services across Canada…. We recognize and respect

the fact that the transportation of goods and services across provincial

boundaries and with access to international markets is a benefit to us, both as

citizens of British Columbia and as Canadians.

Two is our commitment to and protection of Canada’s Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. I am proud of our constitution and charter, with guarantees of

fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of

press and other media — plus the right of every citizen and permanent resident

of Canada to move and take up residence in any province, under the protection

section 6, which prohibits a province from discriminating amongst persons

primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence.

[10:50 a.m.]

Three is the great compassion and tolerance we have as Canadians towards

one another, in our collective consciousness to support each other, as

exemplified by our strong support of the Canada Health Act and in support of

refugees and others trying to escape tyranny, prejudice or

catastrophe.

We further show our compassion and care through the support of our

elders and retirees after their many years of active contribution to our

economy and community. We support our seniors in fair treatment of retirement

savings as well.

Yes, I feel great personal pride to be Canadian and a sense of being so

very fortunate, with an abundance of resources to ensure our continued

prosperity as a nation, a province and a citizen. I hope that we all take pride

when we do our part to live up to our commitments, to ensure progress is

advanced responsibly and that we provide balance, compassion and honest

leadership for both British Columbians and Canadians at large.

PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE

B. Ma: ICBC, B.C.’s favourite Crown corporation, right? Okay, maybe not so

much, but it wasn’t always like this. I’m here to talk about public auto

insurance, and after considering this carefully, I think the best way to talk

about it is to imagine for a moment that we’re back in time.

It’s the year 1969. Several of us, some of us, weren’t around back then.

My mother is about 11 years old. My father is 16, a brand-new immigrant to

Canada. A lot about B.C. is as it is now. A large province with many small

towns and communities, B.C. is home to many varying climates, geographic

features and wildlife that produce challenging road conditions, leading to a

variety of vehicle collisions of varying types.

Some of the areas, with smaller populations — again, we’re still in 1969

now — have little or no police presence, as well, so drivers sometimes hit the

pedal a little bit too hard or engage in other types of risky driving behavior.

It’s 1969 still, and there are about 175 private insurance companies operating

in the province, insuring homes, businesses and motorists, but mostly within

the cities, mostly in the urban areas.

Outside the cities, getting coverage, if you can get it at all, is

expensive, really expensive. The cost of servicing brokers and dealing with

claims in rural areas is extremely high and simply not profitable unless rates

are set extraordinarily high, and so they are.

We’re still in 1969, and the widespread discrimination when it comes to

vehicle insurance rates is commonplace. You’re rated based on age, sex, whether

you’re married or single or have kids. Your risk level is assessed based on

where you live, what you look like, what you do for work, what kind of

lifestyle you lead. You might even be denied coverage based on one of these

factors. Every insurance company is free to set their criteria however they

wish, and they do.

The extraordinary cost of insurance, frequent exclusion of drivers by

private insurers and long claim settlement times mean that a whopping 30

percent of vehicles on the road are operated uninsured. Since many drivers are

unable to qualify for insurance anyway, many drivers don’t bother getting

licensed either. There are collisions, lots of them, and in far too many cases,

the collisions involve uninsured drivers and vehicles.

Drivers, passengers, pedestrians, families, the general public —

everyone involved in these uninsured collisions is left financially devastated.

It’s havoc on the streets. Something has to change.

We skip ahead to 1972, and NDP leader Dave Barrett is swept into power

with public auto insurance as one of their key campaign promises. The promise

was postage-stamp auto insurance at $25 a year, and, implementing this plan at

breakneck speed, the Insurance Corporation of B.C. was activated a year later,

in 1973.

The plan was a huge success and provided the public benefits that were

never seen under private auto insurance. Public auto insurance could return as

much as 90 cents of every premium dollar into claim payments, while private

insurers were running at about 70 cents being paid in claims. While private

insurers had to satisfy their investors with an adequate return on investment,

ICBC was able to use the investment returns to lower premiums for the public

and invest in road safety.

Now we fast-forward. It’s the start of the year 2001, and under the

leadership of CEO Thom Thompson, ICBC’s basic and optional insurance rates have

been frozen for six years in a row. ICBC has made unprecedented investments

into road safety improvements and initiatives, and fatalities have fallen 13

percent. Injuries have fallen by 16 percent. This is all between 1996 and 1999,

just three years. Because of this reduction in harm, ICBC was able to pay out a

road safety dividend of $100 to policyholders.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s now the start of 2001. ICBC is more financially stable and

profitable than it has ever been since it started.

Fast-forward to the year 2017. It’s 2017, and after 16 years in power, a

new government administration is formed by an NDP caucus, with the support of

some spunky Green MLAs. The new Attorney General, the MLA for Vancouver–Point

Grey, is made responsible for ICBC. The revelations that have come to light in

the months since can be characterized as nothing less than shocking. ICBC is in

financial chaos. Its coffers have been raided, investments in road safety

improvements extremely low, claims and costs have skyrocketed, nearly $1

billion in losses anticipated for the year and another $1.3 billion loss

projected for 2018.

Even worse, it’s further revealed that in 2014, a report to government

that warned that ICBC was headed for financial disaster and that provided

advice on how it could be avoided was not only ignored, but recommendations

were also deleted from the report and hidden from the public.

How far the Crown corporation has fallen since 2001 — turned from a key

promise into a provincial disgrace. Today ICBC has been characterized as a

dumpster fire. Costs are up, rates are through the roof, and members of the

public are wondering why we have public auto insurance at all.

For decades, public auto insurance worked well for the public, and it

served a valuable role and provided important service. For decades, ICBC

provided low-cost and fair insurance to the people of B.C. — all of B.C. — and

it invested in road safety improvements and other initiatives that have worked

to take the risk out of transportation in the province. It’s created an

enormous number of long-lasting, good-paying, family-supporting jobs while it’s

been at it.

Indeed, provincial affairs reporter Vaughn Palmer recently wrote that

even Nick Geer, a former Jim Pattison executive who was recruited by Premier

Gordon Campbell to oversee the tacit privatization of ICBC, concluded that

public auto insurance could and should be saved. Geer was, unfortunately,

killed in a vehicle collision earlier this year in California. My deepest

condolences to his family.

There is no doubt that ICBC is in a tragic state now, but it can and

should be saved. That’s why our government is bringing in several changes to

get costs under control at ICBC while improving care for people injured in auto

accidents.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

These include a new limit on pain and suffering for minor claim

injuries, the first major improvements in accident benefits in 25 years, and

creating an independent dispute resolution process for certain motor vehicle

injury claims. Together, these changes will reduce the amount ICBC spends on

legal fees and expenses, which have grown to consume 24 percent of ICBC’s

budget.

There’s a lot more to be done, of course, but I see that I’ve nearly

used up my allotted time. I will continue, following the next member’s

response.

J. Yap: I rise today in response to the member’s statement on public auto

insurance. I’d like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the role and

contributions of ICBC in providing affordable auto insurance for British

Columbians. I want to recognize the hard-working men and women at ICBC who

continue to serve the public well.

ICBC continues to face a number of challenges similar to those faced by

auto insurance companies across North America. Our former government worked

hard to keep rates as affordable as possible within this context. Let me

provide a bit more detail on that. Crashes were up 23 percent in the past two

years. In that same time frame, injury claims were up 16 percent and the number

of vehicle damage claims was up 15 percent, while the cost of those claims was

up 30 percent.

I think it’s important we acknowledge that more auto accidents and

rising claim costs are happening not just here in B.C. but in other

jurisdictions as well. There are also higher vehicle repair costs to contend

with. Vehicles today, as we all know, are more reliant on high technology and

expensive materials than ever before, so we should take that into consideration

as well.

Our former government took steps to combat these statistics. We mandated

ICBC’s board to oversee an independent third-party review by Ernst and Young of

ICBC to identify additional opportunities for cost containment to keep rates

affordable for the long term. B.C. has the toughest drunk-driving and

excessive-speeding laws in Canada. In fact, our former government increased

penalties for distracted driving.

[11:00 a.m.]

Some of the other measures we employed to keep rates affordable included

doubling premiums on high-end luxury vehicles; shrinking the ICBC executive

team, with 500 fewer managers and a 50 percent reduction in executive

compensation; transferring over $1.5 billion in excess capital from the

optional insurance side of ICBC’s business to the basic insurance side;

implementing new fraud analytic tools, coupled with enhanced fraud detection

and enforcement, leading to savings of $44 million per year; investing in a new

IT system with a particular focus on insurance rating and claims management,

generating savings of $90 million per year; launching a new windshield repair

program; and investing billions in infrastructure upgrades to enhance road

safety; projects like passing lanes, four-laning, median and roadside barriers;

new bridges; wildlife detection systems; new avalanche control systems; and

variable speed zone technology, to name some of these examples.

The Ernst and Young review was completed in the spring of 2017, and it

was sitting in the middle of the desk of the Attorney General when he assumed

responsibility for ICBC last summer. It laid out a number of potential

initiatives that government could have implemented early on to keep the rates

down.

As we know, the Attorney General instead completely ignored this

independent third-party review, launched yet another review of his own and

raised buying insurance rates for B.C.’s motorists by 8 percent. That was

unfortunate not only for motorists but also because the recommendations in that

independent report were essentially disregarded, causing considerable delay for

British Columbians to actually see results.

In February, we did see the Attorney General announce some changes to

ICBC, but we’ve expressed concern that some of those changes will have a

dramatic impact on victims and won’t actually address the increase in accidents

and claims. The new limit of $5,500 on pain and suffering for minor injury

claims means that ICBC will now define a minor injury, as opposed to relying on

an expert opinion.

Instead of seeing a system that encourages wellness and recovery, these

changes will do the opposite. And for those who have suffered the loss of a

loved one, no action has been taken to improve the ways to recover the

financial loss from that. Furthermore, the civil resolution tribunal doesn’t

have the resources to deal with the flood of appeals that will be

generated.

These are some of the deep concerns that we have with some of the

changes this government wants to make to our public auto insurer. I look

forward to hearing the member address some of these concerns in her closing

remarks.

B. Ma: I thank the member for their contribution to this discussion and am

pleased to hear that the member also recognizes the value of public auto

insurance in B.C. I must admit, though, I am taken a little aback at the other

side’s attempt to place blame for ICBC’s dismal state on our ten-month-old new

government, after spending 16 years at the helm overseeing that dumpster

fire.

Now, having said that, this is meant to be a non-partisan portion of the

private member’s time, so I’ll focus on the remainder of my statement. That is

to say that, unfortunately, because of the dismal state of ICBC currently, many

members of the public are wondering why B.C. doesn’t simply privatize auto

insurance. “Bring in the competition,” they say. “That’ll solve

everything.”

If the time travelling we did in the first seven minutes of my statement

leaves you with anything, it’s that privatization of auto insurance is not the

answer to our woes. If private insurance was the answer, then Ontario, which

has a fully private insurance regime, would have lower insurance premiums than

B.C. But it doesn’t, because the answer is simply not that simple.

There is a role for private insurers in B.C. for people who are looking

for additional optional coverage, but even where there is choice, 80 percent of

customers in B.C. choose to purchase all of their coverage from ICBC. A public,

centralized system basically operates like a community insurance pool where

everyone pays into it and everyone is covered by it, without a middleman

siphoning off profits for shareholders — provided, of course, that you don’t

have a government raiding the coffers for general revenue.

Because of the large size of the pool, public insurance is better able

to absorb extreme changes in the marketplace without having to pass

unreasonable costs to consumers. ICBC’s system also makes selling policies and

enforcing mandatory registration easier, leading to lower rates of uninsured

drivers than we see in other jurisdictions.

[11:05 a.m.]

ICBC is also more than just an insurance company. It makes investments

that no other insurer would. In contrast, for-profit private insurers must turn

a profit, and there are only a few ways they can do so in comparison to what’s

happening today. They won’t invest in road safety improvements like ICBC does.

They can drastically reduce employee wages. They can reduce coverage on

payouts. They can refuse to insure rural drivers, where the cost of servicing

claims is much higher, or other demographics of drivers they arbitrarily deem

to be high risk, regardless of driving history. And they can raise insurance

rates. In all of these cases, the shareholders benefit, but the public

loses.

The impacts of such a regime can be seen in Ontario, where their fully

private insurance regime has resulted in the highest insurance rates in the

country and where it is estimated that up to 15 percent of Ontario drivers

simply go without insurance. In B.C., however, it is estimated that less than 1

percent of drivers are uninsured, much lower than Ontario and other

jurisdictions in North America.

I see my time is finished.

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

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with

Motion 18 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the

order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 18 — DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA

ON TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

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

move:

[Be it resolved that this House urge the Government of B.C. to engage with

the federal government and the Alberta government to resolve the current trade

impasse.]

I think we finally heard for the first time, yesterday, the Premier

acknowledge what everyone has known for quite some time now — since January 30,

actually, when the infamous document was released, the intention to have an

intentions paper with unknown intentions. We are in a crisis. We finally heard

the Premier acknowledge and admit that yesterday — that indeed, British

Columbia, Alberta and the country itself is in a crisis.

That crisis needs to find a way to end. It needs to have a way to move

forward. That can only come if the government of B.C. engages with the federal

government and the Alberta government in a meaningful way — not going into

rooms with predetermined insistence that they will not move or budge or change

anything but to go in and truly act as a true partner of

Confederation.

When we see the Premier indicate that not one project makes an economy,

the Premier is actually correct about that. However, I would point out that

this crisis that’s been manufactured and created by the current government has

created a situation where we now have over 70 different business groups

indicating that this crisis around a project is actually creating a mini-crisis

moving forward, sector by sector by sector, including in what we would consider

the clean energy fields out there.

The reality is that projects of large scale — be it oil production, be

it refining capabilities, be it sawmills, be it pulp mills or be it clean

energy products — require huge amounts of capital. Generally, that gets raised

from the world markets. All of those types of projects and all of those

enhancements that people may be looking at doing — retrofitting existing mills,

retrofitting existing plants, coming up with new innovative ideas — are at risk

right now, because all of those require the same thing that the Trans Mountain

project that went through the process required.

They require governmental approvals. They require access to government

tenures. They require certainty that when they go through a process and they

get to a final decision point, they can proceed with their investment in good

faith. They can move forward and can make sure that they are creating the jobs

within British Columbia and within Canada that support all of the social

programs that everyone holds near and dear to their heart.

Although the Premier is right in saying an economy does not hinge on

only one project, in this particular case, because it was a fully permitted,

fully approved project that is now seeing immense governmental hurdles trying

to be put in its place…. That creates an instability within the investment

climate not just in British Columbia; it creates uncertainty across the

country.

[11:10 a.m.]

When you look at federal health transfers and other types of initiatives

that we see from the federal government, when you see transportation

investments that we see the federal government stepping up to the table on in

British Columbia all now being at risk and when you see the private sector

investment starting to get worried about not investing into our province, there

is a very real consequence to these actions.

We need to make sure that the B.C. government is sitting down in a

meaningful way, trying to get to an agreement with the federal government and

the province of Alberta on how to make sure that our economies are for the

betterment of not just British Columbia but all of Canada, because at the end

of the day, we are all very proud Canadians. We’re all very proud British

Columbians, and we’re also very proud Canadians.

We need to see a way forward, and we need to have a government willing

to actually advance a way forward, instead of digging their heels in and going

to meetings where they walk out and say, before they even go in: “We’re not

going to even discuss changing anything that we’ve talked about up to this

point.” That does not get us a whole confederation. That doesn’t get us the

investment climate we need from a wide variety of sectors out there.

This is not just about one project. This is about trying to move forward

and reclaiming not just British Columbia’s reputation on the world financial

markets and investment markets but making sure that British Columbia and Canada

are still seen as a safe place to invest in.

A. Olsen: I’d like to thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for introducing

the motion we have before us today.

When there are disagreements in our federation, there are few things

more important than engaging one another to resolve disputes. I only wish there

was a more honest conversation taking place — one where fact, and not rhetoric,

was the driving force.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his federal government’s promise this

weekend to give Ottawa control over the project and the commitment of hundreds

of millions of taxpayers’ dollars that this will require is not an

evidence-based decision. It’s a political one. This aggressive new position is

intended to ram this pipeline through in spite of community opposition, a lack

of evidence about the fate of bitumen in coastal waters and the commitment to

good-faith First Nations consultation and to taking climate leadership

seriously.

This is in stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s commitments in the

election where we heard that while governments grant permits, only communities

can grant permission. We heard that true reconciliation was on the horizon and

that there were few ambitions more important than the relationship with

Indigenous peoples and becoming a leader in climate action.

Instead, we now have the federal government tying their legitimacy to a

pipeline whose economics is on increasingly uncertain ground due to changing

global oil markets. The dispute we are now in was entirely foreseeable. Indeed,

the three-person panel that Justin Trudeau struck to look at the project

highlighted exactly these issues and posed important questions to the

government that they hoped would inform the government’s next steps.

To quote the last paragraph of the report:

“The issues raised by the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal are among the

most controversial in the country, perhaps in the world, today: the rights of

Indigenous peoples, the future of fossil fuel development in the face of

climate change and the health of the marine environment already burdened by a

century of cumulative effects. There are matters of public safety and

environmental sustainability overlaid against economic need in a province where

a once strong resource sector is currently under severe strain.”

There is an easy and lazy narrative — I repeat, an easy and lazy

narrative — pushed by Kinder Morgan to lay this dispute at the feet of our

provincial government. The reality is that the federal government failed to

follow through on their own election commitments, and they are now poised to

use taxpayers’ dollars to push this project through despite valid provincial

concerns about the impacts bitumen will have on our coastal communities and our

economy.

[11:15 a.m.]

The provincial government’s entirely reasonable and evidence-driven

response has been to seek clarity about what regulations are within the

jurisdiction, our jurisdiction, to protect our province’s coastline. So, yes,

let’s urge the government of B.C. to continue to engage with the federal and

provincial governments of Alberta, but let’s also urge them to stand their

ground for evidence-based decision-making and B.C.’s right to protect our

economy, to protect our environment and to protect our people.

M. Bernier: I’m a proud resident of the Peace country, I’m a proud resident of

British Columbia, and I’m a proud citizen of Canada.

I think what’s important to recognize is that we live in a country where

there are no barriers. We live in a country where we can move from province to

province with no fear of being stopped at borders. We live in a country where

we can actually exchange our goods. We can move back and forth. We can support

each other, and that’s what we should actually be doing.

I look in the Peace region where I am. I live on the Alberta border. We

rely on each other. Alberta is one of our better trading partners that we have

in all of Canada. We hear the Premier say: “Economy does not really hinge on

one particular project that we’re debating right now.” In a lot of ways, it

does.

What’s happened recently is we have set the stage across Canada, across

North America and nationally that maybe British Columbia is not a stable place.

We have created a sense of uncertainty in our province. We’ve created an

urgency in the fact that: can somebody come live here, be what they hope to be

and strive with investment? And are their investments and opportunities safe

here in British Columbia?

When you look recently, we have the B.C. Business Council, the Vancouver

Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and others all coming out and

saying that British Columbia is sending the wrong message to the investment

climates around the world of whether they should be coming to B.C.

Is this about one project? In a lot of ways it is, because it’s starting

to set the narrative of what B.C. is going to be looking like — if companies

should even be coming to British Columbia.

I listened to the leader of the Green Party this weekend, as well,

saying oil is not a driver of the economy in Canada. I think maybe it’s time

that he comes and looks at my part of British Columbia or in Alberta or other

parts and the fact that there are tens of thousands of jobs in Canada, which

means tens of thousands of families, that are reliant on this industry. We have

provinces who are hard-to-do right now, who rely on transfer payments for

health care, for education and to help their citizens, and a lot of that money

is coming because of the oil and gas sector.

I look in my region specifically, and this narrative right now of

stopping investment in pipelines in British Columbia sends a chill through

families, through investors in the Peace region where we have thousands of

jobs. We have youth in their 20s who can take the opportunities of a good

education and get out and work in this sector and actually realize enough money

through a good, hard-working job, where they can actually buy a house, where

they can make that decision to start a family, where they see a strong future

for themselves in British Columbia.

Those are the opportunities that we need to be making sure take place in

British Columbia. But that’s not going to happen unless B.C. sits down, talks

with Alberta, talks with the federal government — like we did.

We actually have the ocean protection plan — $1.5 billion across Canada

and the lion’s share going to British Columbia — because we showed leadership.

We sat down with the federal government and said that if we’re going to be

having opportunities like this, we want to have the proper marine spill

opportunities and safety in British Columbia. The federal government agreed,

and they worked with us when we were in government.

[11:20 a.m.]

That’s what sitting down is. That’s what partnership is, and that’s what

negotiating is. That’s what it means to look out for British Columbians so we

can make sure we have the investment, the jobs and the environmental

protection. It is about trying to do all, not one or the other.

I’m really proud of what we did when we were in government to actually

do that. I want to make sure that the new government actually does their job,

shows leadership, sits down with Ottawa and does not just the rhetoric but

actually makes sure they’re protecting all of British Columbia, which means

environment and jobs and family, and more importantly, to help all of that:

investment.

M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I agree that it

is important for B.C. to engage with federal and provincial governments to

solve problems. Indeed, Premier John Horgan has been actively communicating

with….

Deputy Speaker: Member, only refer by riding name.

M. Dean: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

The Premier has been actively communicating with the Prime Minister and

the Premier of Alberta for months, particularly in relation to the proposed

expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. Of course, we all know that

there was a meeting in Ottawa yesterday that was attended by our Premier, who

stood up for and defended the rights of British Columbians.

There’s no threat of a trade issue from B.C. However, the people of B.C.

expect us to defend our province from the devastating consequences an oil spill

would cause. Indeed, my constituency is full of coastal communities. All

municipalities — Esquimalt, View Royal, Colwood and Metchosin — First Nations —

Scia’new, Songhees and Esquimalt — and Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt are

coastal communities.

As one member of our community wrote me recently: “Our coastal waters

are the lifeblood to many in B.C. and, therefore, the rest of Canada, in the

interest of Canada. Our coastal waters, once damaged, are irreplaceable, and

until we know how to clean up a bitumen spill, having a clean and healthy

environment is my right as a Canadian. And it is most certainly the right of

every First Nation person whose rights have been squandered and squashed for

far too long.”

We will continue to defend B.C. and stand up for our interests. The

communities in Esquimalt-Metchosin depend on a pristine marine environment, and

our local economy and family-supporting jobs rely upon a clean and well-managed

coastline.

For example, we have over 19,000 tourism businesses, employing 133,000

people here in B.C. Tourism generates $17 billion each year. A reported 239

cruise ship calls in 2017 made it the largest number ever recorded for

Victoria, up from 224 in 2016. From April to October, over 600,000 passengers

visited the city, and this season also welcomed the seven-millionth cruise ship

passenger since the Ogden Point cruise terminal became a destination, in

This is an issue of protecting the rights of B.C., not of creating

issues of trade. The risks of expanding the pipeline are too great to our

environment, our economy and our coast. There is a major risk of a spill, which

would directly impact the environment and economic activity.

As I heard from a resident the other day: “It is dangerous for the

waters and lands the oil would cross, and the economic case has not been made

for the people of B.C. — quite the opposite.” Another concerned person said: “I

want senior and sister governments to leave bitumen in the ground and accept

that heavy oil extractive industries are sunsetting fast.”

By standing up for our coastline and B.C. waters, the Premier is

protecting many unique industries. Our seafood sector accounts for $1.2 billion

in sales in B.C. and $1.3 billion in exports. Fisheries and seafood contributes

more than $660 million each year to our GDP, employs 14,000 people and pays

nearly $400 million in wages. Sport fishing employs 8,400 people and generates

close to $1 billion each year in revenues.

[11:25 a.m.]

There are other sensitive matters to consider, not only the impact on

trade. There are risks to Victoria’s sensitive coastal bluff ecosystems, as

well as the southern resident orcas critical habitat, and risks that we would

not meet our climate commitments, as well as our commitment to the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. As a neighbour wrote

to me last week: “First Nation rights, my rights, are not less than a Texan’s

rights.”

D. Barnett: B.C. stands at the crossroads of trade on Canada’s west coast. We are,

in fact, Canada’s Pacific Gateway. A significant part of Canada’s exports pass

through the Port of Vancouver. This includes all of the export products

produced in British Columbia.

People in the Cariboo are well aware that jobs in agriculture, mining

and forestry all depend on our ability to ship our goods overseas. Even

passengers embarking or disembarking at the Tsawwassen ferry terminal are in

plain sight of Westshore Terminals. This facility describes itself as Canada’s

premier coal export terminal. It handles 33 million tonnes of coal annually and

provides billions of export revenue for Canada and British Columbia.

Put in context, that’s nearly triple the combined coal exports of the

entire U.S. west coast. This places Vancouver well above Norfolk, Virginia, the

busiest coal port in the United States in terms of total volume. B.C. coal

exports are more than double the total coal production of Mexico.

It might surprise some to discover that coal, a fossil fuel, is, in

fact, British Columbia’s number one export commodity. And if all goes well this

year, we might get a successful investment decision that would allow LNG Canada

to proceed with the construction of an export terminal in Kitimat. None of the

other provinces in Confederation have a problem with this.

Our strength as a country is defined by the economic union that we share

between all provinces. This includes the free flow of labour. A person can pick

up and leave for another province in search of better opportunity without any

interference. But all of this is contingent upon cooperation between the

provinces and the federal government, and the respect for the rule of

law.

There have always been tensions between the provinces and even between

the provinces and the federal government. Justine Hunter of the Globe and

Mail once wrote that fed-bashing has been something of a provincial

sport in B.C. for decades. She was referring to the late 1990s, when the then

Premier turned a battle of words into an international incident.

I am referring to the so-called salmon war that dragged Canada and the

United States into an unwanted conflict, all over non-existent jurisdiction.

B.C. filed a lawsuit against its own national government over a populist battle

over fishing rights. This phony war led to the blockade of an Alaskan ferry by

B.C. fishermen, the burning of a U.S. flag in Prince Rupert and the closing of

a torpedo testing range the province leased to the U.S. Navy at Nanoose

Bay.

Ottawa responded by flexing its muscle and expropriating the land in the

country’s very first hostile expropriation of provincial lands in the nation’s

history. It all sounds oddly familiar, as if someone took a page out of a

political playbook. I would have to agree.

The current dispute between the current government versus the rest of

the country is no longer about the export of one single commodity. The dispute

calls into question the ability of Canada to function as an economic union.

Last week major business groups from across Canada, called Confidence in

Canada, published an open letter to the Prime Minister calling on the federal

government to flex its muscle once again.

The letter referred to the current provincial government’s efforts as

something that “threatens to provoke a crisis of confidence in Canada’s

regulatory processes, with far-reaching implications which go well beyond this

project.”

[11:30 a.m.]

For a government still in its infancy, it’s time to grow up and join the

rest of Canada for the sake of the country.

R. Glumac: We do find ourselves at an impasse. On the one side, we have the

province of Alberta, which wants to support an industry that is a major part of

its economy. On the other side, we have the province of British Columbia, which

wants to protect our economy, our environment and our coasts from the

devastating consequences of a diluted bitumen spill.

Now, I understand Alberta’s position. I don’t agree with the position,

for many reasons, but I understand. What I do not understand is why the B.C.

Liberals are taking such a strong position against British Columbia. They,

after all, are supposed to be representing British Columbians. More and more it

seems that they are representing Alberta.

When I reflect on this, I remember that that party is not representing

Alberta so much as it’s representing the interests of the oil industry above

everything else — above the environment, above climate change, above the

economy, above jobs, above the interests of this province. That is why when

they were in government, they went to Alberta to get advice from the oil

industry in drafting climate change policy. They held five secret meetings in

Calgary.

Let’s be clear about this. There was a climate leadership team that

consisted of 17 industry, First Nations and environmental experts that worked

for many months drafting recommendations. They were subsequently ignored, and a

new plan was drafted with input from the oil industry in Alberta.

It comes as no surprise that when Kinder Morgan issues a press release,

once again the B.C. Liberals are called into action. They are now fighting as

hard as they can for the interests of Kinder Morgan, for the industry that

continues to tell them what to do, just as they were told what to do, behind

closed doors, in Calgary not so long ago. They represent the oil industry above

all else.

Our government understands that all sectors of the economy are

important. Sectors like commercial fishing, port activities, ocean

transportation, tourism and recreation are important as well. All of these

would be affected by a diluted bitumen spill.

The city of Vancouver commissioned an economic study that looked at just

these five ocean-dependent industries. They found that they generate more than

$6.7 billion of economic activity and support more than 36,000 jobs in

Vancouver alone. When you consider our very successful film industry, which

could also be affected by an oil spill, that would include another 60,000 jobs.

The B.C. Liberals don’t seem to be worried about these jobs. They’re worried

about a single industry — in fact, just a single company in that industry —

above all else.

In B.C., we were recently awarded supercluster funding from the federal

government to support the growing tech sector. Hundreds of millions of dollars

of investment will be going towards supporting innovation across a broad

spectrum of sectors in this province. This will support industries of the

future, industries that are growing and creating jobs across this

province.

We are world leaders in many areas of technology — in virtual reality,

augmented reality. We are also home to 25 percent of Canada’s clean-tech

companies. In 2018, we had 13 companies in Canada on the top 100 list of global

clean-tech companies, and almost half of those were in B.C. What would it take

for this party to support these industries? Perhaps it would take a press

release from Kinder Morgan. That seems to be where they get their

direction.

Our economy is about more than just one single project or one single

company above all else. Our economy is broad and diverse, and it is strong.

This project puts our economy at risk. It puts our environment at risk, and we

need to protect against that risk.

[11:35 a.m.]

An analysis commissioned in 2015 stated that “changes to diluted bitumen

density and viscosity within the first few days of the release may render oil

spill response systems ineffective.” Ineffective. That is what we are concerned

about, and that is why this government is doing the responsible

thing.

M. Morris: I support the motion, and I’ve been listening to the rhetoric and the

comments from the members opposite and from the previous speaker.

What’s been taking place in the last number of weeks in British Columbia

has far-reaching ripple effects. This demonstrated resistance to Confederation

not only affects the industry that British Columbians and Canadians rely on to

build our hospitals, to build our schools, to build the critical infrastructure

that we need to make our communities safe, but it has ripple effects on the

health and safety of British Columbians.

My interest was piqued by my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin when she

talked about the salmon war from the late 1990s, 1998. At that particular time,

I was the district officer for the RCMP looking after the northern

three-quarters of the province. So I’ve got some pretty intimate knowledge of

that entire file — how it started and how it ended.

The ripple effects — and I’ll use that file as an example — caused

considerable consternation for our federal government, for the provincial

government, although they were very absent from the table during the critical

time that the Alaska ferry was blocked by over 1,500 fish boats in Prince

Rupert. Can you imagine the resources that it would take the RCMP to enforce

the injunction and the enforcement order that the courts had provided for us to

free the Alaskan ferry and all of the passengers that were on board?

This extended not only to the citizens of Prince Rupert in British

Columbia but to the American citizens that were trapped on that Alaska ferry. I

had to bring in extra resources from across the province, from a policing

perspective, in order to do that. I had some excellent help. Because we had

1,400 fish boats at stake here, I had to bring in the Canadian Coast Guard and

the federal Fisheries to find enough qualified people to run those boats in the

event that we had to physically seize those particular boats.

I have to take my hat off to the cool heads that prevailed, the people

that were organizing that event, because a couple of times it did start to take

off. After three days of negotiating with the federal government — and I was in

the centre of this — the governor of Alaska…. British Columbia was absent from

the table. I heard nothing from the Premier or the government of the day at

that particular time. We were able to negotiate a peaceful resolution where the

fish boats finally hauled anchor, and they left the scene. The impact that we

saw from that transcended down for years after that with some of the fish boats

in contradiction or in conflict with a lot of the U.S. area that they fished

in.

We see that today with Burnaby — Burnaby Mountain — and the Kinder

Morgan protests that we have here. Burnaby is not autonomous. Burnaby is part

of this great confederation that we call Canada and British Columbia. Burnaby

is refusing to pay policing costs.

We hear this government has been very silent. I’m amazed at the silence

that this government exhibits as these people hold the court order in criminal

contempt by continually violating the terms of that injunction that prevents

people from going into specified areas.

It’s cost probably an extra $1 million over the last year or so for

extra policing resources to go in and deal with the protests, to make sure that

everything is peaceful. Police officers have been hurt in the ordeal. Burnaby

has refused to pay those policing costs.

Another rippling effect of this protest and this resistance against

confederation in Canada is the fact that B.C. taxpayers have been picking up

the tab for a municipality that is encumbered by the municipal police service

agreement in British Columbia to pay those costs but is refusing to pay the

costs. So here we are, sharing that million-dollar bill amongst British

Columbians.

[11:40 a.m.]

How big will that get before the provincial government steps in and

says: “Listen, ladies and gentlemen, please keep a calm head here”? Let’s work

collectively with the federal government and the provincial government in order

to ensure that these kinds of issues don’t escalate.

We are part of a confederation. We are part of this great country that

we call Canada, and it requires all of the provinces to work collectively

together to ensure that the industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and

right across Canada have access to the Pacific gateway, have access to what we

have here.

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to talk about what we should be doing when

there’s a dispute. What we should be doing when there’s a dispute is talking to

the people with whom we’re having a dispute. That is exactly what we’ve been

doing.

It’s kind of surprising that this is a suggestion coming from the other

side, because the other side…. It seems that all they want to do, almost

giddily, is inflame the tensions that exist. That’s what they seem to be doing:

buying right into the rhetoric, responding as soon as the company writes a

letter. They say, “Jump,” and these guys on the opposition say: “How high?”

When did we capitulate the responsibility of British Columbians?

The other thing I’m wondering is: even if you disagree with the

perspective — and we have to acknowledge there are differing opinions on this;

it’s not all or nothing — none of the members from the opposition have even

bothered to raise the issue of the environment once. Not an oil spill, not the

pipeline, not the tar sands — not once.

They’re talking about: “Oh, the difficulty in policing.” For crying out

loud, this is about an issue that is obviously of concern, but it’s not about

enforcing a particular law in a particular place. As soon as we interfere in

the work of the police, they’re going to scream, and they’ll have another

vacuous motion on the table for us to debate.

Of course we should sit down with people we are having disputes with. If

that doesn’t work, here’s a secret for the opposition. If that doesn’t work,

let’s go to court. Let’s not fight. Let’s not talk about how hard we can throw

something at the other one’s head. Let’s figure it out. But this opposition

seems giddily excited about the prospect of a trade war. The British Columbia

government is not involved in a trade war.

The other side throws something. We say: “Hey, wait a second. Let’s be

mature about this.” This might be a concept foreign to the opposition here.

Let’s take a step back and say: “Where do we have a conflict? Where can we find

a solution?” It’s not where the opposition is suggesting, capitulation and run

away. If you have authority, if you have the potential to exercise your

jurisdiction, you should be doing that. Don’t run away. Don’t

capitulate.

I grew up where there was a constitutional crisis, in Quebec. I know

what it is to fight hard for the values of Canadians. I know that it’s not

always easy to do that, but because it’s not easy doesn’t mean that we run

away. It doesn’t mean that we exaggerate the concerns or incite the

disagreement. That’s the exact opposite way of proceeding.

The opposition seems intent on finding a place to fight. If there isn’t

a fight, they’ll start a fight. What we’re going to do on this side is the

responsible thing. We’re going to abide by the rule of law. We’re going to keep

communications open. We’ve already done what this motion calls for. We went to

Ottawa, and we talked.

You know what? The member who proposed this motion has the nerve to say:

“Don’t go into the room with your mind made up.” As if this opposition hasn’t

already settled long ago that this is all about the economy, this is all about

their friends, and this is all about those who have been supporting them for

the last 16 years. I think that the government is right to say: “Enough of

that. Let’s look out for the interests of British Columbians and stick hard to

that fact.” We’re going to do just that.

R. Sultan: As a Canadian, I find the actions of the British Columbia government

endeavouring to blockade another province’s shipments of hydrocarbons by

pipeline to offshore markets highly offensive. Our government apparently

prefers that petroleum products find their way to tidewater in railway cars,

despite the obvious greater risk to the environment and safety.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[11:45 a.m.]

R. Sultan: Last time I looked, we were still one country. How dare this minority

government take it upon itself to prohibit what its partner, the Greens, detest

— namely, hydrocarbons of any type inside a pipe but apparently okay inside a

rail car.

Let me reflect on the fragility of our Canadian Confederation. Not many

countries in the world can claim to have existed inside unchanging boundaries

for over 150 years. Let me repeat that. Not many countries — particularly ones

sprawling across the second-largest land mass in the world, such as Canada —

have existed inside unchanging boundaries for 150 years. Europe? Certainly not.

Asia? Nope. Africa? Certainly not. South America? Nope. North America? Well,

not if you consider the border wars between Mexico and the United

States.

When I went to live in the United States, I first realized how ignorant

we were of American history and the civil war which killed 620,000 Americans in

order to keep that confederation together — only about 150 years ago.

Historically, it is no small thing when one province of Canada decides to break

the ties which bind our sprawling confederation due to parish pump

politics.

We came very close to losing this country in 1975, only 43 years ago, in

the Quebec separation referendum. I was there. Quebec’s ties to Canada were

harassed by the Quebec elite. I did, of course, see some side benefits. I

purchased a ten-bedroom stone mansion at the top of the mountain for little

more than $100,000…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Powell River.

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

price.

I’m not accusing this government of planning separation anytime soon,

but I want to remind them of the fragility of our confederation. Does British

Columbia have a lot in common with New Brunswick? Well, not much, except that

we believe in this country and have sent our soldiers to fight in wars to

defend it.

I am highly offended by the actions of any government which weakens the

bonds which unite us. We are complacent. I am sure some will find my remarks

far-fetched. Such persons should look around at the rest of the world and say a

prayer for the continuation of the confederation we have created based on core

beliefs, tolerance for persons of a different point of view and a willingness

for any province to ship stuff through our ports to any country they

wish.

Therefore, government, in this self-serving but dangerous squabble:

stand down. Stand up for Canada.

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

motion.

People living in my constituency of Burnaby North have been listening to

the escalating threats out of Alberta and Ottawa with mounting alarm. They’ve

been sharing their fears with me. They’ve even been stopping me on the street

to talk about it. As their MLA, I want to give voice to their side of this

so-called trade impasse. As this debate has been unfolding this morning, it’s

clear that when the members opposite talk about engagement, what they really

mean is capitulation.

What does this impasse mean to the people of Burnaby North? North

Burnaby is ground zero in Alberta’s fight with British Columbia. If Alberta

gets its way, it’s where at least one tanker per day will load dilbit — not

oil, not gasoline, but tar so thick that it has to be watered down with

highly-flammable carcinogens like benzene so it can move through the

pipe.

Then these tankers have to navigate back out through the inlet and along

the entire northern boundary of Burnaby North, squeeze under the Second Narrows

Bridge, not far from my house, before dodging cruise ships and other marine

traffic on their way out to the busiest harbour on the west coast. Burnaby is

the most populated

section on the entire 1,000-kilometre pipeline route. When

an accident happens here, it will be deadly.

[11:50 a.m.]

Kinder Morgan stores diluted bitumen in tanks on the side of Burnaby

Mountain. If Alberta and Ottawa get their way, the company will be allowed to

crowd in twice as many tanks. According to the Burnaby fire department, the

chances of a catastrophic fire jumping from tank to tank would increase

dramatically.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I myself attended a meeting where the deputy chief outlined his

concerns. I remember him talking about the challenge for crews fighting an

uphill fire, about the impossibility of evacuating SFU at the top of the

mountain and the ground-level toxic vapours that would ignite if you tried to

start your car to escape. Close to 40,000 people go up to Simon Fraser every

day. Many of them live in Burnaby North.

As one of my constituents said: “Prime Minister, as you sit safely in

Ottawa, you expect me to go to work every day on Burnaby Mountain and, every

day, run the risk of being cut off from my kids when that tank farm blows up.

Prime Minister, doesn’t the future of my kids matter to you?”

You can underestimate her concerns if you will. You can call it

rhetoric, as you’ve done so far in this debate. Here’s what another Burnaby

resident had to say.

“We bought our house in 2005. We were uneasy that it was so close to the

Westridge terminal, but we trusted that the odds were in our favour because,

after all, there hadn’t been an accident in 50 years. Then two years later, the

pipeline ruptured, a block and a half from our house, spilling 200,000 litres

of crude oil into my neighbourhood. I was pregnant at the time, and we still

don’t know how my direct contact with the oil and fumes will affect my son’s

health in the long term. That spill may not have been Trans Mountain’s fault

directly, but so many things can go wrong in such a densely populated

area.”

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

child…

Interjections.

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

you.

J. Routledge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

…because the National Energy Board only wanted to hear about the

economics, not the health impact.

Addressing the economics, let me quote someone who works at the refinery

in Burnaby. “It’s the last remaining refinery on the Burrard Inlet. It produces

40 percent of the gasoline to the Lower Mainland, 50 percent of the jet fuel to

YVR and the diesel that powers our ferries. Our facility doesn’t process

diluted bitumen. The purpose of the pipeline expansion project is to export

dilbit to be refined offshore and sold back to British Columbians. Our refinery

will likely close, with the loss of 450 good local jobs.”

Now, I haven’t talked about climate change yet, but people in my

community are talking about climate change. They want to reach a reasonable

transition, accommodation with Alberta…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

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

R. Coleman: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline was not just dreamt up recently

but has, rather, been subject to a five-year, very extensive approval process.

All aspects of environment, construction, First Nations, engineering,

geotechnical and related items were scrutinized. They received extensive public

input and support from many of the First Nations along the pipeline

route.

Economic benefits were agreed to. Employment and trade commitments were

made, both for First Nations and for communities on the coast and on land.

Environmental responses were enhanced as part of the five-condition agreement

with Kinder Morgan, which also brought the federal government to the table to

enhance coastal protection.

Government has received, in addition to that $50-million-a-year

commitment, $1 billion over 20 years from Kinder Morgan for the communities in

British Columbia. All of this 4½-year process followed legal requirements for

approval under the laws of Canada and the laws of B.C. The decision to approve

was statutory.

[11:55 a.m.]

The project was approved with conditions and done after extensive

review, authored by many professional public servants in the approval of the

statutory approval process by cabinet. The law was followed. No influences were

involved. I know that because I was one of the statutory

decision–makers.

The B.C. government is choosing to ignore the laws, the statutory

decision powers and approvals, contending they don’t have to accept the legal

decisions. The message they send is oppose anything — even a legally, properly

approved project — if it does not support their agenda, feelings or

whims.

My concern is this. I have driven the Fraser Canyon, I’ve driven to the

Cariboo, and I’ve driven all the way out through Kamloops and north up the

Yellowhead. What we are facing today without this pipeline…. I know that the

people along the river north of me in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and the people

all the way across the valley, along the Thompson and Fraser rivers, do not

want to see ten 100-car oil trains per day coming through their community

because we don’t go with the safest and most environmentally safe solution to

the problem of moving oil.

We don’t want the oil moving by rail. Take a drive. Just go along the

river and see how close the railway is to the Fraser and the Thompson. You want

a cataclysmic environmental disaster? That’s where it will happen. The Trans

Mountain pipeline has operated safely for 60 years. To talk about somebody with

a backhoe, who didn’t look at where a pipeline was, hit it and tries to blame

it on Kinder Morgan…. That would be absolutely, incredibly bad.

The project is about safely moving a product in the national interest —

jobs for thousands of people and economic benefits. It’s about health care,

daycare, social programs and the future of thousands of British Columbians,

because the people that are have-not provinces in Canada receive billions of

dollars on an annual basis from Alberta to support those programs. They’re

deficit governments that are supporting programs that are coming from Alberta

and also from British Columbians.

We’re Canadians. We’re proud Canadians. We believe in our country. I

believe our country stands by the rule of law. I saw the work. I saw the

statutory decision. I saw the law being followed in the approval of this

process — a project with conditions. So to come along after the fact and say

“we didn’t like the process” means you really don’t like the law. The fact of

the matter is it was legal, it was thorough, it was done properly and it will

stand up to scrutiny — because it already has.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where, internationally, a message

is being sent by British Columbia: “Don’t invest in this province. Don’t create

jobs. Don’t make billions of dollars in investments. Because even though we

have a legal statutory process, the government of B.C. will not stand behind

it.”

To the credit of the federal government, they’re prepared to stand by

the legal process, because they also had to sign out with their statutory

decision-makers.

I know this. Millions and millions and millions of barrels a day by

rail, along our rivers and through our communities, is not the answer. It is a

cataclysmic opportunity for disaster, environmentally, in our province, because

the government of British Columbia refuses to follow the rule of

law.

I would move adjournment of debate.

R. Coleman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Unmatched Element [correctionsList]

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada