Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 1, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 227

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Paul Fraser

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Mungall

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Holodomor awareness and remembrance

G. Begg

Inclusive society and Quebec legislation on religious symbols

A. Wilkinson

Action on homelessness

S. Chandra Herbert

Ranching industry

D. Barnett

Revitalization of Indigenous languages

S. Malcolmson

InSong Quesnel Youth Choir

C. Oakes

Ministerial Statements

100th anniversary of office of legislative counsel

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Tax policies and gas prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Hon. G. Heyman

Call for public inquiry into money laundering

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Tax policies and gas prices

T. Redies

Hon. G. Heyman

Trans Mountain pipeline supply to refinery and gas prices

G. Kyllo

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Bond

Tax policies and gas prices

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. G. Heyman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

M. de Jong

A. Weaver

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

C. Oakes

MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

PAUL FRASER

Hon. J. Horgan: It is certainly with a heavy heart that I rise today to announce

the passing of a dedicated public servant. For more than ten years, Paul

Fraser served this Legislative Assembly as the B.C. Conflict of Interest

Commissioner. At the beginning of his time, he served briefly as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

An independent officer of the Legislature — all of the members

here know Paul’s good nature and his commitment and dedication to public

service. He was first and foremost focused on this institution and the

people that occupied it. He was first and foremost committed to ensuring

that none of us in this place stepped over any lines, and he was quick

to tell us when we were on the side of the angels, which is something I

greatly appreciated, always looking for that opportunity.

He had a good sense of humour. I know I’m not allowed to bring

props into this institution, but Paul gave me this tie and said that I

didn’t have to declare it because it was so ugly. He had only one orange

tie, and he couldn’t think of a better person to own it. So I’m grateful

for that. It speaks to his impishness.

After 50 years serving the legal profession, he was also the head

of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the Commonwealth

Lawyers Association as well. Throughout his time in public life, he was

always focused on ensuring that we got the best of ourselves and the

best of each other.

I will miss him. I will miss the fact that his biscuits were

fresher than H.A.D. Oliver’s, who he brought from somewhere back in the

1950s. I’m glad another member is laughing at that. Paul took a great

responsibility for any nourishment he would give us when we came for our

annual disclosures. He was a good man, a fine man.

We’re joined in the gallery by many family members. Robin Fraser,

Paul’s wife, is here; as well as his daughters Jacqueline and Genevieve;

son John Paul; John Paul’s spouse, Maia Low; as well as their daughter,

Anna Low; Cathy Hunt, Mr. Fraser’s daughter; as well as Georgia Hunt.

Also from the Conflict of Interest Office are Alyne Mochan, Amber

Derricourt and Carol Hoyer. All of us will miss Paul but none more than

his family members who are with us here today.

Would the House please join with me. I understand the Leader of

the Opposition will have a few comments as well.

A. Wilkinson: There is a term in our world that has fallen into disuse, and it

is “a gentleman.” Paul Fraser, throughout his career and in his time

here, was a gentleman.

I knew him well in legal practice in Vancouver, where his

reputation was of integrity, professionalism, humanity and pragmatism.

He brought those skills here. He served this institution well. His job

was to maintain the integrity of all of us and the institution, and he

did that. We all owe him a great debt of thanks, and we will miss

him.

A. Weaver: Well, that was an enormous shock. I found out literally as the

Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking about the passing of Paul

Fraser. I can only say that I’m at a loss for words.

Paul was, as has been articulated, a gentleman. He cared deeply

about the ongoing workings in this place. He cared deeply about each and

every MLA, and he worked with each and every MLA to try to help them

through what are often difficult and challenging issues that come to us

as we try to serve our job here.

I’m devastated. I spoke to him two weeks ago. He had pneumonia. He

still wasn’t feeling well. He spoke to me about an issue that I was

asking about. He provided me some advice.

[1:40 p.m.]

I think I join everyone in this House in saying: “Thank you, Paul,

for all of the good work you did, and we will miss you.”

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I ask that you all rise to observe a moment of

silence in memory of the late Paul Fraser, QC, Conflict of Interest

Commissioner.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mungall: Before I make my introduction, I just wanted to let Paul’s family know

that this little guy coming into my life and my husband’s life was something

that made Paul very happy. Whenever we did our annual check-in, he knew us

all on a very personal level, so I got to share with him what was the

happiest thing going on in my life. Having that perfect connection with him

meant a lot to me, and I’m very sorry that he’s not with us.

Zavier would like to introduce the House to his uncle, Jesse

Matieschyn, who is just back from a trip to Europe and the Middle East,

where he bought Zavier this lovely formal Moroccan suit. So he still is in

dress code.

I ask that the House please join us in making Uncle Jesse very

welcome.

E. Ross: Before I get to my introductions, it’s pretty confusing, complex and

intimidating to come into this place as a rookie MLA. There are a number of

staff people that make your life easier and put you at ease. Paul Fraser was

one of those people. It didn’t take long for me to understand what was going

the family who are here. He made a tremendous impact on my job down here in

Victoria.

I’ve got two guests in the House here today from Skeena. One is Kris

Boland, who is the deputy CEO of the Resource Benefits Alliance — project

manager. I’m not even sure that rolls off correctly.

The other one is actually the CEO of the regional district of

Kitimat-Stikine, Ron Poole. Ron Poole and I go back a long ways. We actually

sparred a lot together in previous years regarding Kitimat council, as well

as a little bit with Terrace council. Over the years, we created this level

of respect that turned into a tremendous friendship.

Would the House please welcome these two gentlemen in the gallery

today.

S. Bond: It’s hard to continue with normal business today, but I know that’s

exactly what Paul would want us to do. We will miss him terribly.

Just last week I said that very rarely do we have visitors from Prince

George, and here I am up again to welcome two people from Prince George.

They are very well known in our community. They contribute very

significantly in their professional lives. They make a difference in the

lives of the people who live in Prince George, and we are very grateful for

that. So it’s a delight to be able to welcome them here.

I know they’ve both heard a lot about question period and about the

Legislature, and now they’ll get to experience it in person. I know that

everyone in the House will join me in making welcome Malachy Tohill and

Connie Abe. Thank you for joining us here today.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a constituent here today that was in the lunch gathering that

we had with the group Common Ground Alliance, “Call before you dig.” I’d

like the House to please welcome my constituent Tony Roberts. He’s the

director of membership and recruitment for B.C. One Call. Could the House

please make him welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Today in the House are a number of Canadians of Ukrainian origin who

are here to launch a Canada-wide initiative to raise the knowledge of and

awareness of the Holodomor. It is the death by starvation, literally

translated from Ukrainian, of six million to ten million Ukrainians — the

numbers vary because it was so horrible an experience, and records were very

remote — in the winter of 1932 and 1933, unknown and kept secret in Stalin’s

Russia, actually, until more or less the Iron Curtain fell in

The group here includes the executive director of the Canada-Ukraine

Foundation, Roma Zerowicks; the Ukrainian Canadian Congress Victoria branch

chair, Robert Herchak; and fellow board members Anna Visnevka, Motria

Koropecki and Andrei Fabrikov. Would the House please make all of them

welcome.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to introduce today some visitors from Kamloops.

We have Dr. Keith Boughton and his wife, Kathy Boughton, who are here

visiting their son Stephen. Dr. Boughton and his wife, Kathy, both worked at

Royal Inland Hospital for the better part of 40 years — several of those

years, actually, with my father as well.

Like the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and myself, of course,

they will be missing game 6 of the Blazers–​Victoria Royals game

tonight back in Kamloops, but all of us are very confident that we’ll see

them back here on Wednesday for game 7 and an eventual good end to that, as

most members on this side of the House would probably agree with me as

well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As many of you in this chamber know, April is nationally recognized as

Dig Safe Month. I’m very happy to welcome to the chamber today the British

Columbia Common Ground Alliance. Common Ground Alliance is a non-profit

organization. They help British Columbians prevent injuries, property damage

and inconvenient infrastructure outages by spreading the importance of safe

digging practices. As most of you know, the “Click before you dig” program

ensures the safety of all of us. It’s an amazing program and one that

deserves our full support. Would the House please make the members of Common

Ground most welcome today.

M. Dean: It’s my honour today to introduce the CEO of Island Health, Kathy

MacNeil. She’s here today with board chair Leah Hollins and also Mike Lowe,

director of partner engagement. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — FOREST AND RANGE

PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Donaldson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest and Range Practices Amendment

Act, 2019.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act be

introduced and read for a first time now.

Today I introduce changes to the Forest and Range Practices Act to

restore public confidence in how B.C.’s forests are managed. One of the

chief concerns raised by British Columbians about the state of the

forest is that, over the past decade, the government abandoned

oversight. The people of British Columbia expect their government to

ensure the forests are properly cared for, for the benefit of all people

in B.C. So today we are taking steps to strengthen government’s

oversight of the forest sector.

These changes will not add onerous levels of regulation but will

offer clear guidelines to the professionals who manage the interactions

with the publicly owned land base. The changes will create more frequent

and reliable opportunities for the public to have input into how things

are done in the woods and on the range. There will be greater

information-sharing as well. Through forest stewardship plans and

operational maps, forest companies will have to be more transparent

about what their logging plans are. We are putting the land first and,

at the same time, finding paths to reconciliation with First

Nations.

My role as minister, and the role of delegates of the minister, is

also being strengthened to manage forest activity. The changes being

introduced today respond to feedback and analysis received over the last

decade from First Nations, the Forest Practices Board, the forest

industry, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and other resource

groups.

[1:50 p.m.]

Finally, the changes to the Forest and Range Practices Act that we

are announcing today are an essential component of our forest sector

revitalization initiative. These changes are long overdue and needed to

boost public confidence and establish collaboration planning with First

Nations. The changes to the act affect forest and range practices

throughout the entire province.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the Forest and Range Practices Act be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Bill 21, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 19 — ENERGY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Mungall presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 19, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act, 2019. This bill amends the Clean Energy Act, the Hydro and Power

Authority Act and the Utilities Commission Act. The proposed amendments

will implement several recommendations flowing from phase 1 of the

comprehensive B.C. Hydro review.

We undertook this review as a first stage to keep rates affordable

for British Columbians while also ensuring the long-term sustainability

and vibrancy of B.C.’s crown jewel, its public utility, B.C. Hydro. That

review resulted in several recommendations that will keep rates

affordable, rebuild the B.C. Utilities Commission’s regulatory role and

ensure that B.C. Hydro works for British Columbians.

Because our review recommended that we re-establish important

aspects of the B.C. Utilities Commission’s regulatory oversight of B.C.

Hydro, pointing out that this body is best suited to act in ratepayers’

interests rather than the political whims of the day, we are taking

action today with this legislation.

This bill reinstates the B.C. Utilities Commission’s authority to

review and approve B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource plan, which outlines

its 20-year production of electricity demand and its plans for meeting

that demand. The bill also assists with keeping B.C. Hydro rates

affordable by both defining management of rate classes and protecting

ratepayers and taxpayers from past policy decisions that could have

further damaging effects on B.C. Hydro’s bottom line. Specifically, the

bill eliminates the concept of expenditures for export from the Clean

Energy Act.

Expenditures for export are B.C. Hydro expenditures that are over

and above costs incurred to supply domestic electricity demand — for

example, buying private power with the purpose to sell that power on the

market to other jurisdictions but doing so at a rate much lower than

what we purchased. Because the allowance for expenditures for export has

not and will not result in a B.C. Hydro that works for British

Columbians’ collective well-being, it needs to be eliminated from the

legislation.

Finally, this bill ensures that B.C. Hydro’s marketing subsidiary,

Powerex, remains solely regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission so that it can compete effectively in energy markets outside

B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I now move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOLODOMOR AWARENESS AND REMEMBRANCE

G. Begg: Four years ago, April was designated as Genocide Remembrance,

Condemnation and Prevention Month in Canada. Humanity has witnessed many

genocides, including the Holodomor.

The Ukrainian Canadian council and Canada-Ukraine Foundation are

here today as part of their Holodomor National Awareness Tour. Their

mission: to build a strong, democratic and diverse society in Canada by

raising awareness about the Holodomor.

Holodomor is a Ukrainian word that means extermination by means of

starvation. Between 1932 and 1933, an estimated ten million Ukrainians

suffered and lost their lives to the famine genocide. Of those,

one-third were children.

[1:55 p.m.]

Many of the survivors of this famine and genocide, and their

descendants, reside here in Canada. There are close to 1.4 million

Ukrainians and Ukrainian descendants in Canada, making this the world’s

third-largest Ukrainian population.

Canada has a long-standing relationship with the Ukraine. In fact,

Canada was the first western nation to recog­nize Ukraine’s

independence back in 1991. The Ukrainian-Canadian community, built over

four waves of immigration dating back at least to 1891, began on the

Prairies but, more recently, has expanded into Ontario, Quebec and

British Columbia. Their community has greatly contributed to the

cultural, economic, political and educational life in British Columbia

and across Canada.

I encourage members to take the opportunity today to participate

in the 20-minute audiovisual presentation in the Holodomor mobile

classroom, parked in front of the Legislature, to learn more about this

horrific part of humanity’s history.

The historical truth of the Holodomor was suppressed for many

years in the former Soviet Union. More recently many governments around

the world have recognized this deliberate campaign of starvation of

Ukrainians as genocide.

I invite British Columbians to take time to remember the victims

of genocide. It is our collective responsibility to reflect on these

tragedies so that we can learn and prevent them from ever happening

again. May we never lose sight of our shared duty to protect human

rights and dignity and to fight hate and discrimination.

INCLUSIVE SOCIETY AND QUEBEC

LEGISLATION ON RELIGIOUS

SYMBOLS

A. Wilkinson: Here in British Columbia, we’ve been very fortunate to benefit

from a broadly inclusive and respectful society. It’s become a rich and

vibrant place, where people from all over the world find a safe and

pleasant place in which to make out their lives.

We have the most ethnically diverse province in the country and

welcome about 40,000 new immigrants every year. We embody those values

of inclusiveness and respect for each other, and we need to make sure

that that is a truly Canadian value. So it’s with some distress that

many of us have noticed that the Quebec Legislature has now heard a bill

that threatens these important principles by banning people in positions

of authority from wearing religious symbols.

For example, any newly hired teacher or police officer would face

a prohibition on their long-standing cultural traditions expressed

through religious symbols. Quebec’s bill includes provisions to invoke

the notwithstanding clause, found within the Charter of Rights, to

effectively curtail that Charter right completely and protect it from

the inevitable challenges in the courts.

In British Columbia, I do hope that all of us in this chamber take

the view that this is not appropriate. This is totally unacceptable. I

stand today to say that it is an attempt to put religious discrimination

into the code of law. This is something we as a society need to resist.

We need to be on the record as saying that hate crimes and angry

rhetoric, the kind of vicious speech that we see becoming more tolerated

we must jointly stand against.

That is an inevitable conclusion of the kind of attitude that is

being shown by the Quebec Legislature. So it’s incumbent on all of us to

publicly state our opposition to these measures, to stand up for

equality and respect.

We need to, to use a trite phrase, be the change that we wish to

see. My Canada doesn’t stand for legislated assaults on Charter rights.

I call on the members of this House and on all British Columbians to

take note of this important development in Quebec, to openly state our

opposition to this kind of thing and to promote the inclusiveness,

acceptance and respect that all of us have benefited from throughout our

lives here in British Columbia.

These are values that the world sees as of great merit here, and

we must be prepared to stand up and be proud of those values.

ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

S. Chandra Herbert: I first got into government, provincially, in part to fight

homelessness. Too many people in my community were going homeless. They

didn’t want to be homeless. People in my neighbourhood didn’t want them

to be homeless.

[2:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, too many British Columbians will still be homeless

tonight. Too many were last year. Too many were the year before. Now

more have moved inside in the last year than, I believe, in any time in

B.C. history, in part because of the quick action of building modular

housing. Get it built. Get people inside. But there are still too many

struggling on the streets.

Now, a constituent asked me once: “Why do you believe so much that

you must fight homelessness?” I responded to him: “Well, in a

cold-hearted version, it’s just the dollars and cents. It makes more

sense to have somebody housed than to have them homeless, where they get

sick, where people have to deal with the sickness, where there are legal

costs, criminal costs, challenges of poverty — too many challenges to

name.”

He said to me: “Jeez. That’s a little cold. Don’t you care about

the people?” I smiled, because I’d been debating with some for too long

about the need to act just on the dollars and cents. He said that it’s

the right thing for the heart, and I completely agreed.

It’s hard to live in a community where you see folks in such a

struggle each and every day. It makes you wonder about how we are

spending our collective wealth. He was right, so I fight homelessness

with a heart and with the head. It makes sense financially, and it makes

sense for the heart as well.

So what’s the holdup? I do believe most of us don’t want

homelessness to continue. Well, for some, there’s fear. Certainly there

have been places in my community in Vancouver and, indeed, across the

province where people use fear to divide. They speak about all sorts of

issues, any reasons. Too far to the left. Too far to the right. It’s too

tall. It’s too small. It’s not big enough. It’s not this. It’s not

that.

For the people who are struggling in homelessness, they need a

roof. They need more than a roof; they need the supports to build a

better life. Because it works. Housing works. It leads to jobs. It leads

to health care. It leads to addiction treatment, mental health

treatment. It leads to families uniting. It leads to people fulfilling

their dreams.

Let’s redouble our efforts to fight homelessness in each and every

one of our communities. We owe it to each other. We owe it to all of

us.

RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: To the relief of many British Columbians, winter is coming to an

end. For ranchers across this province, spring not only means the

arrival of warmer weather but also the arrival of newborn calves. This

can be a demanding and intense time of year for ranchers, who are

responsible for ensuring that their cows safely deliver their calves.

For many, this means diligent monitoring of their herds 24 hours a day,

seven days a week.

There are over 4,000 cattle ranchers across five million acres in

British Columbia. It is estimated that the B.C. beef industry

contributes $600 million to the provincial economy every year and

employs 8,700 people. Ranchers are true land stewards who advocate for

the protection of B.C.’s agricultural land and the sustainability of

their industry.

Despite their hard work and advocacy, ranchers continue to face

increased stress on the land they do their work on. From flooding to

wildfires, much of the province’s grazing land is damaged every year,

especially in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Many of my constituents are members

of the ranching community, and I am honoured to represent them in this

House. I know firsthand the detrimental impact that a changing climate

is having on the lives of ranchers and their families.

This spring calves will be born across this province, and ranchers

will work harder than ever to ensure they survive and thrive. Given the

importance of this industry, I encourage all members of this House to do

what they can to support the ranchers in B.C. and the calves they

welcome into the world this spring.

REVITALIZATION OF

INDIGENOUS

LANGUAGES

S. Malcolmson: I bring good news from home. Snuneymuxw Native Sons almost won the

basketball tournament in Terrace. It was just snatched away in the final

overtime period, final game.

Second, Nanaimo’s Ay Lelum clothing company blew the roof off the

Vancouver fashion show last week. I was so proud to see the Good and

Moorehouse family Indigenous designs on the runway in

Vancouver.

[2:05 p.m.]

Yesterday was National Indigenous Languages Day. All these actions

affirm how vital culture is in Indigenous communities across B.C.

Thousands of language champions are fighting to bring language back from

the brink — thousands — because here, colonial policies cut Indigenous

peoples’ connection to their language and culture, with devastating

results.

In B.C., less than 6,000 people speak just one of the 34

Indigenous languages that remain. It’s a crisis. So I am proud to be

part of a government that pledged $50 million last year for language

revitalization. Language grants have more than doubled since last year,

and almost four times as many people are taking language

training.

In June, the First Peoples Cultural Council and the First Peoples

Cultural Foundation will welcome Indigenous language champions to

Victoria for a major Indigenous language revitalization conference.

We’ll be shining a spotlight on the good work happening here at home and

learning from experts around the world.

True reconciliation needs strong support for communities and

students doing the hard work of language relearning. On National

Indigenous Languages Day, we celebrate how fundamental language is to

the well-being of Indigenous communities, and we celebrate the language

teachers leading the way.

INSONG QUESNEL YOUTH CHOIR

C. Oakes: The power of choir. Today I pay tribute to the remarkable man,

Paul Fraser. I’d like to recognize his family in the gallery. Knowing of

Paul’s love of his family and the conversations we’ve shared on the

power of choir, I think it’s quite fitting.

How do most ideas get started in this world? Usually with a

passion and a heartfelt desire to make a dream become a reality. One

such idea came about in the summer of 2015 with a wonder-team of music

lovers — choir, to be exact. Armed with sheet music and with Bev

Haluschak as manager, Melanie McKinnon as musical director and Anna

Allan as collaborative artist, this is how InSong Quesnel Youth Choir

was born. One of the incredible supporters, as well, of Quesnel InSong

is Margo Rose.

In today’s complex world, with an enormous amount of pressure

placed on young people, choir provides a true place of joy. Choristers

have the opportunity to sing in an ensemble and are exposed to different

genres of music as well as foreign languages. They learn to work as a

team, as in sports, supporting each other through rough patches and

encouraging each other to succeed.

The choristers also learn about citizenship. Each learns more

about diversity and how they can make an impact in their community.

InSong has sung for seniors in assisted living residences, raised money

for SPCA. They’ve even sung for our veterans at the cenotaph on

Remembrance Day.

I was blessed to have the leadership of Mrs. Rose, where I first

learned about the power of choir. Thank you, Mrs. Rose, on behalf of all

your students’ lives you’ve made a difference in. Mrs. Rose continues to

support the choir InSong.

InSong Quesnel Youth Choir believes that our youth are bright, and

we want them to experience the joy of learning new things and supporting

people in our community. There is nothing sweeter than youthful voices

joined together in singing.

Ministerial Statements

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

OFFICE OF

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

As all of us know, we could not do our jobs in this chamber,

whether in government or in opposition, without legislation before us.

Today marks the 100th anniversary of the appointment of Avard Pineo as

the first legislative counsel for the government of British Columbia.

That appointment was made effective April 1, 1919. That is a significant

achievement in terms of parliamentary democracy in this

province.

[2:10 p.m.]

The office of legislative counsel provides legislative services to

our governments, including the drafting of all government bills,

regulations and orders-in-council and, since 2017, the drafting of

non-government bills for Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Today’s modern office of legislative counsel is composed of more

than legislative counsel. It includes legislative professionals, who

provide editing and consolidation services; legal assistants; the

registrar of regulations, who maintains the register for all enacted

regulations; and the order-in-council administration office. The OIC

administration office maintains records of orders-in-council and

arranges for the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor on proclamations,

bills and orders-in-council.

Over the past 100 years, there have been a lot of advances in

their work, but one thing hasn’t changed: the professionalism and

dedication of these important public servants who allow us to do our job

on behalf of the people of this province.

I’d ask all members of this House to congratulate the 100th

anniversary of the office of legislative counsel.

M. Lee: I’d like to just join my colleague across the aisle in recognizing

the 100th anniversary of the legislative counsel’s office. Together with

the Premier and the Lieutenant-Governor and the Attorney General, as

well as the members from Richmond Centre and Abbotsford-Mission, we

joined in today’s festivities. There were two kinds of very large cakes

and great humour. Also, members of our public service clearly recognize,

as the member just spoke to, the importance of the level of

professionalism and dedication that legislative counsel brings to our

House, in our proceedings and all of the laws.

I know that when I was at law school in 1993, studying legislation

and policy in first-year law, you go through much in

statutory-interpretation-type courses and instruction. To have

legislation that is properly drafted, clear and accessible is important.

We recognize the service that legislative counsel does, including

Corinne Swystun, now as the chief of legislative counsel.

I just also wanted to stand and rise, if I may, to join others, as

I’ve heard at the session, to recognize Paul Fraser and his family on

his passing. I’d like to say that Paul, clearly, made us all better. He

raised the standard of professionalism for our House. He raised the

level of integrity and service. The legacy that he has provided to all

members of this House in the years of his service will clearly be

remembered.

It’s remarkable that he had a career of over 50 years. He was

called to the bar in 1965. The roles that he played for this country

include as a special adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on

environmental treaty issues, on the industrial inquiry commission in

1995 for the rail strike, as well as to set up and establish a dispute

resolution process for Canadian Indian residential school system

disputes. He also had the Fraser report on pornography and prostitution

in 1985.

He set a very fine example of the kinds of individuals that we

need to continue to have in our public service, in this House and for

this country. For that, we are entirely and eternally grateful to Mr.

Paul Fraser for his service to our country and to this

province.

S. Furstenau: As the historian of the group, I’m delighted to stand up today to

join the minister and the official opposition to mark the centennial

birthday of the B.C. office of legislative counsel.

Specifically, it marks the appointment of Avard Vernon Pineo to

the position of the first legislative counsel in the province. I

understand that Mr. Pineo was also one of the founding members of the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which celebrated its own centennial

birthday last year. But we won’t talk about uniforms at all.

The B.C. office of legislative counsel has always been an active,

respected and significant contributor to leading legislative initiatives

in this country and in our province. I know that our staff have very

much enjoyed working with legislative counsel on a variety of

initiatives over the last 20 months, and we all look forward to

continuing to work with them.

The employees of this office are always professional and go well

above and beyond. They are diligent, hard workers who take pride in

their work. They are the people behind the scenes that write our laws

and ensure that our whole system works. Today I’d like to echo the

minister’s comments and acknowledge the central role they play in the

functioning of our Legislature.

[2:15 p.m.]

Oral Questions

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

A. Wilkinson: Well, we’ve had some very weighty issues brought up here today.

Without meaning to minimize them, I expect that Mr. Fraser and so many

others are expecting us to get right back down to business.

We’re going to do that at the local gas station. Today is April

Fool’s Day, and the joke seems to be on British Columbians, given that

we already have the highest gasoline prices in North America. We have

the highest taxes on our gasoline in North America, and the Premier

seems to think it’s just fine to pile on some more.

The obvious question for the Premier is: is there any limit to

this? At what point does the Premier call off the attack on motorists by

putting some kind of ceiling or plateau on gasoline taxes?

Premier, how high do gas prices have to go before this government

will relent and give motorists a break?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the member on the other side. I’ll

remind him of his comments just a year ago, when he said: “I think it’s

fair to say that the provincial government has a limited role in this,

because gasoline taxes have been set for a long time.” That was the end

of the quote. It had to do with the spikes at the pumps usually at the

start of a long weekend or at the beginning of the summer

season.

I empathize — as does the Leader of the Opposition and, I think,

all members — with citizens who see high gas prices that have no

correlation to the commodity price, have no correlation to the taxes

that may or may not have been put in over many, many years. It’s

confusing to the travelling public. How is it that raw oil prices are

under 50 bucks, yet prices at the pump are heading towards

$1.50?

I share the member’s concern, and I think I’ll remind him of what

he said back in May of last year, which was: “The province is imposing a

one-cent-a-litre increase, with an increase in the carbon price today,

which will put us as leaders in the country.” The member doesn’t need to

be reminded that it was his party that brought in the carbon tax. I’m

sure that he’ll be mindful of that.

We’re all working together to reduce our emissions. We’re working

together to make life more affordable for British Columbians. But a

one-cent-a-litre impact is not the ten-cent spike we saw at the pumps.

That’s gouging, in my opinion. We need more refining capacity. If the

member wants to join with me, we can see if we can work on that

together.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s ironic that the Premier talks about refining capacity when

about 30 miles straight east of here is all the refining capacity in the

world, at Anacortes, Washington, which is being protected and defended

by the Premier on behalf of Governor Inslee to make sure that we buy

American-refined products.

Let’s get the story straight here, Premier: 19 new and increased

taxes. This is no April Fool’s joke. You are the party that’s deciding

when the taxes go up. These carbon taxes are no longer revenue-neutral.

We’re feeding the American refinery industry with this approach by

making it price-advantageous for them to sell us their fuel, using

Canadian feedstock to refine American fuel and sell it back to

Canada.

Premier, when are you going to give the same break to British

Columbians that you just gave to the multinationals in the LNG

deal?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, quite often, be careful of what box you open up. For the

Leader of the Opposition to start talking about affordability today,

maybe it is still April Fool’s Day.

I mean, this from the leader of a party that doubled medical

services premiums over their time in office. What have we done? We’ve

cut them in half, and they’ll be gone completely by next January. A 70

percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates — 70 percent increase. The party of

unaffordability over there should be careful where they cast their

stones, because their record is a pretty pathetic one.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a bit rich for the Premier to stand up and talk about their

successes on affordability when their housing program is a complete

failure, house prices remain high and gasoline prices went up today

because of one of the Premier’s pet taxes — 19 new taxes since this

government took office. This Premier has done nothing, effectively, for

affordability in British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have the provisional motor fuel tax. We have the carbon tax. We

have transit taxes. These are all being built into the price at the

pumps. Of course, big industry, whether it’s Royal Dutch Shell or one of

the Asian companies that has invested in LNG, gets a $30 ceiling on

their carbon tax. Well, lo and behold, the party of the people is

handing out the prizes to the massive multinational petroleum companies

at the expense of British Columbians.

Premier, you’ve abandoned revenue-neutrality of the carbon

tax….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.

A. Wilkinson: You’ve abandoned the idea of a fair deal for British Columbians

with the LNG carbon tax, and now you’ve abandoned the idea of

affordability at the pumps.

What’s the ceiling on gasoline prices that you’re prepared to

accept before you draw a line on your tax agenda?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess if you’ve got a line from the 1970s that worked for you

then and maybe for decades after that, you should stick with it. But

this notion that we’ve made life more unaffordable….

What about the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge? What about that?

Whose idea was that? Was it the party of the people on the other side?

No. It was this government that came in and said it’s not fair to impose

a cost on one class of citizens that you wouldn’t put on

another.

What did we do with medical services premiums? We didn’t double

them; we eliminated them. And $400 rebates on carbon pricing for

low-income families — that’s what we’re doing. Affordability is at the

centre of everything we do because people are what matter, not the

people that they used to work for — the big donors who can’t donate

anymore. We’re giving breaks to real people. They’re feeling it in their

communities.

We’re proud of what we’ve done. He should get on board, get on

board with the rest of B.C.

J. Johal: Now, when Vancouverites fill up at the pump, 51 cents a litre goes

towards gas tax — 51 cents. It’s a sure recipe to drive consumers south

in droves to gas up in Washington state and yet another reminder — a

gift for the Premier’s good friend, Jay Inslee. The LNG industry is

exempt from the Premier’s increasing gas taxes, but that special deal is

not available to hard-working British Columbians, commuters and small

businesses.

Will the Premier give British Columbians the same

break?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member opposite, because he is in his first term in

this chamber, doesn’t realize that three-quarters of the carbon tax on

gasoline came from the government of his party when they were in power

in 2008. But you know, we’re not complaining about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank

you.

Hon. G. Heyman: We’re not complaining about that, because it has been successful.

Perhaps the members opposite haven’t been paying attention in the last

year when gas prices go up by a nickel one day and down by a dime the

next, or the other way around. This action today adds one cent to a

litre of gasoline.

More importantly, we are making life more affordable for British

Columbians. As of July 1, the carbon tax rebate will rise up to $400 for

a family of four and, in 2021, $500 for a family of four. Through any

range of measures that enable and help British Columbians to lower their

carbon footprint, we’re making life better and more

affordable.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The member can minimize what the opposition is asking here, but

the Premier and the government do have options. They can do something.

They can cut the provincial motor fuel tax, the carbon tax or the

transit tax. Instead, they’ve chosen to increase gas taxes. The Premier

reduced the carbon tax for LNG but thinks B.C. families should pay the

highest taxes on fuel in the country.

If large industrial corporations do not have to pay higher carbon

taxes, why should commuters and small businesses have to pay

it?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s ironic that members opposite are now claiming that they’re

the standard-bearers for affordability after what they put British

Columbians through for 16 long, hard years. They doubled MSP premiums;

we’re eliminating them. They increased hydro rates by 70 percent; we’re

trying to get them under control. They left a mess at ICBC. Rates would

have gone up by 40 percent, and we are taking that on.

Through any range of initiatives — whether it’s child care,

whether it’s MSP reduction, whether it’s carbon rebates for individuals,

families and businesses — we’re making life more affordable. An

independent economic analysis shows that the measures that we’ve

announced and taken have lowered, and will lower, taxes for every

British Columbian except the richest 1 percent.

In case they don’t know who that 1 percent is, the Leader of the

Official Opposition was meeting with them at the West Vancouver Yacht

Club.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

INTO MONEY

LAUNDERING

A. Weaver: We learned last week that a controversial senior-level

intervention was made by officials in the Finance Ministry in order to

maximize casino revenue. Incredibly, the intervention to increase

betting limits to $100,000 per hand, despite repeated warnings from the

regulator, was deemed to be “in the public interest” by the former

Minister of Finance.

Let me reiterate. Allowing $100,000 betting limits to be played at

casinos, despite clear warning signs from the regulator, was deemed to

be “in the public interest.” I don’t know how many of you have played

blackjack or poker with $100,000 stakes. I’d suggest not an awful lot.

Shocking, it is.

My question is to the Attorney General. Each week more and more

information is brought to light. An ever-growing list of questions is

emerging. Pressure for an independent public inquiry continues to grow.

The federal Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction

has indicated he is open to a request from the province for supporting

an inquiry.

He now has two special reports in front of him. Does he think he

has enough evidence to call for a public inquiry?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. Yes, this is an

important day. The Minister of Finance has received a report from her

team, from Maureen Maloney. I’ve received Dr. German’s report, which, as

the member knows, looks at issues around luxury cars, issues around

horse racing and issues around real estate.

Dr. German’s report alone is more than 300 pages. We’ve just

received it. We’ll be going through it to do a couple of things — to

make sure that the public release doesn’t compromise any law enforcement

investigations and doesn’t unfairly impugn the reputation of any

individuals. Then we’ll be releasing it to the public. The reason for

that is exactly the reason that the member has identified. The people

deserve to know what has been going on in British Columbia, what

happened under the previous government and why we need to take the

measures that we’re taking to get things under control.

They made a number of serious errors in judgment. We don’t know

whether it was wilful blindness or negligence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The member who is shouting at me is one of the key members,

obviously. I understand why he’s defensive about it, but the truth will

out.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Attorney General for his answer.

Last week the Attorney General said this: “The larger issue that I

understand British Columbians are concerned about is really political

accountability and to identify if there is rot in the system, to have

that rot weeded out through a public inquiry system.” He’s absolutely

correct. We need political accountability, which is why the B.C. Green

caucus has been calling for an independent inquiry for over a month now.

It’s why thousands upon thousands of people have signed petitions

calling for one and why several organizations, municipalities and unions

have also called for one.

Last week the Attorney General also said: “The Premier has been

clear about keeping the option open to a public inquiry.”

My question is to the Attorney General. When will we know if

government is serious about launching a public inquiry?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will know that our emphasis has been on identifying

what has been happening and stopping that activity from continuing. That

has been the big priority.

The member raises the issue of accountability, especially

political accountability. I do think that’s a very important issue, not

just for the member, not just for me and not just for the government but

certainly for all British Columbians. We’ll be looking at the reports

we’ve received, and the Premier and the government will make a decision

about a public inquiry, if necessary.

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

T. Redies: On May 7, 2007, the now Premier said: “Consumers have had enough.

They’re fed up. They’re being gouged. They’re being hosed at the pumps,

and they want their legislators to do something about it.” Well, the

Premier can now do something about it, like reduce the provincial motor

fuel tax or the carbon tax.

My question to the Premier is: why, instead, is he hosing people

at the pumps?

Hon. G. Heyman: We care about the overall finances and the overall affordability

for British Columbians. That’s why we’ve taken, and will continue to

take, a suite of measures to make life more affordable for British

Columbian families. That’s why, despite the fact that the previous

government had no plan whatsoever to extend the low-income carbon tax

rebate to moderate-income British Columbians, we’ve done that. In fact,

we’re raising it this year and raising it again in 2021.

If you look at CleanBC…. If the members opposite would take the

time to look at the climate plan, they would realize that we are

building a better future for British Columbians and for their children

and grandchildren. We’re also making it more affordable for people to

heat their homes and move from point A to point B with a range of

incentives and investments.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: With all due respect to the Minister of Environment, I can hardly

understand how raising carbon taxes makes life more affordable for

British Columbians, particularly when you take away the revenue

neutrality. On March 21 a year ago, the Premier said: “We are monitoring

gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a

range of options, and we will look at those options should prices remain

high.” Prices, of course, have remained high, but all the Premier has

done is keep raising taxes.

My question. The Premier has options to provide tax relief. Why

hasn’t he used them?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s interesting that the members opposite are taking this tack

over one cent a litre at the pump, as important as that is. That money

is going into transit. It’s going into increased

electric-vehicle-charging infrastructure. It’s going into rebates that

will help British Columbians heat their homes and cool their homes far

more affordably.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: What would the members opposite do? The members opposite would

cancel the announcement of this government for the largest middle-class

tax cut in British Columbia’s history, and that’s the elimination of the

MSP. The members opposite would continue to drive ICBC and insurance

premium rates for British Columbians into the ground and into the

stratosphere, respectively. We need no advice from the members opposite

on how to make life better and more affordable for British

Columbians.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

SUPPLY TO REFINERY AND GAS

PRICES

G. Kyllo: The Trans Mountain pipeline doesn’t just transport bitumen; it

transports gasoline and all of the oil that’s refined at the Parkland

refinery in Burnaby. But according to government documents, the Burnaby

Refinery has been operating at only 80 percent capacity. We need

additional pipeline capacity, according to the government’s own

documentation.

Will this Premier stop blocking a solution to B.C.’s pain at the

pumps?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s too bad the members opposite are essentially raising issues

that don’t deal with the heart of the matter. We know — and I wish the

members opposite would pay attention to this fact — that we have the

highest refining margins in Canada and have had for the last nine years.

That’s the kind of thing that we would like to see stopped. It’s the

kind of thing that independent economists have referred to as

“gouging.”

The other thing the member for Shuswap should think about is

reports from the union who represents the workers at the Parkland

refinery who raised the alarm publicly. For us, one of the effects, if

the expansion is built and is filled with diluted bitumen bound for

export, will be to squeeze out — squeeze out — the product that comes to

Parkland for refining, drive prices up and put British Columbians out of

work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemen­tal.

G. Kyllo: It’s no great surprise that the population of our province is

growing. We’ve grown to a little over five million people. We have

increased demand for energy, of all demands.

Last spring the Premier received a briefing document on gas prices

in Vancouver making it clear that limited pipeline capacity is a big

part of the problem. The note reads: “The Trans Mountain pipeline is

fully utilized, and refined products such as gasoline are most likely

getting squeezed out.” The government’s own briefing note sets out that

there’s pipeline insufficiency.

When will the Premier stop blocking the solution to sky-high gas

prices in our province?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member for Shuswap didn’t understand why the effect of

an expansion of the pipe­line dedicated to diluted bitumen for

export would actually squeeze out product destined for the Parkland

refinery. It’s because once those contracts are signed, the kind of

periodic and cyclical need for product to refine at Parkland takes a

back seat. There would be less reliability for British Columbians, not

more.

We’re focused on what we’ve been doing since we took our places on

this side of the floor. That’s continuing to build the strongest economy

in Canada, the lowest unemployment rate in Canada and greater

affordability for British Columbians on a range of fronts.

S. Bond: Perhaps the Minister of Environment would want to get a copy of

that briefing note before he tries to answer the question. Let’s

actually look…. That very same briefing note that was provided to the

Premier concluded this: “There is no sign” — and I repeat, no sign — “of

non-competitive or unfair business practices.” The Minister of

Environment would probably call that gouging, as would the Premier. No

sign — Premier’s briefing note.

After receiving the briefing note, here’s what the Premier got up

and said: “It’s not a tax question. It’s gouging and profits for

companies.” Well, apparently, this Premier will say just about anything

to avoid accountability.

I’m sure the Premier read his briefing note. Why did he read one

thing and tell British Columbians something entirely

different?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the tepid applause for the member’s point echoes the tepid

response of British Columbians to the opposition’s attempts to say

they’re standing up for affordability.

The members opposite are grasping. The reason why there is a

shortage of supply on occasion in British Columbia is the shortage of

refining capacity and product to refine. The pipeline will not make a

difference to that. Building refineries, perhaps in Alberta, to supply

Canada and British Columbia might make a difference to that.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will continue to take actions to address climate pollution, to

reduce our emissions and to help British Columbians make that transition

by making their lives more affordable and better, through investing in

transit, through investing in rebates for energy efficiency, through

providing charging infrastructure and rebates for clean energy vehicles,

and a range of other things that they are thanking us for on a daily

basis and thanking their lucky stars they’re not stuck with the actions

of the last 16 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I can assure you that everyone who’s paying any attention to

this discussion knows the only person grasping in this House today is

the Minister of Environment.

Let’s be clear. This Premier is fighting a pipeline that would

increase gas supply. He’s increasing gas taxes to more than 51 cents a

litre. I think it’s clear that he just needs to look in the mirror to

see who is gouging British Columbians.

Let’s quote the Premier; let’s quote his words. “The people are

fed up,” he said. When will this Premier stand up and stop gouging

British Columbians at the pumps?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps the member for Prince George–​Valemount can’t

remember the days when she stood next to Gordon Campbell to talk about

what a great idea the carbon tax was to ensure that our kids and

grandkids had a better future. Perhaps she’s forgotten that it was the

previous Premier, Christy Clark, who froze that tax and watched

emissions rise while doing nothing — nothing — to make life more

affordable for British Columbians.

In fact, the case can be made that the members opposite, when they

were in government, gouged British Columbians on a daily basis by

doubling MSP premiums, by hiking hydro rates, by driving ICBC into the

ground and by doing nothing at all to increase the climate action rebate

for low-income British Columbians or considering extending it to

middle-income British Columbians to help them when they’re dealing with

the carbon tax and attempting to make the changes in their lives that

would relieve them of the tax and relieve their children and

grandchildren of climate pollution.

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

J. Thornthwaite: The NDP is blocking the pipeline and increasing the carbon tax.

And to make matters worse, the Premier is hiking TransLink gas taxes

even higher. This year gas taxes will reach more than 51 cents a litre.

That is ridiculous. We are paying the highest gas taxes in North

America.

Will the Premier please stop this TransLink gas tax

gouging?

Hon. G. Heyman: Today really is back to the future. It’s back to the days when the

member for Kamloops–South Thompson stood in this House and defended a

referendum that did nothing to extend transit to British Columbia. It’s

a throwback to the days when the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

applauded her government for clawing back money for bus passes to the

neediest and most deserving British Columbians.

We’re taking a very, very different approach to British Columbia.

We’re helping families by investing in child care. We’re investing in a

range of initiatives to make British Columbia cleaner and make people’s

lives more affordable and more comfortable.

The members opposite can say what they want. British Columbians

know that they’re better off today. They’re better off after 20 months

of this government than 16 years of the old one.

[2:45 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The 19 extra taxes do not make British Columbia feel more

comfortable or more affordable. Under the NDP plan, the price of gas is

going up nearly 6½ cents a litre. That’s $9 every time somebody fills up

their car. It’s $18 every time somebody fills up their truck.

Will the Premier stop his tax grab?

Hon. G. Heyman: You know what makes British Columbians more comfortable? It’s

knowing that a couple with a family will no longer have to pay $1,800 a

year in Medical Services Plan premiums. It’s knowing…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …that they don’t have to face a 40 percent increase in their hydro

rates. It’s knowing that instead of raiding B.C. Hydro of their dollars

to supposedly balance their budget, and raiding ICBC, that finally they

have a government that’s got things under control instead of leaving us

in a situation to see insurance rates rise by 40 percent. Finally, what

really makes British Columbians comfortable is knowing that those

members are in opposition instead of on this side of the House making

their lives harder every single day.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 10. In

section A, the

Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: By agreement, we have agreed with the opposition that there can be

discussion on the agreement which is outside the boundaries of the

legislation. The suggestion was that we begin with some of the

discussion on the agreement, so I’ll leave it to the

opposition.

M. de Jong: Just for clarification, then, we’ve got a five-section bill before

us in Bill 10, the bulk of which is dedicated to the establishment of a

part 13 for the Income Tax Act. There will be some particular

exploration and discussion around that, but all of it relates to an

overall agreement that the government has arrived at, which has,

happily, led to a final investment decision by one of the agencies

exploring liquefied natural gas opportunities in British Columbia. I

think it is appropriate that we would have an opportunity to put the

legislation in the context of that agreement and, therefore, examine the

agreement itself.

We’ve had another experience with this in the House two and a half

years ago with respect to another agreement. I’ve just got a series of

general questions about how we’ve arrived at this point, with respect to

what I’ll call the operating performance payment agreement.

First of all, the government has posted that agreement. I’m not

sure it has been formally tabled in the assembly. We are going to be

spending a little bit of time discussing its terms. Was there any

particular reason that the…? In our previous discussion around an

agreement, the government of the day had legislation, income tax

legislation, but made a specific point of formally tabling the

agreements that it related to. I don’t think that’s happened here, and I

wonder if there’s a particular reason for that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

The existing act, as the member talked about, which defines a

particular project agreement, is not the kind of payment agreement that

we have put in place with LNG Canada. The project agreements that the

member talks about from the previous act — or the existing act, I guess,

until we go through this legislative debate — include an

indemnification. That’s really the biggest difference between the

agreement that we have in place. So therefore, it didn’t fit to bring it

forward as part of that act because it doesn’t have an

indemnification.

Nevertheless, we certainly feel that transparency is critical.

That’s why, the day that the legislation was tabled, we also made public

our agreement that was in place with LNG Canada.

M. de Jong: We’ll get to the part of the discussion that distinguishes some of

the features of what are the subject of the conversation, the agreement,

and agreements that the House has considered in the past. I don’t want

to get bogged down on that now. I think my question is fairly

straightforward.

Insofar as we are now going to have a specific conversation about

a document called the operating performance payment agreement, does the

minister think it would be a good idea…? She chose not to attach it as a

schedule to the legislation. She chose not to do that. But at a minimum,

my strong suggestion is that it would be appropriate for her to formally

table the document in the House so that when the record shows we are

referring to it, it is a document that has been formally before the

House.

Hon. C. James: I think the key is to come back to the first answer I gave, which

was related to the project agreements act that was in place under the

previous government. This agreement that we have in place around

performance payments does not, in fact, fit with the previous act. It is

not an appendix to the Income Tax Act, which is what we’re bringing in.

We’re bringing in the Income Tax Act.

It’s a public document that now is available to everyone. We

tabled it, as I said, on the day that the legislation was introduced,

and it’s available to everyone. Hence, we’re having that discussion here

in the Legislature around a document that’s readily

available.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, I’m not going to belabour the point. I suppose I

could table the document as well. It just strikes me that an agreement

of this magnitude…. We’ll come back to this in terms of the term, the

order of magnitude of the revenues, the potential revenues and the

concessions that were made to secure the agreement.

It would warrant the government of the day formally presenting the

agreement to the House. The member, and certainly some of her

colleagues, had very specific things to say. This is not about whether

it is captured by the provisions of the project development agreement

act. This agreement will have to stand or fall on its own. I would have

thought that the government would simply want to present it to the House

in that context. But as I say, I suppose it is available to me to table

the agreement. I’m surprised that the opposition would need to do

so.

[3:00 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister can talk a little bit about the process

that led to the signing off of the operating performance agreement and

how the government organized itself around the negotiations — if,

indeed, negotiation is the right term. I think it is. I don’t think

anyone has been shy about indicating that there were discussions with

proponents. But if I’m misusing that term, the minister can tell

me.

Which ministry, which minister, had and has political

responsibility and jurisdiction to guide those negotiations? Was there a

subcommittee of the cabinet that was responsible for providing

direction? How did the government organize itself around moving through

this particular negotiation that gave rise to this agreement?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I wanted to make sure that I took the time, so I could kind of

outline from now until we get here, because I think that’s where the

member will go if I give pieces of it — just to kind of run through the

timelines for the member. This approach has been a team approach but

began with the Premier himself. This approach began with the Premier’s

request for a competitive review to go on. There was previous work, as

the member will know well, done by the previous government around

competitiveness when it came to LNG.

The Premier requested that the three ministers — of Environment,

Oil and Gas, and Finance — work together with their staff. That’s where

the core started off. You could call that a subgroup, I guess, from the

Premier. But this basically was the core group of people to do that

competitiveness review — to take a look at the previous information and

work that had been done by the previous government and to take a look at

the current situation in the province and the current situation

internationally and nationally — to make sure that that work was

done.

As that work went on, that group was expanded to include Hydro and

information. Then that process continued and led to the Premier’s letter

that spoke to our conditions, which came in March. The Premier’s letter,

as the member knows well, is attached as an appendix to the agreement.

As we reach March, and you saw the Premier’s letter, that work

continued.

Then the framework went to cabinet and Treasury Board, as would be

expected, for their discussion. That continued on until we got to the

final investment decision in October. Then from October on, again,

utilizing those three ministers and those three ministry staff, the

modelling was worked on to bring us to the agreement that we have in the

legislation and that’s here today in the House.

M. de Jong: So we’ve got a subgroup, a subcommittee of cabinet, it sounds

like. Who’s the chair? Is the Premier the chair?

Hon. C. James: Ultimately, the Premier is the chair. He gave the direction to the

three ministers and their staff to do the work. So yes, ultimately, the

Premier is the chair.

M. de Jong: Does it follow, therefore, that as the government moved beyond the

internal determination of frameworks and policy choices that would guide

its engagement with the proponent…? Which ministry took the lead in

engaging with the proponent to negotiate the actual terms that we see in

the agreement?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, it was a team approach as we continued to work as

a subgroup, but Finance led the negotiations.

M. de Jong: The minister has referred to Treasury Board involvement. I’m not

sure if she was referring to Treasury Board involvement in the internal

development of a framework negotiating mandate or she was referring to

treasury review and approval of the agreement, or both. I guess that’s

my question — if the minister can describe the nature of the Treasury

Board involvement in this matter.

Hon. C. James: That’s correct. It was approval — review and approval, after the

agreement was put in place, went to Treasury Board.

M. de Jong: Sorry. I don’t think I understood the minister. I thought I heard

her say: “After the agreement was put in place, Treasury Board

approval.” I’m not sure I understand which agreement the minister is

referring to.

I’m not meaning to stretch this out needlessly. My thought would

have been, or my suspicion would have been that, in developing an

internal negotiating mandate, the minister, as the minister responsible

for the ministry leading the engagement with the proponent, would have

secured from Treasury Board and, ultimately, cabinet, a mandate for

engagement. And then, when the result of that work was completed and a

draft operating performance payment agreement had been arrived at, at

the table, that she would have returned to Treasury Board and cabinet

for sign-off prior to the parties signing the agreement.

If that is not the sequencing of events, I’m interested to hear

what they are.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important, again, just to go back to the timeline

that I started with, which was kind of leading to the Premier’s letter

in March 2018, which, again, is part of the agreement, and then leading

forward to the FID, the final investment decision, that occurred in

October.

As I mentioned, the Premier kicked this off with the request to

look at a competitive review process. It was then determined that the

three ministries and their staff would get that done. Finance led, as I

discussed. So all along the way, from the time the Premier gave that

direction through to the Premier’s March letter, the briefing was

occurring as we were going on.

This wasn’t a “let’s wait until something is done” or “let’s wait

until we’ve got a final piece in place.” I received, in my role as chair

of Treasury Board, ongoing briefings sometimes every couple weeks,

sometimes monthly, depending where the discussions were going. That was

then reported out, obviously, to Treasury Board as part of my role but

also reported out to cabinet. Cabinet also had updates as we were going

along through this process, which then led, as I said, to the letter

that the Premier released in March of 2018.

So processes along the way — for myself as chair of Treasury

Board, obviously the three ministers who were involved and obviously the

ministers of cabinet as we went along.

M. de Jong: I think I appreciate that there would have been ongoing

engagement. I also think my question is more specific, and I have

expressed it clumsily.

The agreement — operating performance payment agreement — that

contains a variety of aspects and covers a variety of topics was, as I

understand it, the final piece of the puzzle, as it were. My question is

whether, prior to execution, that document was presented to and approved

by Treasury Board and cabinet.

Hon. C. James: Yes, the contents of the agreement were discussed with both

cabinet and myself, as TB chair, as we went along the

process.

M. de Jong: I don’t mean to quibble, but I thought I detected the minister

perhaps choosing her words carefully, or perhaps not — not that she

wouldn’t choose her words carefully and be entitled to. But she has

advised the committee that the contents of the agreement were presented

to those two bodies.

[3:20 p.m.]

My question is a very specific one. Was the draft agreement — in

the form that we now have, now that it has been executed and made public

— in its entirety, prior to execution, considered and approved by

Treasury Board and cabinet?

Hon. C. James: Yes, before the agreement was signed off, the entire agreement was

reviewed in detail by priorities and accountability, a committee of

cabinet. It was then taken and briefed to cabinet, discussed to cabinet

and, obviously, also discussed and gone through in detail with myself as

Treasury Board chair.

M. de Jong: Thanks. That’s helpful. It sounds, therefore, though, that

Treasury Board itself did not consider the final draft agreement prior

to execution. The chair of Treasury Board clearly did, but from the

minister’s answer, it appears that Treasury Board itself did not

consider or discuss and provide a recommendation around the final draft

agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: As Treasury Board chair, I received the briefings, received the

updates and certainly reported to Treasury Board. And as the member

knows well, the members from cabinet who sit on Treasury Board are also

part of cabinet. So that’s correct. The member is correct. It did not go

directly to the full Treasury Board. It came through myself as chair,

and it came through cabinet as well.

M. de Jong: I’m recalling my time in the hot seat that the member now

occupies.

[3:25 p.m.]

Is that because it was deemed a minor item? I’m trying to recall.

Agreements of a certain magnitude that involved longer-term obligations

for government and for which there were fiscal consequences and revenue

implications, positive — we hope mostly positive here — but at some

times negative, would generally have received consideration by the full

Treasury Board, except in instances where something was deemed a minor

item. I’d find it hard to believe that that would be the case here, but

was this deemed a minor item?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows well — he has spent more time in this position

— the issues that come to the chair of Treasury Board are often ongoing

issues, issues that aren’t brand-new, that have continued to be

discussed. This certainly, from the time we came into government and the

time the Premier gave the direction to take a look at the

competitiveness, was an issue that was constantly discussed, reported at

Treasury Board, reported to cabinet, discussed at cabinet.

This did come forward to me as chair of Treasury Board because of

that, because it was one of those issues that was ongoing and because it

was also, as I said, a discussion and a direction given at

cabinet.

M. de Jong: Again, my purpose is not to unnecessarily delay the examination.

I’m a little bit surprised, though, again based on my own recollection

of procedures.

In circumstances where significant revenues are at stake, the

deferral of tax in excess of a half-billion dollars and a unique

arrangement for the collection of that revenue, coupled with all of the

other implications that we will get to — again, we hope more positive

than negative — I guess it begs asking the question: what is the

criteria? Or is there criteria?

Or have the government and the minister, in concert with the

Premier, determined that it will be for the Minister of Finance to

determine on her own which items must be scrutinized by the full

Treasury Board and which items she can deal with individually and

unilaterally as the chair of the Treasury Board?

To be clear, there are certainly instances that I am aware of in

the past where the Treasury Board has not been obliged or the full

Treasury Board has not been asked to review an agreement or an approach

in its entirety. I must confess I’m a little taken aback that on what

the government itself has described as the single most significant

private sector investment and agreement with the Crown, in this

instance, the agreement did not receive consideration by the full

Treasury Board.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll again remind the member that, as chair of Treasury Board, it

is my responsibility to ensure that the issues that I’m dealing with

have a clear mandate. I had a clear mandate from both the Premier and

from cabinet — and from my colleagues at Treasury Board — in continuing

those discussions.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

The members of Treasury Board — as you will talk to our members of

Treasury Board — meet frequently. This is not an issue of anybody acting

unilaterally. This is an issue of bringing forward things, as the member

knows well, that had gone through the Premier, had gone through cabinet

and had been reported out.

We had a very clear mandate. We went off, as we needed to, to

begin those discussions. We reported back on a regular basis, as I

mentioned — weekly, sometimes biweekly, monthly — depending on how the

discussions were going, which came to the public documents we

see.

M. de Jong: When was the agreement signed?

Hon. C. James: March 25.

M. de Jong: I saw the date on the agreement. The signature blocks were not

dated, so I wasn’t sure if the date on the agreement was different. The

minister is saying that the date of the agreement reflects the date that

the signatures were affixed to it.

On that point, I noticed that the contracting party in the

operating payments agreement, LNG Canada, is the agent for Shell Canada,

North Montney LNG Limited Partnership, PetroChina Kitimat LNG

Partnership, Diamond LNG Canada Partnership and KOGAS Canada Ltd. At

page 20, there is a single signature attached, one Mr. Calitz, CEO of

LNG Canada. There are three signatures representing the Crown. Why is

that?

Hon. C. James: The three ministers signed off, as all three ministers have

responsibilities for different parts of this agreement. Obviously, the

PST fits with Finance, the hydro rates and the issues fit with the

Ministry of Energy, and the environmental program that’s coming in place

fits with the Ministry of Environment. So all three ministers who have

responsibility for pieces of this agreement signed on. For LNG Canada,

they act as the agent, so they have the authority to sign one

signature.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Is it the minister’s advice to the committee that there is,

therefore, a legal requirement that the Crown be represented by all

three ministries? Or, for the purpose of concluding a binding and

enforceable agreement, could a single minister have bound the

Crown?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it is a legal requirement, because those ministers have the

legal responsibility to carry out the issues that are identified in this

agreement. Therefore, it’s a legal requirement to have the three

ministers responsible for those pieces sign the agreement.

M. de Jong: To be clear, there are components of the agree­ment we’re

considering for which each of the three ministers — the Minister of

Finance, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — all have specific

responsibilities, and the advice the minister received is that it was,

therefore, a legal requirement that they be signatories to the

agreement.

Hon. C. James: Yes. The advice we got was that the re­quire­ment for

each individual minister was to be responsible for their acts and the

actions that they could take under their acts. That’s why you see three

signatures here, because those relate to the three areas. As I mentioned

earlier, the PST, the Hydro changes and the CleanBC program around

energy-intensive industries require three signatures.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. I guess the obvious question is: having regard,

then, for what the minister has advised the committee, will the Minister

of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines be available to

answer questions relating to the agreement during these

proceedings?

Hon. C. James: No, I’ll be discussing it, because this is a piece of legislation

which is, obviously, Finance. It’s a tax piece of legislation. We’ve

agreed, during this discussion, to open it up to discussions around the

agreement, but I’ll be taking those questions.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister is experienced enough to know that I wouldn’t

want to take a moment to pause and reflect upon what she has just said.

The committee has just been advised that there is a particular legal

requirement that flows from specific ministerial responsibilities and

that led to her two colleagues signing on to this agreement.

[3:40 p.m.]

She was very specific. There are specific ministerial and

statutory responsibilities that drew them in as signatories on behalf of

the Crown. The agreement is now before the House, and the minister has

pointed out her consent to that, for which I am grateful. I must say I

am of the view that it should not have been necessary to rely on

procedural benevolence — that the magnitude of importance attached to

this…. But the minister has….

I just want to be clear. Having told the committee that there are

ministers of the Crown who have signed on to the agreement because they

are legally obliged to do so and because they have specific legal

responsibilities, she has said that the committee will not have an

opportunity to question those ministers about the discharge of those

responsibilities. I cannot believe that the minister is comfortable with

that position, but I will give her an opportunity to consider it,

reconsider it or restate it.

Hon. C. James: I certainly expect that the members will have many questions as

they go through estimates and individual ministers, including the

ministers who are signatory here — many questions for ministers on all

of their duties, including the duties on this agreement. The agreement

is here for information, for questions, for discussion, but the

agreement is signed and final. As lead of the ministries that were

involved, I have been assigned to do the questions and to be able to

respond to the questions on the agreement.

Because this is linked, again, to the legislation, which is what

we’re here to debate, as Minister of Finance responsible for the

legislation, I’ll be answering the questions. But as the member knows

well, and as I certainly expect, there will be many questions about the

specific programs that may be listed here under each of the ministers’

responsibilities, many opportunities and many chances for the member and

for other members to ask those questions.

M. de Jong: I’m going to press the point just a little bit and, in so doing,

am cognizant of the fact that the minister is a senior minister within

the cabinet. In fact, she is the Deputy Premier.

What I think she has just told the committee is the equivalent of

providing an undertaking that…. Despite the fact that the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Energy will not be made available to

answer questions about their involvement in the agreement we are

discussing, she has undertaken to ensure that when the opportunity

presents itself in the ministerial estimates, members will have an

opportunity to pose questions, and those questions will be answered to

the best of the ministers’ ability. The Committee of Supply will not be

told by either of those two ministers that that was a matter considered

at another time and answered by the Finance Minister.

I am asking the minister to be very specific and provide the House

that assurance that her colleagues will answer the questions that, quite

frankly, they should be prepared to answer as part of this proceeding

but have been directed or are choosing not to.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member has been in this place longer than I have and knows

well that ministers have areas of responsibility, and when it’s

estimates, it’s an opportunity to ask questions. CleanBC is one of the

Minister of Environment’s main program areas. He will be answering

questions during estimates on CleanBC. The Minister of Energy and Mines

has responsibility for Hydro. The minister will answer questions on B.C.

Hydro during the estimates. That is an expectation for, I’m sure,

members of the opposition, but members here on the government side as

well — that you will speak to issues that are related to your

portfolio.

M. de Jong: I’m not sure that’s quite good enough. The assurance I am seeking

from the Minister of Finance is that her colleagues, the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Energy, will answer questions pertaining

to their areas of responsibility with respect to this operating

agreement.

Yes, we all know what their general areas of responsibility are,

but I am seeking, on behalf of the committee, assurance that they will

be answering questions. Apparently, they are declining to do so now,

when we consider the agreement. Will they be answering questions about

their areas of responsibility in this agreement during their ministerial

estimates?

Hon. C. James: No one is declining questions, just to be clear with the member.

We are discussing a finance bill, a piece of legislation here in the

Legislature. We have agreed with the member to bring forward the

agreement, to ask some questions on the agreement, even though it’s

outside the legislation — to be able to ask some questions around the

agreement. I am Minister of Finance, and I’m here with my legislation.

That’s why I’m here dealing with these questions.

Again, I will say to the member that B.C. Hydro is the

responsibility of the Minister of Energy and Mines, and obviously, PST

issues related to BC Hydro will be discussed, I’m sure. If questions are

raised, I’m certain that the CleanBC program, which obviously includes

the energy intensive program that is being developed by the Ministry of

Environment…. I’m certain there will be questions coming forward from

the members. I am certain there will be a good discussion and good

debate.

M. de Jong: What I’m hearing from the minister is that, if members of the

House and the committee wish to pose questions to the Ministers of

Environment and Energy on the agreement, they should do so during the

estimates process. If I am correct, we can move on.

Hon. C. James: Correct.

M. de Jong: This is perhaps a bit of a technical thing. I wonder if I could

send a document over to the minister. It’s included as one of the

schedules in the agreement. It’s

schedule C. It’s the OIC. Does the

minister have it? Yeah. I wasn’t sure the minister would have it. It’s

part of the agreement, so I’m sure she had it, anyway, so she can

compare it.

I notice that there’s a fourth signature attached, which isn’t

necessarily unusual, because, of course, any member of the executive

council can sign OICs. But my recollection is that it was necessary to

correctly identify the signatory. When I compare the signature on OIC

512, dated October 2, 2018, purporting to be of the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, with the signature on the actual

agreement, they look very different.

Did the Minister of Energy and Mines actually sign OIC

512?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the minister whose signature is on the OIC is the backup

minister for the Ministry of Energy and Mines and was filling in,

obviously, that day when this was signed.

M. de Jong: The Minister of Jobs, the minister is advising the committee, is

the designated secondary minister for the Minister of Mines? I think the

minister is indicating that’s so.

Hon. C. James: During that time period, yes. Correct.

M. de Jong: Let’s go to one of the themes that we were hoping to canvass

during the course of this conversation and this discussion. In doing so,

I’ll send another document, so we don’t have to waste a lot of time,

over to the Finance Minister. This relates to some discussions that took

place with respect to another LNG agreement.

They’re comments from the now Minister of Finance. She wasn’t the

Minister of Finance at the time. She said this. This is from July 13,

2015: “…it seems to me that it would be even more important for a

Premier, if they were really looking out for British Columbia, to make

sure that there were jobs for British Columbians written into this

agreement. But no. There are no apprenticeship quotas, there are no

training quotas, and there are no job numbers that are in

there.”

Then a little bit further down, she talks about the Australian

project development agreements: “…specifically require the use of local

labour — very specific — they also actually require the use of

professional services and local materials. Australia actually includes a

buy-local policy in their project development agreements. They say: ‘If

you’re going to come in and utilize a resource that belongs to all of

British Columbia, you better make sure that British Columbians are the

ones who benefit from it.’”

Does the minister agree that those are comments that she made

during the course of that debate?

Hon. C. James: The member knows; he’s reading Hansard . So that’s very

clear from the record. I think making sure that there are jobs for

British Columbians is critical. Certainly, in the previous agreement

that came forward, there was a lot of discussion about the use of

temporary foreign workers. There was a lot of discussion about that

concern, and yes, I think that’s critical and important.

It’s part of the reason that I’m so pleased at the work we did

with LNG Canada around looking at jobs, around making sure that there

was a locals-first agreement, making sure that there were agreements

signed with First Nations and making sure that, in fact, there have been

commitments already occurred around support for individuals going

through the training that will be necessary for these projects. I think

that’s critical.

A commitment of apprentices on site, again, is a piece that is not

only in place with LNG Canada, but they’ve also required it

contractually of one of their contractors, which, again, I think is a

very important signal. They’ve started a trades-training fund, which,

again, will provide support.

Do I believe that jobs are critical and important? Yes, and I

believe that the work was an important part of our four conditions that

we put in place around moving ahead with any kind of project on

LNG.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, let’s just pause for a moment. The criticism the then

member, now minister, had was a little more specific than that. It

strikes me that the relevant portion of her criticism was her demand and

her critique — wanting to see guarantees around jobs for British

Columbians “written into this agreement.” What did she mean by that,

when she said “written into this agreement”?

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve answered the member’s question. I felt it was

important to look at the kinds of supports for local jobs, and I feel

that the work we’ve done with LNG Canada has shown that — through their

locals-first policy, through their requirement that a contractor will

also look at local first, through their commitment to apprentices. Those

commitments are critical to the agreement that we have in

place.

M. de Jong: Let me suggest that what the minister was demanding previously —

and I’ll come to her colleagues in a moment because she was by no means

alone in laying out this prerequisite for support — was a demand that

there be specific guarantees around hiring and procurement in the

agreement between the proponent and the Crown. Let me start

there.

Was the minister, two and a half years ago…? Am I correct in

saying that the minister, two and a half years ago, was demanding the

presence of those provisions, those guarantees, in the agreement between

the Crown and the project proponent?

Hon. C. James: Again, I can read again from the specifics that LNG Canada has put

together, but yes, I believe it’s critical and important that we have a

recognition of the jobs that need to be provided, certainly jobs for

British Columbia.

The local-first provision that is there, including with the

contractor, is critical, from my perspective. The agreements around

apprenticeship targets is critical from my perspective. I certainly feel

more comfortable with this agreement than I did with the discussion we

were having in 2015 — and the fact that there are commitments in place

with the training fund, to already people through that process,

including the example of the people that have already been to work in

Kitimat in the month of December alone has shown that that provision has

been carried out.

M. de Jong: I must confess that I’m a little bit confused, because the

minister continuously refers to the agreement, and maybe I’ve missed

something. Can the minister point the committee to the provisions of an

agreement between the Crown and LNG Canada that speaks to guarantees

around local hiring and procurement? I’ll say that again. Can the

minister point the committee to specific provisions in the agreement,

any agreement, between the Crown and LNG Canada that relate to specific

hiring and local procurement requirements?

Hon. C. James: I think, as the member knows, this is not a project development

agreement. That’s not the process we used. We sat down. We had

negotiations with LNG Canada. We put on the table our four conditions,

and we looked at how we could best meet those four

conditions.

[4:00 p.m.]

With the employment plan — outlined, as the member knows, in the

letter from LNG Canada, which is public, again — it’s very clear. They

have a locals-first hiring policy. They have an apprenticeship

percentage policy. They have a training program in place, and they have

contracts in place with existing First Nations as well. Certainly, from

my perspective, it was the goal that we went to negotiations with and a

goal that I am very pleased with.

M. de Jong: A couple seats down from the minister sits the now Minister of

Jobs, the then member for Surrey-Whalley — he’s still the member for

Surrey-Whalley, but he’s also the Minister of Jobs — who spent

considerable time critiquing the previous arrangement, particularly the

government of the day’s willingness to “simply just trust the proponent

and take them at their word. That’s, I suppose, an interesting point of

view” but certainly not what others have done.

Look, let’s not be cute about this. The minister and her

colleagues went to great pains to criticize an arrangement, an agreement

that, on the one hand, provided access to a British Columbia resource

and in the body of that agreement was silent on the issue of local

hiring and procurement, notwithstanding the fact that there were other

ancillary documents of the sort that the minister has referred

to.

Surely she’s not going to stand in the House today and suggest

that the test she laid out 2½ years ago has been met. The test she laid

out, her and her colleagues, 2½ years ago was that there must be, in

exchange for coming to an agreement that granted access to and

concessions around the development of an LNG sector…. If the minister

wants to take me to task for using the word “concessions,” we’ll have a

lengthy conversation. The previous agreement contained concessions, and

so does this one — in fact, arguably, slightly more.

She was very specific, as were her colleagues and the now Premier.

They expected, at that time, to see ironclad guarantees written into a

bilateral agreement with the proponent. I’m simply asking the minister

to confirm today that that does not exist. Whatever she wants to call

the agreement, the government did not secure that.

She’s smart enough to know that my criticism in that regard will

be tempered by the fact that I have some appreciation for the

difficulties associated with securing those kinds of commitments. But

that’s not the standard she set 2½ years ago.

I would like her to be forthright with the committee and

acknowledge that the kinds of guarantees around jobs and local

procurement that she demanded when she was a member of the opposition do

not exist with respect to this agreement with LNG Canada.

Hon. C. James: I believe I’ve answered this question, but once again, these were

negotiations. We did not, in fact, go down the road, as the previous

government did, to look at a project development agreement. We looked at

a very different process, a very different kind of agreement, including

negotiating our four conditions and ensuring that those pieces were in

place.

From the discussions and the negotiations that occurred with LNG

Canada, yes, I feel that the important role that the company will play

in making sure that we look at local hire, that we provide support for

Indigenous workers, that we ensure that there are apprentices on the job

and that we provide those supports in place…. Yes, I am comfortable with

the assurances that have been given to us by LNG Canada in their

employment plan.

M. de Jong: I celebrate the minister’s comfort. What happens if they

don’t?

Hon. C. James: I am an optimist, and I believe that the company is going to

continue to carry that out. If you look at the existing agreements that

are in place, I believe that there are opportunities here for people in

British Columbia. In fact, I believe that’s part of the reason we put

the four conditions in place — to be very clear about the important role

that local companies would provide when it came to local

jobs.

[4:05 p.m.]

The fact is that we have seen that occur already in the number of

people working in Kitimat, that we have seen that occur in their

commitment to both the number of apprentices on the job and a

local-hire-first policy. That’s in place.

I expect if the four conditions need to be met, that’s our

requirement as government.

M. de Jong: To be fair to the minister, I just want to make sure that…. I

think what I heard her say is that there is no remedial action if, for

whatever reason, the proponent…. And who knows? There are assignment

rights in this agreement. It might not be LNG Canada. I’m pleased, truly

pleased, that the minister has established a rapport and a level of

confidence with those who are presently in charge of LNG Canada. I

suppose we have to acknowledge that two or three or five or ten years

down the road, it may be a very different group of people or a different

corporate presence.

The minister has said to the committee…. In response to the

invitation to provide specific contractual evidence, her response is: “I

don’t have that, but I think they’re good people, and I trust them.” I

mean, I don’t want to make light of it or misstate it, but that’s

essentially what I heard. Is that the argument the minister is bringing

to the committee today?

Hon. C. James: I think the member knows the response. I’ve been very clear about

the response. I’ve been very clear about the four conditions and the

need for the company to meet those four conditions. I think the fact

that we brought those four conditions to the table…. We had very good

debate. We had very good discussion. We had some tough

negotiations.

Those four conditions led to a final investment decision, which

will bring jobs to British Columbia; which will provide jobs for British

Columbians; which will, in the employment plan that’s laid out from LNG,

provide local first; which will provide First Nations hiring; which will

provide apprenticeship and trades. From my perspective, the benefits to

British Columbians are very clear in a final investment decision made

because of the conditions that we put forward.

M. de Jong: I think what I’m asking the minister to do is enunciate in greater

detail, then, the enforcement mechanism that the government is relying

upon to ensure that its conditions — and that’s the word that she uses —

are abided by. I’m still unclear on specifically what those conditions

are.

The minister and her colleagues were demanding, as recently as 2½

years ago in this chamber, specific guarantees around local hire,

specific guarantees around the use of local professional services,

contractual guarantees around local procurement.

I have asked her to convey to the committee and point us to those

contractual guarantees. She has not done so. I think she’s not done so

because they don’t exist. Instead, she has referred back to conditions.

But I’m asking…. They’re hardly conditions of note if there is no

enforcement mechanism available of the sort that generally exists in

contractual instruments.

[4:10 p.m.]

The minister can curtail this, truncate this part of the

conversation with the committee simply by saying: “Well, here are the

remedial steps that are available to the government if these fine folks

at LNG Canada don’t fulfil the conditions or don’t fulfil the

obligations or what they’ve told us they would like to do or intend to

do.” I’m all ears if the minister can point to those remedial

steps.

Hon. C. James: The member talks about negotiations. I think it’s important to

recognize that we are talking about a final investment decision that has

already been made and, in fact, provides us with an opportunity to take

a look at the track record that is there from companies, many of them

that have been involved in working in British Columbia.

In fact, if we take a look at the contracts that are in place

already before we look at the further building or the running of the

plant, you’re looking at $600 million in contracts already along the

pipeline route with First Nations. You are looking at over $500 million

in place already invested in B.C. businesses.

The member used my language. But do I feel confident about the

agreement that has been put in place with LNG Canada? Yes, I do. I

wouldn’t be standing here otherwise if I didn’t feel that it was going

to contribute to British Columbia and to meet our four conditions. The

member brushes the conditions aside. But in fact, as the member will

know, these were conditions we had in place.

Clearly, as we ran in the election, we brought them to the public

of British Columbia. We presented them to the public of British Columbia

during that election process to look at how we could ensure, for British

Columbians, a fair share; how we could ensure jobs for people in B.C.;

how we could ensure true partnerships for First Nations; and how we

could protect our air, land and water. In fact, that is the agreement

that we see in front of us — an agreement to, in fact, meet those

conditions.

I talked about the employment plan that’s in place for LNG Canada,

a Fair Share. We will get into the legislation as we go on. A

partnership for First Nations — the vast majority of elected bands along

the route have already signed on and are prepared and eager and already

taking

part in contracts with LNG Canada.

Again, CleanBC requires that the greenhouse gas emissions from

this LNG project have to be part of our reduction. That will require

some hard work on all our behalves. We recognize that. Do I feel

confident about this, and have I seen on a track record that this work

is already being carried out? Yes, I have.

M. de Jong: All gratifying and, to a certain extent, reassuring, I suppose.

But the question was: what mechanism, if any, exists for the government

to ensure that the government’s expectations around local hiring and

procurement are adhered to?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s the ongoing relationship that we have with LNG Canada around

the commitment here. LNG Canada knows very well that in order to be

successful in this project, they will be required to have a good

partnership with the local communities, a good partnership with workers.

They will need the people to be able to build this plant, and that’s the

kind of commitment that they’ve made.

M. de Jong: What are the government’s and the minister’s expectations around

the labour component of this project, the B.C. versus non-B.C. labour

component of this particular project?

Hon. C. James: As I talked about earlier, the discussions, the negotiations, the

tough conversations — the tough negotiations, in many cases — occurred.

As I think the member knows, and as I’ve talked about over this last

while, the letter outlines, in fact, the expectations that we

have.

M. de Jong: Perhaps more important than the expectations that the government

has, though, is what, if anything, they have received from the proponent

confirming their intention to meet those expectations. Do they have a…?

Apparently there is nothing contractual.

I think we’ve established that the minister is relying on the good

intentions of the proponent. There is no enforcement mechanism that has

been included in any form of agreement. She has pointed, to be fair, to

unilateral declarations by LNG Canada around their intentions, but has

she secured from LNG Canada a specific letter of commitment, perhaps, on

these matters?

Hon. C. James: This was made public. It’s up on the website, a letter from LNG

Canada which states the kind of discussion that I’ve already talked

about, which was around the local-first hiring, around the commitment to

also hold their contractors to that, the commitment around

apprenticeships and the commitments around investments they’ve already

made.

M. de Jong: Again, to be clear, no enforcement mechanism is available to the

minister if the corporate approach to any of those questions were to

change.

Hon. C. James: I believe the enforcement is a successful project, and I believe

the commitment is there for a successful project from the communities

and from the company. In order to have a successful project, we’re going

to need to ensure that we have the local community engaged, involved and

working in this company.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s a nice segue into something I touched on a moment

ago. That is that I think British Columbians, and certainly the

committee, will be interested to know whether or not, as part of the

forecasting exercise that undoubtedly has been undertaken by the

minister and by the government, they have made any determinations around

their expectations on the use of B.C. versus non-B.C. labour. Has any

forecasting taken place, and is the minister prepared to share that

forecasting now?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that’s important, again, in the employment

plan from LNG Canada is the “local first.” As I said, that’s not simply

a local first hiring policy for LNG Canada; it’s also their contractor,

who is bound, and includes…. As they say in their plan, qualified

Indigenous, local community and British Columbia workers will be

employed first. Certainly, our assumptions are very consistent with the

numbers that LNG has put forward around thousands of jobs for British

Columbians. We certainly, as I said, believe, when we look at those

assumptions, that they are consistent.

M. de Jong: Just to put on the record, then…. During the construction phase,

would the minister restate her government’s assumptions about the

employment, the number of jobs being created.

Hon. C. James: The numbers that have been released are 10,000 jobs during the

construction phase and 1,000 permanent jobs.

M. de Jong: Going back, then, to the answer just previous, which was

delightful and helpful, but singularly unassociated with the question I

asked. The question I asked was whether or not the government has

prepared and has forecasts and assumptions around…. If we take that

10,000 job figure, how many represent jobs for British Columbia workers

versus jobs for non–British Columbia residents? Has the government

endeavoured to forecast, and does it have forecasts around

that?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the important piece to remember — and I know the member

will know this — is that the 10,000 jobs during construction don’t come

all at once. They obviously phase in as the project ramps up, and 2021

is peak construction time for the project.

Again, as the company has said and as we’ve said as British

Columbians, if the people are there, they will be hired. These will be

individuals in jobs that they need to fill. We believe that that will

create thousands of jobs for British Columbians, and we are committed to

also doing our

part in providing support to ensure that the training and

the opportunities are there, in partnership, as I said, with LNG Canada,

which has already put in their training fund to get people working and

to get people ready for the job. I think, again, if you take a look at

the employees who’ve been in place in Kitimat in the month of December,

it shows that there are good opportunities for B.C.

M. de Jong: Does the minister, the ministry or the government have a forecast

or an assumption around the percentage of employment that will accrue to

British Columbians versus non–British Columbians over the course of the

construction of this project?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, there is forecasting done, obviously, as the member knows

well. Forecasting is done for all economic activity that occurs in

British Columbia. This is obviously one project. There are a number of

projects, as the member will know — a number of our large transit

projects that are going to occur in the Lower Mainland as

well.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There is a great deal of economic activity going on in the

province right now. So yes, we have done our forecasting, taking a look

at all economic activity in British Columbia and taking a look at our

workforce. We certainly believe that this project is going to bring

thousands of jobs to British Columbians.

M. de Jong: The minister seems hesitant to actually answer the question. She

will not encounter a dispute from this side of the House that this

project, a project of this magnitude, is going to generate thousands of

jobs and opportunity. I hope she understands that and realizes

that.

She and her colleagues have had some very specific things to say

in the past about how those employment opportunities will accrue to

British Columbians. We’ve already established that some of the

mechanisms that, in a previous role, she would have insisted upon do

not, today, exist.

What I have asked her, and what I think it is legitimate to ask,

having identified the estimate of 10,000 jobs during the construction

phase, is whether or not she and the government have forecasted what

percentage of those jobs will be filled by British Columbians versus

non–British Columbians. I think she’s done the work. In fact, I know she

has. This is her chance to stand up and candidly say to the House:

“We’ve done that forecasting work, and we believe the jobs will be…. It

is a forecast. It is an estimate. It’s not a science. I understand that.

But here’s what we think it is.”

I don’t know why she is reluctant to do that, but if she doesn’t,

I’ll do it for her. But here’s her opportunity to lay out the

information and the work that she and the government and the ministry

have done.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Again, as I talked about, it’s certainly not an exact science when

we take a look at forecasting and when we take a look at assumptions.

But there is an assumption, obviously, on LNG projects. This has been

something that’s been discussed for a number of years — I think, as the

Premier says, going back to the ’80s — when we take a look at LNG

projects.

The assumption for LNG projects, not for this specific project but

for LNG projects, is that well over half of the jobs that are being

proposed would be British Columbia jobs. So that would be, if you’re

taking a look at the numbers, well over half of those numbers. But I

think, as LNG Canada has said and as we have certainly committed to,

local first is the critical piece, and that means making sure that

people are trained and that we have the workers here in British

Columbia. And that’s what we believe will occur through this

project.

M. de Jong: So that the minister and I are both referring to the same thing,

I’m going to send over a document that we received earlier today from

the ministry entitled “Key Assumptions — Generic LNG Projects.” I

apologize. It’s a bit marked up, because I photocopied it after I did

some work.

The second line from the bottom refers to employment assumptions.

I should maybe, perhaps, set the document, to the best I can, in some

kind of context. It’s from the ministry, so probably the minister can do

a better job than I. But it’s the assumptions that have given rise, I

take it, to all of the statements the government has made about

anticipated revenues and anticipated…. Everything is a product of these

assumptions in terms of capital, planned capital and availability and

cost of natural gas.

The one I’m asking about is the second from the bottom, where it

talks about B.C. employment assumptions. Could the minister relate to

the committee what her ministry’s assumptions are about B.C.

employment?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: What the member is referring to, just for those people who are

listening and may want to know the information that’s here…. As I talked

about in the last question, these are looking at assumptions for generic

LNG projects — so the kinds of revenue expectations that government can

be looking at, the kinds of areas that government may get revenue from

when it comes to LNG.

The member is referring to the second-to-last line, which talks

about the employment and references, as I just talked about, the 55

percent. Forty-five percent is low end, but 55 percent is the end, on

average, that is the assumption for a generic project.

I think the member is also going to refer, I expect, to a revenue

number which looks at a lower end of 35 percent. The reason you’re

looking at a lower end is to ensure that we are very conservative when

we build the budget. I think we had this discussion with the critics

during the estimates debate last year, when we talked about what you

build into the budget and what you don’t build into the budget when it

comes to projects coming forward.

We are very, and I am very, conservative when it comes to what

gets built into the project. We want to ensure that those conservative

numbers are included when it comes to revenue, because as I mentioned to

the member, this is a ramp-up process. This isn’t jobs that are there

all at once, and you need to make sure that our estimates that we build

into the budget are recognizing that and acknowledging that.

M. de Jong: Well, then, to review and to be clear, the minister has referred

to the employment-related assumption. To be clear, the government is

operating on the assumption that, with respect to a generic LNG project,

which presumably includes the type that we are looking at now, 55

percent of the labour related to that project will be from British

Columbians and 45 percent will be from non–British Columbians. Is that

correct?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just as I said in the couple of previous questions, the

expectation for a generic LNG project is 55 percent. But, again, if

we’re taking a look at training, at the support that’s being put in

place, at the local-first, at the conditions that have been agreed to by

LNG, I certainly expect that you’re looking at very strong numbers and

thousands of jobs for British Columbians.

M. de Jong: I’m a bit confused. Is the minister saying that she believes, for

this project, that the government assumption is not applicable and that

the number of British Columbians employed will be higher?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows well, having been in this position, I think it

is important to ensure, when you’re taking a look at revenue, in

particular, for the budget, that you are cautious in putting in

estimates and that you strive and encourage those numbers to grow.

That’s certainly, from my perspective, the expectation that I have, that

we have put in an average, generic LNG project. But I believe that with

the work that LNG Canada is doing, with the work we’ll do as government,

you will, in fact, see a larger number than that.

M. de Jong: That may be so, and one hopes, but I’m advised that the number

that the minister and the government received from LNG Canada is, in

fact, lower. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. James: The estimate that is listed here is the estimate that we expect

for our numbers and our assumptions.

M. de Jong: That’s understood. My question, though, relates to the…. This is

all, apparently, built around a remarkably happy, trusting relationship.

My question is specific, and I won’t be cute about it.

The government is projecting, the minister is projecting, 55

percent of the labour to be British Columbians and 45 to be non–British

Columbians on an average, generic project. My information and advice is

that LNG Canada provided different numbers and that those numbers are 35

percent British Columbia labour and 65 percent. The minister has got a

photocopy of my notes, so she can see where I’ve made the scrawl. Is

that correct?

Hon. C. James: I think what the member is referring to is the number that I

talked about a couple of questions ago, which was an estimate for

revenues. So in discussions and in our estimating revenues and the

revenues that would be coming into government, we worked with LNG around

that. We were very specific, as I mentioned earlier, and very

conservative — specifically conservative — in estimating revenues. So

that’s the number that the member, I’m guessing, is referring

to.

[4:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, I said the number I’m referring to, and it’s 35 percent

British Columbians versus 65 percent non–British Columbians.

Two things flow from what the minister has said. The first is that

she appears now to be saying that for the purpose of estimating

revenues, she is not relying on the 55-45 forecast; she is relying upon

35-65 and describes that as prudence. But I go one step further. I say

that that number is not simply the product of ministerial prudence, with

which I am somewhat acquainted, but also the product of advice that she

and the government have received from LNG Canada. Am I

correct?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’ll come back to the discussion that we’ve already had,

which was…. In taking a look at revenues, in taking a look at the work

we were doing together with LNG — the member is quite right that these

are numbers that we worked on together with LNG — and in looking at our

assumptions, we were very conservative in our estimates. I think that’s

important.

As this project gets off the ground, as we continue to see

economic indicators each year…. You obviously continue to look at the

indicators that are there. LNG Canada’s letter makes it very clear in

their employment plan that their strategy — a strategy that we

negotiated with them and that we agree with, which is local first, which

is ensuring that there’s support for Indigenous workers, to ensure that

there are apprenticeships….

For the estimates around looking at what would be built into the

budget for the project, yes, we were conservative, becau