British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, July 15, 2015

20150715pm-Hansard-v28n1

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 28, Number 1

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant ...................................................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr.

Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................................................Vacant Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 33; Independent 3; Vacant 1

CONTENTS Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 8991 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 8993 SUCCESS organization and Walk with the Dragon fundraiser R. Lee Nepal earthquake relief work for Dalit community S. Hammell Country music festivals in Merritt J.

Tegart HeroWork renovation of Greater Victoria Citizens Counselling Centre R. Fleming Cycling opportunities in Penticton D. Ashton Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre D. Donaldson Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8995 Children and Family Development Ministry handling of child placement case and court orders J. Horgan Hon. S. Cadieux D. Donaldson C. James Ombudsperson request for amendment to statutory powers J. Darcy Hon. S. Anton A.

Dix Human rights protection for transgender persons S. Chandra Herbert Hon. S. Anton M. Farnworth Safety of women on Highway 16 and bus service iImplementation M. Karagianis Hon. T.

Stone Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 9000 Public Accounts, 2014-15 Ministerial Accountability Report, 2014-15 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9000 Bill 30 — Liquefi ed Natural Gas Project Agreements Act (continued) Hon. M. Polak G. Heyman Hon. S. Anton M. Dalton R. Lee J. Shin D. Plecas A.

Weaver On the amendment A. Weaver Hon. M. Polak On the main motion Hon. J. Rustad B. Ralston Hon. R. Coleman

WEDNESDAY , JULY 15, 2015 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Anton: We are all of us in this House served by our constituency assistants. Th ey look aft er us every day. Th ey keep track of our schedules. Th ey make sure we go where we’re supposed to go, get there on time and get away on time. Th ey take endless inquiries from the pub- lic. Th ey look aft er members of the public. Th ey look aft er them compassionately and well, and they serve them in all the inquiries that they bring to their door.

I am privileged today by having my two constituency assistants in this House, Tanya Tan and Yulin Shih, who serve the residents of Vancouver-Fraserview and serve them in a number of diff erent languages. [1335] Yulin Shih, born in Taiwan, now my constituency assistant, has parlayed — as I said to him earlier, teas- ing him a bit — his job as a constituency assistant into an entry at law school at the University of Calgary in a month’s time or so. Congratulations to Yulin. Thank you to Tanya for staying on. She is outstanding. We are joined by Dawn Escobedo, who was not able to be here today.

But I think, on behalf of all of us, we thank our constituency assist- ants. I welcome mine to the House today. M. Karagianis: I have a couple of guests today. One guest that I have here may not actually realize I’m going to introduce him. I got a message that he was here — Eric Burkel, who used to work in the building. So welcome to Eric today. Th e second guest I have is Trudy Spiller. Now, Trudy lives in my constituency, and there is no more hard-work- ing individual. She is involved in aboriginal issues from coast to coast — federally, provincially, locally. She’s an activist.

She’s a grandmother raising grandchildren. She’s from the Gitxsan territory. She’s here today to witness our debates on the LNG PDA. So please give her and Eric very warm welcomes today. Hon. P . Fassbender: I’m honoured to rise and intro- duce a couple of individuals. Th e fi rst is Prof. Sadhu Singh, who is a Member of Parliament in India from the Faridkot district of the Punjab. He was fi rst elected in 2014, and I understand he had a tight race. He only won by about 200,000-plus votes. Mr.

Singh is indeed a retired professor who served as a lecturer in English from 1971 to 1999 at the Government Brijindra College in Faridkot in the Punjab region. He’s joined by Rajinder Mann, Jaskirat Mann, Lakbhir Chahal, Gurpartap Singh Virk, Harjit Nagra, Tejinder Johal, Gursewak Singh, and Hardarshan Singh. I’ d ask the House to make all of these guests feel welcome. I have one other introduction, if I could be so bold. Th at is to introduce someone who I know serves the residents of her community very well since being elect- ed mayor.

I’ d like the House to welcome Mayor Linda Hepner from the city of Surrey to the House as well. D. Routley: I’ d like the House to help me welcome three guests who have made the long trip from the lit- tle island to the big Island, from Gabriola to Vancouver Island and all the way down here to meet with Ministry of Mines staff about a concern they have around a quarry on Gabriola Island. Mike Phillips joins us. He was born in London in the U.K. and assures me that he’s a Canadian. He was born to a Canadian serviceman in London.

He was a venture cap- ital mortgager agent as his career and a full-time resident of Gabriola, other than when he had to leave to make a living. He’s always been a Gabriolan these past 53 years. Judith Graham joins us. Judith Graham is an artist, as so many Gabriola residents happen to be. She’s been a resident on Gabriola since 1995. George Szanto is a novelist of 23 books, a PhD from Harvard University, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and professor emeritus of McGill University. Can the House please help me make my guests wel- come. Hon. J.

Rustad: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce one of my staff in the building. Rani Sketchley joined our team not long ago, but she has played a very important role as an administrative assistant. We have a very busy offi ce, and there are a lot of tasks. She has really become an integral part of our team. First of all, I’ d like to say: thank you, Rani, for the work you’re doing. Would the House please make her welcome. J. Darcy: I would also like to acknowledge a member of our caucus staff who’s with us in the Legislature today.

Her name is Chelsea Williams. [1340] She began with the opposition caucus in February of 2015, a pretty intense time in the schedule, as offi ce as- sistant and receptionist and quickly moved into the pos- ition of legislative assistant to myself, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for North Coast. Her academic and professional training includes a BA in political science and women’s studies, so this is a won- derful place for her to be. Chelsea is smart. She is hard- working, and very, very importantly, she is extremely 8991

British Columbia Debates8992 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 calm. So I’ d like to thank Chelsea for the wonderful work that she does. Please welcome her to this place. Hon. A. Virk: I have the pleasure of introducing two companies today, here, that are doing work right in Surrey, in my riding. First of all, the representatives from a cutting-edge, clean-tech company in the biofuel sector, Orgaworld. Orgaworld does great work pushing the boundaries of organic waste management, in fact turning household waste into LNG, right in the Lower Mainland. Th ey’re putting sustainable innovation into practice every single day.

With us today is Paul Oostelbos and Ryan Lauzon. Would the House make them feel welcome. Indeed, it’s my pleasure, also, to introduce representa- tives from the second-oldest construction company in Canada, Smith Bros. and Wilson — a humble beginning in British Columbia in 1897 and still going strong to- day. With me today in the gallery is the president, Tim Harrington; the vice-president, Jeff Musialek; the pro- ject manager, Gary Cheema; as well as Murray Saunders.

In fact, they were already working on an LNG project before this, and they, along with their entire construction industry, are extremely excited about the LNG opportun- ities for their company and for this province. Would the House please make them feel welcome. C. James: I’ d like to introduce a constituent of mine who’s in the gallery today, who has been working with our caucus as our able offi ce assistant and our receptionist. She is the friendly voice and the friendly face you see at the door when you come into our caucus area and that you would get on the end of the phone.

She’s also incred- ibly effi cient at herding cats, otherwise known as the cau- cus. She is, unfortunately — fortunate for her — leaving us at the end of the summer to take a master’s program in international development studies at the University of Geneva. We have been incredibly fortunate to have Aarin work- ing with us. We are going to miss her. We hope that she will gain all those skills and come back to Victoria and come back to an opportunity. We wish her well. We look forward to hearing all about her studies and hope that she returns to us. Would the House please welcome Aarin Shapiro. D.

Bing: I would like to recognize the many British Columbian athletes competing in the Pan Am Games in Toronto. In particular, I’ d like to congratulate two constituents of mine from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows: Carmen Eggens and Monika Eggens. Th ey were part of the women’s water polo team. Th ey, unfortunately, met the defending champion, the United States, and they only gained silver, but silver is quite an accomplishment. I’ d like to have the House give best wishes to all athletes from British Columbia. B.

Routley: It’s indeed a wonderful opportunity to wel- come my dear friend Tom Harkins, who is also a retired steelworker. He’s a tireless volunteer on the executive of the NDP , both federally and in our provincial constitu- ency, does amazing work for the people in the Cowichan Valley. Please help me in welcoming Tom to this House. Hon. B. Bennett: Two people to introduce today. First of all, Phil Hochstein is in the gallery somewhere today.

Phil is with the Independent Contractors and Business Association, a great friend of free enterprise here in this province and a grizzled veteran of the political wars of the last couple of decades in this province. [1345] Th e second person who I would like to introduce is not a grizzled veteran. She’s a 19-year-old intern who is working for us on this side of the House. She’s going to school, going into third year at Mount Royal in Calgary. She is the daughter of my former constituency assistant and campaign manager. I believe this is her fi rst ques- tion period ever here today. She’s studying politics.

I have warned her, so everybody should try to be smart and po- lite — you know, the usual stuff . Please help me make these two fi ne people welcome. J. Horgan: Well, it’s always delightful to follow the member for Kootenay East. “Physician, heal thyself, ” I have to say on that one. Joining us in the gallery today is Melanie Mark. Melanie Mark is a Vancouver resident who has been working since she was a young woman, improving the lives of not just First Nation youth but youth through- out the Downtown Eastside.

Until recently she was a sen- ior representative in the Offi ce of the Representative for Children and Y outh, continuing that good work, helping those who need help most desperately. As luck would have it, we’ve had the good fortune of nominating Melanie Mark to be the next candidate for the B.C. NDP in the great, great constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I want all members of this House to know that al- though the member Jenny Kwan — which I can now say freely — has stepped down from that seat, we’re anx- ious for the government to recognize how it’s important and how we can elevate the debate, as the member for Kootenay East suggests, by calling an early by-election and getting Melanie Mark in this Legislature to represent the people of Mount Pleasant. Would the House please make her very, very welcome. M. Mungall: I’ d like to introduce the House to Jessica Th ompson who is here today with baby Zoë.

Jessica is a mother of four, but she’s also the director of the Yukon Human Rights Commission. I served a tour with her as an international election observer in Ukraine. My hus- band, Zak, and I have been able to boast a good friend-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 8993 ship with Jessica and her husband, Trevor, for many, many years. Please, may the House make her very wel- come. Statements (Standing Order 25B) SUCCESS ORGANIZATION AND W ALK WITH THE DRAGON FUNDRAISER R. Lee: Th is coming Sunday I will be attending the 30th annual SUCCESS Walk with the Dragon. Every year since Dan Chan started this event in 1986, thousands of British Columbians gather in Stanley Park to march along the seawall with a 30-metre-long dragon. In Chinese cul- ture the dragon symbolizes strength and overcomes ob- stacles until success is his.

It’s very fitting, then, that SUCCESS helps new Canadians overcome the obstacles involved in reloca- tion and off ers a variety of services to help integrate new Canadians in our province. Th ey assist immigrants and their families to settle in their new homes, access Canadian services and develop English language skills. Th ey help introduce new Canadians to our labour mar- ket, developing professional and social networks, and provide career mentoring. Th e work that they do is es- sential in cultivating the multicultural communities of the Lower Mainland.

Th is year’s theme of the dragon walk is multicultural- ism. Stage performances will be presented by diff erent cultures, including Japanese, Philippine, Chinese, Slovak and Mexican. Over the 30 years of the Walk with the Dragon, more than $12 million has been raised to sup- port SUCCESS’s social programs. Some of the leaders of SUCCESS were recently rec- ognized for their contributions. Congratulations to Sing Lim Y eo and Tung Chan, Order of B.C. recipients in 2015 and 2014 respectively, and to Dr.

Maggie Ip, the founding chair of the board in 1973, who received a Simon Fraser University honorary degree last month. I ask all members to join me to participate in the won- derful 30th annual SUCCESS Walk with the Dragon and to celebrate the tremendous work that this organization continues to do for our communities. NEPAL EARTHQUAKE RELIEF WORK FOR DALIT COMMUNITY S. Hammell: A few months ago I stood in the House and made a statement on the catastrophic earthquakes in Nepal. [1350] It has been estimated that the earthquakes killed at least 8,000 people, injured over 16,000 and destroyed more than 300,000 homes.

Shelter, water and immediate health care are all ongoing priorities of the relief eff ort. However, today I stand here to speak of a com- pounding issue faced by a particularly marginalized com- munity who are trying to sustain themselves as monsoon season continues. As in many countries, the caste system still has a presence in Nepal, and the Dalit community, otherwise known as the Untouchables, are at the lowest end of this archaic caste system. When I visited Nepal in 2013, I saw how marginalized this group of people could be. Th ey have little power, and without power, they don’t have a voice.

While in Nepal I met a young Nepalese man by the name of Arjun who was helping the Dalit community in his village by providing a voice for 25 families. Th ey have lost their homes, their belongings, and are now living under tattered plastic huts. Monsoon season has begun, and they urgently need shelter. Arjun is raising money to build temporary shelters that will hold up against the violent downpours at a cost of $750 each. His goal is to shelter the 25 families.

My shout-out today is to commend the members of the Shriguru Ravidass Sabha Community Centre in Burnaby, who have donated funds to assist this small group of people living so far away but in so much need. Well done to them. COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIV ALS IN MERRITT J. Tegart: For years the city of Merritt has been syn- onymous with country music in the great outdoors. Th e Merritt Mountain Music Festival put Merritt on the map by attracting some of the biggest names in country music over its run of almost two decades.

Johnny Cash, Loretta Lynn, Keith Urban and Brooks and Dunn have played there over the years, along with Reba McEntire, Kenny Chesney and Wynonna Judd. In 2005 approximately 148,000 people attended the six-day festival along the beautiful Coldwater River. Th e festival was cancelled in 2011, but I’m happy to say that outdoor country music is returning to the Nicola Valley later this month. Merritt is the new home of the Rockin’ River Music Festival, which takes place from July 30 to August 2, with the likes of Lady Antebellum, Dierks Bentley and many more.

When Kenny Hess, the president of Rockin’ River Music Festival, decided to move the event from Mission aft er six years, his natural choice was Merritt, where he got his start in the music business years ago. Merritt is the home of the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame and has a well-established festival site. Reviving an out- door music festival is important to the people of Merritt and also to those of us who live in the region. I urge all of you to come and spend the B.C. Day long weekend with us and spread the news that country music is back in Merritt, in the country music capital of Canada.

Hope to see you there.

British Columbia Debates8994 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 HEROWORK RENOV ATION OF GREATER VICTORIA CITIZENS COUNSELLING CENTRE R. Fleming: “How big is your cape?” Th at is the rally- ing cry that inspires hundreds of professionals and vol- unteers to participate in a local volunteer program, HeroWork. Th rough what are called radical commun- ity renovations, the HeroWork team brings together the construction industry and people in businesses in the community to revitalize the infrastructure of charitable organizations. Th eir most recent project took place in my constitu- ency at the Citizens Counselling Centre.

Th e counsel- ling centre has been operating for over four decades in Victoria, off ering counselling services for individuals and families in need of counselling, addiction therapy and mental wellness who could otherwise not aff ord it. Last year the volunteer counsellors provided over 9,000 hours of counselling to 1,200 individuals. Th e agency has worked out of their location in the Quadra village for 25 years and shares their offi ce with the B.C. Schizophrenia Society’s Victoria branch.

But funding and budget constraints have repeatedly deferred mounting repairs to the agency’s aging building. [1355] That all changed this past June, when the centre’s 50-year-old building saw more than $200,000 worth of upgrades. From structural repairs to new fl ooring, win- dows and bathrooms, 220 volunteers pitched in to give the Citizens Counselling Centre a much-needed space refresh and building repair.

I would like to thank, among others, Paul Latour, who is the founder and executive director of HeroWork, for his vision and his incredible contribution in our com- munity; Kent McFadyen, the director of renovations at HeroWork; and to the hundreds of volunteers who took

part in the centre’s radical renovation. HeroWork is soon to be coming to a charitable or- ganization in a community near you. Th ank you to all of those who are involved in HeroWork. CYCLING OPPORTUNITIES IN PENTICTON D. Ashton: My hometown of Penticton is well known as a summer vacation destination, surrounded by seem- ingly endless orchards, vineyards, stunning vistas, the lakes and, of course, the mountains. Th ose who visit our area will also learn another im- portant fact about Penticton. It is a cycling mecca.

When you come to Penticton in the spring, summer or fall, it is diffi cult not to miss the groups of riders heading out for long, scenic rides along the winding roads or along the lakeshores. Penticton’s climate, road conditions and amenities are world-class for both touring and training for road cyclists. Th e annual highlight occurred last weekend, with the Granfondo Axel Merckx Okanagan, which every year at- tracts about 3,000 riders of all ages and abilities. Cycling is part of the cultural fabric of Penticton.

In addition to road biking, there are many mountain-bik- ing routes, trails in the parks and on the railbeds, plus amenities and services to make your Penticton cycling experience second to none, whether you’re a beginner or a professional. I’m also very proud that our government recently an- nounced that the South Okanagan-Similkameen, specif- ically, is a pilot area for a provincewide cycling, tourism and marketing strategy. Known as the South Okanagan– Similkameen Cycling Network, this pilot project will lead the way for other cycling networks throughout the entire province.

Signage is being installed across the region and will identify routes to the cyclists that come and visit our area. We have routes in Penticton that will both inspire and challenge you. None other than Canadian Olympic triathlon gold medallist Simon Whitfi eld was giving Penticton cycling one of the best compliments I can think of. Aft er the Granfondo two years ago Simon Whitfi eld said: “I was thinking, during this ride, that this may be some of the best cycling in the world. ” I couldn’t agree more.

I invite each and every one of you, if you are in Penticton or area during the summer, fi rst of all, look me up. Second of all, bring your bike, your cycling shorts, and we’ll go out for a ride. BULKLEY V ALLEY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE D. Donaldson: More than 200,000 square kilometres, about the size of several European countries combined — say Portugal, Scotland and Switzerland. Sprinkle that with about 25,000 people in 22 communities. Th at is the area the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre serves with a small staff . Last week I visited their new building in Smithers. It’s a former church they converted.

Th ey’re using it to amal- gamate their programs and services from two locations and as an outreach base. Th e high ceilings and roomy areas provide really neat spaces for the range of activ- ities they provide. Th e fi rst phase of the renovation cost about $170,000 and resulted in the grand opening on May 22. Th e pur- chase of the new building, plus completing all the renos, will cost about $1 million. Th at’s quite a huge vision and a brave step to take from this small non-profi t and the board. I salute them and their executive director Kerri Bassett.

Th e amazing thing is that this non-profi t is doing that all on their own, with no capital assistance from the prov- ince towards this new building. In fact, Project Pinwheel, the name for their fundraising initiative, is holding an-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 8995 other fundraiser towards phase 2 renovations tonight. Th e new-to-them building is great, but what really makes the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre unique is the dispersed service model they provide. As I mentioned — 22 communities spread over 200,000 square kilometres. In the building I saw child activity resource kits in blue plastic tubs stacked and ready for shipping, on loan to parents and communities as far away as Atlin, more than 1,250 away. Since there’s no bus service, they depend on local transportation companies to do the delivery.

Th e Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre has car- ried out the important work of investing in children at an early age for 34 years. Th eir work contributes immensely to more resilient children and healthier communities in Stikine. I congratulate them for their commitment and perseverance. Well done. [1400] Oral Questions CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY HANDLING OF CHILD PLACEMENT CASE AND COURT ORDERS J. Horgan: Repeatedly the official opposition has been raising concerns with the Minister of Children and Family Development about her ministry’s tendency to disregard court orders.

As recently as March we raised the issue of the ministry defying a court order made by a B.C. Supreme Court judge. At the time, the minister refused to answer for the con- duct of her ministry. But now we learn another Supreme Court ruling has been issued with respect to four chil- dren — four children who were not safe in the care of their father. Th e court ruled so, and that was disregarded by the ministry. As a result, those children were suscept- ible to sexual abuse despite the court ruling. My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Th is is a disturbing pattern.

Will she be able to tell this House how many other children are at risk as a result of her ministry disregarding Supreme Court orders? Hon. S. Cadieux: Th e interests of the child are para- mount in the ministry, and the ministry works every day to protect vulnerable children in this province. But at the end of the day, let us remember that child protection is by its very nature diffi cult work, and it requires social workers to make very diffi cult decisions, gut-wrenching decisions that ultimately take children away from their parents.

Th e ministry receives about 37,000 calls a year relating to child protection. Each is investigated and dealt with. We are entrusted with the safety and well-being of nearly 8,300 children in care. In addition to legislation, as the member will know, staff make decisions for those chil- dren in consultation with supervisors, and any decision related to a child being removed from their home is, in fact, reviewed by a court. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. J. Horgan: Well, I’m absolutely aware that the minis- ter knows of the case I’m speaking of.

Th e ruling came down yesterday. Th is is about a custody case and the in- volvement of the ministry in determining which parent was competent. One parent made allegations of sexual abuse; the other denied those allegations. It turned out that those allegations were well founded.

Th is is what the court had to say about the conduct of ministry staff : “Wanton and reckless and, at a minimum, grossly negligent. ” “Recklessly indiff erent. ” “Intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obli- gation to protect children. ” Th ose are harsh words from a judge who had seen a previous ruling overruled by the ministry. Th e judge also found that the ministry had also neglected the standards of care set out by the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

My question to the minister is this: why is it that her government continues to disregard court orders and put children in jeopardy? Hon. S. Cadieux: Any time there’s a fi nding that a child has been harmed, it is very concerning. It is espe- cially concerning when that child or family has been in contact or had a relationship with the ministry. I want to assure members that we treat all of these situations very seriously. While this case has been in progress for some time, the decision was only rendered yesterday.

Th e court makes very serious fi ndings, as the member notes, and it is a very lengthy decision that will be considered very ser- iously and thoroughly. I am advised that not all legal matters have concluded in this regard. Further proceedings are anticipated. But once our counsel have completed their review of this very thor- ough, very lengthy decision, we will identify next steps. Until that time, I am not in a position to respond further. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental. [1405] J.

Horgan: Th e judge repeated a fi nding in the previous case that we raised in this House last March. Th e judge re- peated the following: “Society breaks down when anyone, be it a branch of government or an individual, has the ar- rogance to believe that they are above the law and above an order of the court. ” Th at’s exactly what happened in this tragic case. Children were put at risk. Bad decisions were made. Judgments were overruled and disregarded.

British Columbia Debates8996 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Th at is not how the people of British Columbia expect their government to treat children at risk. Again, my question to the minister responsible: will she today end the practice of ministry offi cials overrul- ing and disregarding rulings by the Supreme Court of British Columbia? At a minimum, can we not learn from this tragedy? Th e child abuse that took place can never be taken away, but we must learn from this. Th e fi rst step would be to stop doing the wrong thing. Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, the interests of the child are paramount.

Th e issues in this case are concerning. It is an extremely lengthy decision. We will take time to carefully consider all of the information and all of that judgment, and then we will respond. D. Donaldson: First and foremost, the innocence of a young girl was lost. Th ere are people in this chamber, like me, who have family members impacted and living with the impacts of childhood sexual abuse. Th is child and these children will live with these impacts for the rest of their lives, and that has to be front and centre.

When the mother of these children reported concerns they were being sexually abused, the ministry opened an investigation — an investigation into the mother’s mental health. Th ey never asked the children if they were being abused. Th ey ignored evidence of abuse, including infor- mation from the children’s family doctor. Th ey took the children away from their mother and spent more than 200 days in court with four ministry lawyers fi ghting for the children’s abuser to obtain sole custody over them.

Can the minister explain how her ministry could act in this way without doing a proper, independent inves- tigation into whether the children were sexually abused? Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated, while this case has been ongoing for some time and a judgment was anticipated, Justice Walker has made some extremely serious fi ndings. I want to assure this House and the public that the min- istry staff take their duties and service to the public and service to children extremely seriously, given the trust and independence they are granted in law.

Any time that a child is harmed, it is extremely con- cerning, and certainly, I can tell you, that practice is re- viewed and appropriate action taken. But that said, in this circumstance with this judgment, it is a very lengthy decision, it will take time, and we will take the time ne- cessary to review it in detail, and at that point we will have more to say. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Stikine on a sup- plemental. D. Donaldson: What needs to be understood is the real human and lasting impacts this government’s de- cisions will have on these children.

It was bad enough that the children were taken from their mother without evidence of harm. It’s horrifi c enough that the ministry fought for the children to be placed with their abuser. But to this day the ministry is refusing to provide full coun- selling support for the children who were hurt by this. Th e children have signifi cant behavioural issues because of the abuse they suff ered. Will the minister commit to immediately giving this family the support they need? Hon. S.

Cadieux: The member knows that I can’t talk about specifi cs of individual cases or individual cir- cumstances ongoing with the ministry in this House. However, that said, this is a very lengthy decision issued by the judge. [1410] With respect to the gravity of the fi ndings of the re- port, it will take some time to review and determine next steps. When that has been done, we will certainly have a statement to make. C. James: We’ve certainly heard the seriousness of this case. Sadly, it’s not the only case that has come forward where there have been errors made by the Minister of Children and Families.

Th e minister says she needs time to review the fi nd- ings in this specifi c case. I would ask the minister at a minimum: would the minister ensure that counselling is provided for these children and do an immediate review of all court orders that have been issued and overruled by her ministry? Hon. S. Cadieux: We are talking about people. We are talking about families. We are talking about children. We are talking about people, the social workers, who have to make very diffi cult decisions at any moment in time re- lated to a family and to children’s well-being. Th ey take that duty very seriously.

Most of the time, there is success, and children are protected. When things don’t go well, as unfortunate as that is, we review those situations as well to learn from them and make changes. In addition, the representative and her offi ce have the opportunity to review situations related to child protection and the ministry and report and make recommendations for change.

Over the last number of years, based on numbers of recommendations by the representative, numbers of systemic changes have been made in the Ministry of Children and Families, including re-establishing the of- fi ce of the director of child welfare to better strengthen oversight of the care of children and increasing the re- porting of incidents to the director and the representa- tive to improve monitoring. Again, this particular case in question has a very lengthy and very serious judgment that will take time to review and to determine next steps.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 8997 Madame Speaker: Th e member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental. C. James: I would agree with the minister that social work and particularly child protection work is incredibly diffi cult work. I think we all honour the people who go into this work and do the tough work that needs to be done in our communities every single day. But that does not take away from the responsibility that the minister has and that the Ministry of Children and Families has, and, in fact, the government has when children come into their care.

Th e government is, in ef- fect, legally the parent for those children. While I appreciate the minister’s comments around the changes that have been brought forward from the repre- sentative’s offi ce, I have to say that we have also seen many changes and recommendations come forward from the representative’s offi ce that have not been implemented and that have not been followed up on and that have not had the resources that social workers need to be able to do their jobs in the fi eld. I would ask the minister again.

I understand the need to take time on this specifi c case, but surely the minister could let this House know that counselling supports will be in place for those children at a minimum, immediately, and that a review will be done of court orders that have been overturned for other children in the care of the ministry. Hon. S. Cadieux: Th e member knows that I can’t talk about specifi c circumstances, but I will say that it is our sole purpose in the ministry to ensure that vulnerable children and families have the supports and services that they need. Th at does not change in this circumstance.

Th is is a very serious judgment. I am taking it and the ministry is taking it very seriously. But at this time we need time to review the decision before we can determine what further steps need to be taken. OMBUDSPERSON REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO STATUTORY POWERS J. Darcy: Th e Finance Committee is currently con- sidering whether to ask the Ombudsperson to conduct an investigation into the government’s fi ring of health researchers. [1415] A key consideration for the committee is whether the Ombudsperson feels that he has the legislative authority to do the job properly.

Th e Ombudsperson has made it clear that he believes it requires a change to his act in or- der to get the job done, and he’s expressed that view to the committee and to the Attorney General. Th e Attorney General and her deputy minister have written to the committee twice now in the past week. Why has she not told the committee whether she intends to amend the Ombudsperson Act as he has requested? Hon. S. Anton: Th ere is a legislative committee con- sidering this issue. As I said yesterday, I have faith in the members of that committee. I certainly have faith in the members on this side.

It sounds like the members op- posite may not have faith in the members on their side, but I do. They are deliberating. They have heard from the Ombudsperson. They have heard from my Deputy Attorney General. Th ey will bring forward any requests that they think appropriate, they will make recommen- dations that they think appropriate, and they will make a referral as they see appropriate. Let us let that committee do its work, and we will hear from the committee as to what they wish and what they need going forward. Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J.

Darcy: Surely, the Attorney General does not need reminding that it’s not up to the committee to decide to introduce legislation in this House. It’s the Attorney General’s responsibility to do that. Th e Health Minister asked the Finance Committee to ask the Ombudsperson to conduct an investigation. Th e Ombudsperson has made it clear that without a change to his legislation, current or former government em- ployees could withhold information under confi denti- ality provisions.

He’s also made it very clear that he believes this could well lead to litigation, to delays, to higher costs and, very, very importantly, that it could lead to a failure to get at the truth. If the government is so sincere about getting to the bot- tom of this scandal, why is the Attorney General being so dismissive of the Ombudsperson’s request? Hon. S. Anton: I fear it is the members opposite who are being dismissive of the deliberations of the commit- tee. Th e committee is considering these issues.

We will be very interested, on this side of the House — I will be very interested — in hearing their deliberations. If they think that this is a problem, they will let us know. Let us let the committee do its work. A. Dix: I think the Ombudsperson let the minister know pretty loud and clear.

He said: “In my view, it’s simply unwise and unworkable to proceed with a review of this magnitude and signifi cance with one’s fi ngers crossed in the hope that this issue will never come up or will work itself out somehow through the expensive, time-consuming and uncertain litigation process, or that we should risk the release of a report that may, once again, lack important information and full disclosure. ” I’ d remind the Attorney General that, in the last three years, the public, the people of British Columbia and the researchers have been repeatedly misled on key ques-

British Columbia Debates8998 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 tions with respect to this matter; that the McNeil report could not draw conclusions because people at the most senior levels of government collectively would not tell the truth about key matters; and that the McNeil report itself is not even on the government website, because the government won’t let it be on the website. Th ese issues of disclosure are critical questions, and the Ombudsperson has made a serious request to the min- ister. Will the minister, instead of dismissing it, respond to that request today? [1420] Hon. S.

Anton: As I have said twice already, the mat- ter is before the committee. Th e committee will make its recommendation. It will make a referral. It will make rec- ommendations back to the House, if it wishes. I think it is the members opposite who are being dis- missive of the work of the committee. Let us let the com- mittee do its work. We will wait to hear from them. Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supple- mental. A. Dix: Well, the Ombudsperson heard and read the minister’s contribution.

His conclusion: “ …I’m at a loss as to what the principal rationale is for declining to make this amendment. ” And this matter is for the dir- ect responsibility of the minister — for no one else — to introduce this government legislation in this House. It’s her responsibility. Th e Ombudsperson said: “ …I reiterate my request that the committee not refer this matter to the offi ce unless and until this issue is addressed. ” So what I am asking the minister to do, since it’s in her responsibility to address the issue raised by the Ombudsperson…. Will she respond to it in a serious way today? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e committee has heard from the Ombudsperson. The committee has heard from the Deputy Attorney General. Th e committee will be delib- erating. Th e committee, I assume, will make recommen- dations. Let us let the committee do its work. It’s a good committee. It’s a well-constituted committee. Th ey are perfectly capable of making good recommendations. Let us wait for them to do that. HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION FOR TRANSGENDER PERSONS S. Chandra Herbert: Can the Minister of Justice tell us why her government refuses to extend explicit human rights protections to transgender British Columbians? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e issue of gender identity and the human rights code of British Columbia is crystal-clear. Our human rights code protects all persons, no matter what their gender identity is, which I think is the issue at question. It is crystal-clear. Th e law is crystal-clear. Th ey are protected. We can be proud of that in British Columbia — that our courts have been so clear about that, that we are so clear about that. Th e protections are there in the human rights code. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–West End on a supplemental. S.

Chandra Herbert: Well, if the minister happened to actually read the human rights code, she would see that gender identity and expression are not actually written in the B.C. ’s human rights code. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have all acted. Th ey’ve all explicitly protected gender identity and ex- pression in their human rights code because transgender people face hatred, discrimination and outrageous lev- els of violence. Th is government almost stands alone in refusing to support transgender British Columbians.

Why will this government not act when people across this nation are standing up against hatred, raising the rainbow fl ag of inclusion and standing up for their transgender citizens? Why do the B.C. Liberals refuse to do the same? Hon. S. Anton: I do acknowledge what the member opposite is saying in terms of the diffi culties some people face. Th at needs to be addressed in a number of ways, and our government is committed to addressing it in a num- ber of ways. I know the Minister of Education frequently talks about anti-bullying initiatives in schools.

Our government is committed to recognizing and celebrating the diversity of British Columbians. Th ere is no question that that absolutely encompasses trans- gender people. Th ere is no question that the rights of transgender people are protected in our human rights code. It is crystal-clear. Our government fully supports that, fully endorses that. [1425] I recognize, as I said a moment ago, that transgender people do face diffi culties, but one of them is not the hu- man rights code of British Columbia. M.

Farnworth: What’s crystal-clear is that just about every other province in this country has gender identity in their human rights code except the province of British Columbia. Th at’s what’s crystal-clear. Th e minister her- self just stated she recognizes that transgender people face challenges and discrimination here in the province of British Columbia. If she wants to actually do something, then why does this government not recognize transgender and gender identity in the human rights code of British Columbia like every other province does?

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 8999 Hon. S. Anton: Th e issues referred to by the members opposite, the diffi cult issues facing transgender people, are not legal issues. Th e human rights code covers, abso- lutely unquestionably, the rights of transgender persons. Th ese issues need to be addressed in so many diff erent ways — but through respect through our society.

Th at’s why we have so many anti-violence initiatives in British Columbia, so many anti-bullying initiatives — things that our government is undertaking to ensure that people in British Columbia have respectful relationships and treat each other with respect. As I said, the issue here is not a legal issue. It’s an issue of behaviour, and it’s one that we are determined in British Columbia to combat — that people recognize the diversity of people and celebrate that diversity and treat people accordingly. SAFETY OF WOMEN ON HIGHW AY 16 AND BUS SERVICE IIMPLEMENTATION M.

Karagianis: Th e Premier is currently at the fi rst ministers meeting with First Nations in Goose Bay, where Perry Bellegarde, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has called for action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls across the country.

RCMP reports have shown that B.C. has the largest number of unsolved cases of missing and murdered ab- original women, more than any other province, and yet today along that highway women are still in danger be- cause they have to hitchhike to go get groceries, go to see their social worker, go to work and get back from work. Why is that? Well, because there is no transit system in their communities. Again to this government, it makes no sense whatso- ever, but why is this government still refusing to put shut- tle bus services in the communities along the Highway of Tears? Hon. T. Stone: Hon.

Speaker, I would like to say, through you to the member opposite: if you ask the same question over and over again, you’re going to get the same answer. Th is subject has been canvassed here in the chamber on numerous occasions. It was canvassed in estimates as well. Obviously, our government remains committed to ful- fi lling the recommendation, which was to provide safer transportation options for those who live along Highway 16. To that end, last summer we had staff from our min- istry spend several weeks meeting with First Nations leaders, local governments and other organizations.

Th ere was a very good exchange of ideas. As I have said to the member opposite…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. T. Stone: Th e information that the members re- quested on this was duly provided to them. At the end of the day, we have acted on a number of fronts. Th ere is a new web portal which has pulled together all of the transportation resources which are available through the region. We provided $75,000 to the Carrier-Sekani for driver education and licensing and so forth. And the dialogue continues.

We will continue to do everything we can to make that corridor even safer. [1430] Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a sup- plemental. M. Karagianis: Well, the minister is right. We do con- tinue to get the same answer, and the same answer says that women are not safe on this highway. Th ey will not be safe until this government changes their position on this issue. Perry Bellegarde has said that the issue of missing and murdered women will be front and centre in their con- ference, and it has been. Th ey have today passed all 94 recommendations on that.

He also said that the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission report released this month will not gather dust. Very ironically, in 2012, in response to the Wally Oppal report, the Premier of this province agreed with that sentiment and spoke about the vulnerability of people up and down Highway 16 and said we must make sure that we have a champion for the report so that it doesn’t just sit and be forgotten. Well, it has been forgotten. It con- tinues to be forgotten and ignored by this government. Th e most urgent recommendation was to put a transit system along that corridor.

Will this government live up to the loft y words of the Premier in 2012 and put a shut- tle bus service into the communities along the Highway of Tears so we do not see further tragedies? Will it take another death before they take action? Hon. T. Stone: Th is highway corridor is signifi cantly safer today than it was 15 years ago. Th at’s as a result of a tremendous number of initiatives of this government as well as communities and First Nations up and down Highway 16.

Th ere is transit service connecting a number of com- munities like Smithers and Telkwa, the Hazeltons and Smithers, Terrace and Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Port Edward. Th ere’s a Northern Health bus service. Cellular coverage has been dramatically improved. As I men- tioned previously, we have implemented a web portal, and we are continuing to discuss further ideas that folks along this corridor have. I will end on this note. If the hon. member would like to share details with us as to how she thinks it would be

British Columbia Debates9000 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 practical to provide a shuttle service along a 718-kilo- metre stretch of highway that requires about eight hours from one end to the other, how that would be practical, I am all ears. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. M. de Jong: I respectfully present the public ac- counts for the fi scal year ended March 31, 2015, in accord- ance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act subsection 9(3). Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 30. [1435] [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT (continued) Hon. M. Polak: I’m very pleased to rise today in sup- port of this legislation. I begin, though, by countering a suggestion that I’ve heard on the other side numerous times. It goes something like this. Somehow they have construed government’s position to be that this repre- sents a poor deal for British Columbia but that it’s better than no deal. Well, let me be clear.

Our position on this side of the House is that this is an excellent deal for the future of British Columbia, and we are proud to be here bringing this legislation forward. It is clear, though, in spite of opposition protesta- tions to the contrary, that, in fact, they are supportive of LNG in British Columbia. Listening to their descrip- tion and their idea of what a deal would look like in an NDP world certainly doesn’t leave one with much faith that they would ever have been able to achieve that, es- pecially when…. I made notes, listening to the other speakers.

Here is what I’ve managed to glean from their descriptions of what they think would be a good deal. It would be more money and more job guarantees in return for less cer- tainty and, essentially, no kind of agreement that any company would be willing to risk a billion-dollar invest- ment on. Y ou’re not going to get more and, at the same time, believe that there isn’t an agreement to be reached on that. It isn’t a one-way street. Y ou have to negotiate. Y ou have to work hard. It’s one of the things that I am so proud of about what our government has accomplished here.

I think it’s im- portant to begin by paying tribute to the teams of people in multiple ministries who have worked for months and months to get us to the place where here we are in this Legislature seeing the promise of LNG come to fruition in the form of this agreement that is before this House right now. It’s not surprising, though, to fi nd that the opposition can’t possibly see their way to imagining that this might become a success. Th ere was something I was reminded of in listening to the debate in this House, and that was the debate on the budget before we went to the election.

It’s the same story and the same narrative, which is: “Well, you’re pre- senting all this. But you know what? We don’t think it can actually come true. Th ere’s no way you can possibly do it. Y ou can’t balance the budget. ” Well, we learned today that not only have we presented consecutive balanced budgets; we learned today that we achieved an incredible improvement in our surplus to $1.6 billion.

I say to those who doubt on the other side, who say they’ll believe it when they see it and don’t think that this is ever going to come to anything, that they should prob- ably remember the same exact things they said about the budget before we went into the election. Th ey were wrong then, and they’re going to be wrong now. Let’s talk a bit about what forms up this agreement. First, it begins with how we got there. Th is involved, as I said, many diff erent ministries, many diff erent agencies of government.

It began with work on an environmental assessment, which meant that the environmental assessment offi ce virtually had to reconstitute themselves in a diff erent way if they were going to manage to accomplish the timelines that were needed and if they were going to manage to be as rigorous as they needed to be on the wide variety of areas that are considered within an analysis of an LNG facility.

Not only did they manage to do that, but they de- livered an environmental assessment certifi cate that pre- sents with it signifi cant requirements on the part of the project to ensure the safety, both environmentally and also for human health, of the project. It also played a signifi cant role in seeing the company adjust their project design in order to respond to the con- cerns that we were hearing from First Nations. And why do I raise this?

I raise this because there’s this erroneous suggestion on the part of those on the other side of the House that somehow in this agreement we have given up any and all control over what type of environmental footprint this project is going to leave. [1440] Well, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we have an environmental assessment certifi cate with signifi cant conditions that is legally binding and enforce- able. Th at is something we take very seriously in this province, and the proponents are aware that they must take it very seriously.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 9001 In addition to that, the federal government has yet to render its decision on a federal environmental assess- ment of this project. We certainly are hopeful that that will be a positive response. But again, environmental conditions that will be placed onto the project are legally binding. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that somehow this agreement cuts away all the environmental protec- tions that would be placed on a project of this nature. It’s absolutely false.

Once again, I want to commend the folks in the en- vironmental assessment offi ce for not just passively re- viewing a fi le but for being actively engaged with the company, actively engaged with First Nations and ensur- ing that signifi cant changes could be made to the design of the project in order to address the very real concerns that those communities had. Th en there’s been much discussion about the fact that we have produced here in British Columbia a set of regu- lations that will have us in British Columbia the clean- est facilities in the world.

Now, there are lists of reasons why the opposition suggests that this should not be con- sidered the cleanest. But let me point out a few things. First and foremost, if you want to look at the intensity benchmark that was set at 0.16, I would put this to you. It is completely fair to argue that you think more should have been done. Th at’s totally fair. It is not fair and it is not correct to argue that it is not the cleanest standard in the world for a facility that produces liquefi ed natural gas. Th at is just wrong.

When you look at the other areas of the project, those connected to it — pipelines, the upstream — here’s an- other fact that the opposition and those on the other side seem to have ignored. When you compare to other coun- tries around the world, our facilities — in fact, the entire supply chain, up and down the line — will be paying a carbon tax, at $30 a tonne.

In fact, while it has been rumoured to the contrary on the other side, this deal does not in any way restrict our ability to make a decision when the freeze is over, if we wished, to see that carbon tax continue to rise again and indeed apply, not just to the LNG facility, but to all the aspects of the project that service it up and down the line. Now, no one is going to argue — and you haven’t heard anybody on our side of the House argue — that this isn’t a signifi cant challenge to us meeting our 2020, and ultim- ately, 2050 greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Th at doesn’t mean that because something is hard, we shouldn’t at- tempt to do it. When we put forward the greenhouse gas legislation here in this House to deal with liquefi ed natural gas, I made it absolutely clear the government’s view on this matter. Y ou have a choice to make. Y ou can decide that it’s too diffi cult, and therefore you’re not going to do it. Th e easiest answer is no. Th e easiest way to cut your greenhouse gas emissions is to decide that you are going to virtually shut down everything that you do. It’s not hard to fi gure out how to cut emissions.

Th e challenge is trying to cut emissions at the same time that you are growing your economy. Th ere is what is in front of us. I will tell you that when I talk to constituents of mine, they want us to do that hard work. Th ey want us to make those diffi cult decisions of balance to ensure that not only are we addressing our greenhouse gas emissions but we are doing it while we are growing our economy in a pro- found way here in British Columbia through the initia- tion of a new industry in liquefi ed natural gas. [1445] It’s not new.

As with some of the things I commented on earlier, it’s not a new theme from the opposition. In fact, sadly, it’s a recurring theme. Back in the days when the climate action plan came out, when we presented a plan to British Columbia that said, “Y ou know what? We believe we can signifi cantly grow our economy and sig- nifi cantly reduce our emissions, ” what was the response we got? “Nah, you can’t do it. Can’t be done. Y ou guys can’t possibly do it. ” Well, the fact of the matter is that we have done it. We have done it, and as a result, we are receiving interest and praise internationally.

We are receiving questions from jurisdictions around the world who want to better under- stand tools like our revenue-neutral carbon tax, our cli- mate action charter, our carbon-neutral government plan. Th ey want to understand those things because they’re watching British Columbia, and they see that we have done what few jurisdictions on the planet have done. And that is we have seen our economy grow. Our GDP is up. And at the same time, our emissions are down.

If you want to take a look at fossil fuel use in British Columbia per capita, our fossil fuel use is down 16 per- cent at the same time that it grew by 3 percent across the rest of Canada. By any measure, that is success, and it’s a success that the opposition did not believe that we can achieve. I’m here today to just completely dispel the notion that anything in this project development agreement is going to hinder our ability to take action on the recom- mendations of our climate leadership team.

It is not go- ing to hinder us in the diffi cult work we have ahead of us in bringing those recommendations forward, having a new climate leadership plan and achieving the same kind of success that we have in the past. We know that British Columbians want us to do that. We are committed to it, and as we’ve seen from our past actions, we are fully capable of accomplishing that goal. Th ere’s nothing in this agreement that would give cre- dence to the idea that we have given up our ability to take those controls. Th ere are other things, though, that I think are import- ant to note.

One of them is the role of natural gas inter- nationally. Now, there is a hotly contested debate about the role of natural gas in the world as a fossil fuel. I totally acknowledge that. But there is also a very important ne-

British Columbia Debates9002 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 gotiation taking place. Th e next iteration of it is in Paris in December. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that when I was at the last council of the parties in Lima, one of the very challen- ging aspects of the international negotiations around setting targets to reduce GHG emissions, one of the very challenging aspects of those negotiations, are the many countries around the world who are either entirely reli- ant or heavily reliant on coal and diesel to produce their electric power.

Many of these jurisdictions are a decade or two — maybe more years — away from having viable renewables as energy. Now, how do you deal with that in an international negotiation? I’ll tell you one of the ways that is being dis- cussed. I’m not saying it’s not without controversy, but it is something that as leaders in this province we have to consider and we have to wrestle with.

One of the things that is being proposed is that these countries, these jurisdictions, would utilize natural gas as a transition fuel, because the alternative is to see these countries continue for the next ten, 20, maybe more years to exist generating their electricity by coal and by diesel while they await the viability of renewables in their area. It’s not true everywhere. Th ere are some places where they can make the shift from traditional fossil fuels like coal and diesel directly to renewables.

But I will tell you that there are very, very many countries, very many juris- dictions around the world where that is just not possible. Is it better to let them continue to burn coal and diesel, or is it better to make sure that there’s a provision of li- quefi ed natural gas — by the way, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel? [1450] Th e switch to natural gas in the United States is prob- ably the single most signifi cant reason why the U.S. emis- sions have dropped so dramatically. Th e same is true in countries around the world where they are struggling to fi nd a way to make that shift .

I’m going to use China as an example just because in all the discussions around emissions — the political discussion, the discussion on CNN, whatever channel you want to turn on — you oft en get pundits discussing the fact that they feel it’s somehow unfair that China is producing all these emissions, and gosh, we’ d better get China under control. Here’s something that a lot of people don’t know, though, if they’re not a part of some of these discussions that are taking place internationally. China is actually making signifi cant progress.

Th ey have a long way to go because they’re starting with such a huge, huge challenge, but they are making faster progress than most jurisdic- tions around the planet. One of the reasons they are is because they are taking seriously not only an investment into clean tech and re- newables but also making a very rapid transition away from fossil fuels like coal to the use of — guess what — natural gas. It is not the complete answer, and natural gas is not the fi nal answer in any way, shape or form to elim- inating GHG emissions — reducing them signifi cantly at least.

But it is very diffi cult to present a solid case that liquefi ed natural gas doesn’t have a role in that transition. Here’s a bit of an example just to give people a sense of the scale of this. If China were — and we expect they will; they tend to meet their fi ve-year plans — to achieve the goals they have in terms of doubling the role of nat- ural gas in their energy portfolio by displacing coal use to meet their goals by 2020, what would that mean? Th at would mean avoiding up to 133 million tonnes of green- house gas emissions each and every year in China. What does that compare to? Well, I’ll tell you.

Th at’s twice the entire province of British Columbia. Th at’s twice our GHG emissions annually. Now, everyone — all the commentators around the world, all the people who are expert in this fi eld — fully expects that China is going to accomplish that. Th at is one jurisdiction, albeit a large one, but it tells you the important role that, internationally, liquefi ed natural gas can make. Why is that important? Well, here we are. We’re a small jurisdiction. Th ere are some, in fact, who look at our eff orts with respect to climate action, and they say: “Well, come on. Y ou’re British Columbia.

Canada is only 2 percent of global emissions, and you’re only 6 percent of Canada’s emissions. Why are you even bothering? It doesn’t make any diff erence. ” Well, first of all, I would say it does make a differ- ence. Our leadership has made a diff erence. I heard that when I was back at the Climate Summit of the Americas just a week ago in Toronto. I heard that spoken from the podium by Al Gore, spoken from the podium by Felipe Calderón, spoken from the podium by Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne. We have that leadership role. It’s a very valuable one. Th at alone is important.

There’s another way in which we can punch above our weight. Th ere’s another way that we can contribute globally to seeing the level of emissions drop and drop faster than if we simply leave some of these countries and jurisdictions to languish on coal and diesel. Th at is to provide natural gas and to provide it in a place where we are going to produce it under the cleanest conditions in the world. Again I’ll restate that you can argue that we should do more, and people will. We’ve heard it already. We will hear it again.

Y ou can’t argue that it’s not the cleanest, because when you measure it up against other facilities around the world, it is. Th e numbers bear it out. It’s the cleanest in the world. We’re going to have to continue to do more. Th e up- stream is a really good example of that. Th ere are incred- ible opportunities. Last night we heard presentations. Some of our members heard presentations from Pembina Institute, from Clean Energy Canada talking to us about

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 9003 some of the opportunities there are in particular in the upstream. [1455] It would amaze members to know just the size, the scale, of emissions that could be reduced if companies did one simple thing, which would be simply to main- tain their equipment according to manufacturer speci- fi cations. Unbelievable that a simple change could have dramatic impacts on the emissions that are coming from the upstream. Th at’s just one example. Th ere are a host of diff erent initiatives that can be undertaken.

One of the realities of that, though, is that it costs money. We have currently a natural gas industry in British Columbia. With the drop in the prices, we know what that means for the industry. We know that without revitalizing it, without creating opportunities for other markets, the potential is for that industry to stagnate and potentially not perform in our economy the way that we need it to and the way that we have depended on it for so many years.

When you have companies that are able to reinvest and when you create the incentives for that reinvest- ment, which we have done in British Columbia, that is when you see the innovation take hold. Th at is when you see companies exploring things like carbon capture and storage. Th at is when you see people exploring in their companies things like the electrifi cation of the upstream. Again, opportunities abound with this industry. Y ou always have to look at the other side of what you are challenged by. Challenges present opportunities, and this is no diff erent.

When it comes to the production of natural gas in British Columbia, not only is there a huge opportunity for our children, for our grandchildren, to benefi t from the jobs, from the uplift in our economy, but there’s an opportunity for our environment to bene- fi t signifi cantly.

Y ou are going to take a traditional industry that is go- ing to be reinvigorated in the northeast where there’s going to be investment fl owing from those companies, because we’ve created the incentive to do so, and that’s going to result in signifi cant improvements in the tech- nology and in the innovation that is taking place in the upstream. I would argue that without this kind of re- vitalization in the natural gas industry, I think you’ d be hard pressed to predict that there would be signifi cant investment in innovation in the upstream.

I would say to anyone who thinks that we need to do something about upstream emissions, then here is an opportunity and a way to do it. It is an illustration that I borrow from the carbon tax. When the carbon tax was fi rst brought in, the reaction from people — who were, understandably, trying to wrap their heads around an entirely new tool and device — in- itially was: “Well, my goodness. Th is is a tax. It’s going to kill our economy. Everything is going to go wrong. ” But there was an opportunity with it, and the opportunity was to reduce taxes, because it was revenue-neutral.

While you were able to put a price on something we didn’t want, which was carbon, you were at the same time able to reduce taxes, reduce the price on things that we want: income and investment. Now, we thought that was going to happen. Th at was something we predicted, but on the face of it, looking at the idea of bringing in a new tax, that wasn’t apparent. It wasn’t something that people naturally and immediately caught on to, but it certainly happened. I look at this in the same way.

Y ou don’t get compan- ies to invest into innovation, to put their money into expensive changes to their industry, to their technol- ogy, in a situation where they’re not seeing the profi ts that enable them to do that. We’ve created the incentive for them to make that investment. It is an opportun- ity to take something that’s a challenge — no question it’s a challenge to deal with our emissions from LNG — and turn it into something that can benefi t not only the whole industry but perhaps even the industry and tech- nology worldwide.

It’s another example of where, if we are able to move ahead in this manner, British Columbia can continue that leadership, not just in terms of the climate actions that we have taken but in terms of our contribution globally to assisting the world, assisting other jurisdictions, in get- ting away from even dirtier forms of fossil fuel. I’ll repeat: no one is arguing that liquefi ed natural gas is the fi nal answer to emissions. It isn’t. No fossil fuel is.

But in the absence of the cleanest-burning fossil fuel in the world, in natural gas, the alternative for these juris- dictions, for these countries, is to remain on coal and diesel. Th at’s the alternative, so let’s be honest about it. [1500] None of this is going to be easy, but in this project de- velopment agreement we have set the stage for us to not only see a successful liquefi ed natural gas industry but to ensure that we have the tools in place to grow together with the industry to see the investments in the upstream, to see the investments in innovation. Th at should make us all very proud.

I don’t expect that the opposition are going to turn around and, in response, lavish their praise on the agree- ment. I’m quite sure they won’t. I’m quite sure they’ll con- tinue to mischaracterize it. I’m quite sure they’ll continue with their narrative around what it looks like. Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of this is that it seems the best quote machine they can fi nd is from Martyn Brown. I fi nd that humorous, on this side of the House, because personally, if you really do have a case, I would think you’re probably better putting it on a fact basis.

Y ou’re probably better talking about what’s actual- ly going on and saying what aspects of it you specifi cally disagree with, not inventing things that aren’t actually in the agreement. A really good example is a blog that was put out by

British Columbia Debates9004 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Matt Horne from Pembina. There are things in this agreement that they don’t like, that they disagree with. But when you read that report, it’s basically factual. It doesn’t rant and rave. It doesn’t use hyperbole. It lays out the things that they’re concerned about. It lays out some things — some things — that they think are okay. But it’s a rational argument.

I really hope that, instead of just quote aft er quote from Martyn Brown and some distorted narrative around what’s in the agreement, what we’ll hear from the oppos- ition is actually a reasoned discussion about why they think it’s not a good idea to enter into an agreement that is going to see billions of dollars of investment in this province, that is going to see billions of dollars in new revenues for our children and our grandchildren, and that is going to help us to revitalize an industry in British Columbia that in the northeast of B.C. can be for us a shining example of the way to create investment in new technologies.

Th is is truly an opportunity of a lifetime, not just in terms of the fi nancial benefi t to British Columbians but certainly in terms of what we can do, if we work hard at it and if we continue the right policies, to achieve in improving the environmental performance of our up- stream natural gas industry. Clearly, we know that what this agreement does not do is tie our hands on the environment. Far from it. What it does do is give us a tremendous opportunity that I am proud that on this side of the House we intend not to pass up. G.

Heyman: It gives me pleasure to rise to try and put some perspective in this debate, from my view, on both the opposition’s position on resource development — my concerns about some aspects of both the project develop- ment agreement and the bill that would enable it — as well as some of the comments I’ve listened to from the government side of the House. Let me say that the last time I followed the Minister of Environment, I was in a position to congratulate her for some actions, but I don’t think I’m going to be doing that today, although she did raise a number of important issues in her speech.

However, I think it’s important to note that at the be- ginning of her speech she appeared to characterize the opposition’s position as one in which we would essen- tially be saying no to this development and no to all kinds of development. Our position is quite diff erent. Our position is that we support responsible develop- ment of British Columbians’ resources, with a number of conditions.

Th ose conditions are that British Columbians get a fair return from the resource, because, in fact, we own the resource collectively, and simply selling it short isn’t good public policy. [1505] Another condition is that we want to fi nd jobs for every British Columbian who’s ready to work and ready to be trained.

Part of that scenario is a whole suite of policies that actually go back 14 years or so to indicate why we perhaps are now in a position of having to seek assistance from temporary foreign workers, because we don’t have and haven’t had a training system in British Columbia that would provide job-ready British Columbians for this industry. We also believe that there need to be true partnerships with First Nations. Th is particular project and the project development agreement fall short in this area.

Clearly, when you have challenges from the Lax Kw’alaams, chal- lenges from the Gitga’at to the location of the terminal and the proposal itself, based on their traditional fi shing rights, their history and the potential impact on salmon from the positioning of the terminal, that is a very, very critically important issue that has to be resolved. It’s not something that should be left to the end of an agreement. It’s not something that should be taken for granted. It’s a critical piece.

Finally, very importantly — and I’m going to spend much of my time talking about this — is protection for our air, land and water, which of course, includes cli- mate. I’ll digress for just a minute. We have seen, for the last number of years, incredible droughts in California. Th is year we saw droughts in Washington state, as well as water shortages in British Columbia itself. It’s not going to get better. Nobody who’s acquainted with climate science believes that things are going to get better. Th ey’re going to get worse.

We’re going to have to do everything we can to mitigate and everything we can to adapt, while we’re seeking to provide food security for British Columbians. Food security is challenged, on the one hand, by the failure of other jurisdictions to provide the quantity of food that they’ve been able to provide us in the past and, on the other hand, by the fact that the population in B.C. is going to grow considerably, as members on the other side have pointed out, in the next two decades.

We need to be able to increasingly provide food ourselves, to grow our own food, and that will be constrained by changes that are brought on to both climate and water supply by a continually changing climate. We say on this side of the House….

Notwithstanding the Environment Minister’s and others’ claims — and I’ll get to those in a minute — that natural gas is the cleanest- burning fossil fuel, that therefore, we should be willing to provide it to others who are currently burning coal and diesel and that they will have the cleanest facilities — it’s important to listen to the word “facility” — we say our responsibilities go further. Our responsibilities should cover the entire produc- tion chain, the transportation chain, as well as the com- pression chain itself — the facility itself.

And as we do that, if we do that, we also need to have an overall cli-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 9005 mate action plan in British Columbia that has within it a clearly stated goal that’s achievable in terms of meeting our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, which means that we have to have policies in a whole bunch of other areas that target industry, transportation and de- velopment around the province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible to account for any place where they’re going to increase.

Listening to the comments from members opposite, I feel like I’m operating in this chamber in a cloud of the Premier’s pixie dust, where she thinks she can say that we’re going to have the greenest LNG in the world while conveniently ignoring the greenhouse gas emissions of methane and carbon, both at the wellhead and in the transportation pipeline section, and can simply focus on the compression itself, even though that is questionable when we’re powering the compression with gas. Y ou can’t simply pick and choose where the emissions are coming from. Th ey’re all going into the atmosphere.

And if it’s part of a project, it’s part of the emissions, and it’s part of the impacts on climate change. It’s part of the greenhouse gas emissions th at British Columbians ex- pect us in this chamber — and particularly government, as agreements are signed with proponents on liquid nat- ural gas — to address.

British Columbians are tired of hearing that we have to choose between the environment and the economy. [1510] British Columbians increasingly are aware that an economy that isn’t built on sound environmental pro- tections that include a solid plan to control, limit and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions isn’t in the economy’s interest, isn’t in their interest, isn’t in the interest of future generations. It instead leaves a very, very expensive legacy that will have to be carried by children, by grandchildren and by great-grandchildren. It’s not just a legacy of livability.

It’s a legacy of cost, whether it’s the cost of fi ghting fi res that have ramped up in both intensity and in terms of hectares being burned every year, as well, of course, as in costs. Th e Minister of Environment thought it odd that we would quote Premier Campbell’s former chief of staff , Martyn Brown, because his opinions were somehow not factual. But his comments were, in fact, about the whole nature of bargaining agreements.

If I might paraphrase the statements of the Minister of Environment early in her speech, she seemed to be saying that this development is so important to British Columbia that it can only proceed if we get a deal at what- ever terms we can get, that that’s the best deal we can get, and the opposition is simply illogical and unreasonable in expecting that better deals could be had. Let me, notwithstanding the objections of the Minister of Environment, read from some of the statements of the former chief of staff to the Premier, because they have to do with negotiations.

Th ey ring true to me, as somebody who spent 30 years of my life involved in negotiations. Mr.

Brown says: “The Clark government hopes to rush that binding contract into law within the next sev- eral days, in the dead of summer, although it is not ob- liged to do so. ” And: “Th e enabling legislation need not be passed or put into force before ‘the end of the session of the Legislative Assembly in fall 2015 or such later date as may be agreed between the parties. ’” Here we are in this chamber, in an unprecedented summer sitting, rushing through an agreement so that the Premier can put another notch on her belt as she talks about her ability to develop deals that will create, she continues to say, 100,000 jobs.

She continues to say it will generate billions of dollars and continues to imply it will pay down the British Columbia debt — none of which, clearly, are true. Th is government isn’t even willing to give us the time to consider properly all the aspects of the project de- velopment agreement, as well as this bill. Mr. Brown goes on to say: “Th at is important to know, for it would allow all legislators until at least the end of November, or even later if need be, to properly assess that deal.

It begs to be expertly parsed and broadly exposed before it is imposed on our province. ” He then says: “It is a bad deal for B.C. that should give us all pause to refl ect on the devil that is everywhere in its details.

Th e fi ne print of that deal will commit our province to a course that is environmentally reckless, fi scally foolhardy and socially irresponsible…. “We should not accept this deal that would enshrine an un- precedented 25-year tax giveaway to state oil companies…nor should we accept that the price for attracting any LNG project is a deal that amounts to a wholesale sellout of our provincial sovereignty…. “We should not be content to let the government sell out British Columbia’s long-term capacity to appropriately manage, tax and regulate our most valuable non-renewable resource or to properly price and minimize the massive greenhouse gas emissions that will result from LNG exports. ” Let’s look at what the benefi ts are to British Columbia.

What we are seeing in this agreement is a particularly fa- vourable tax regime for this proponent, one that will be replicated for other proponents in the future. [1515] It allows the proponent to write off capital costs against profi ts until they’re paid off . It also allows a particular reduction in the corporate tax, and it has a lower spe- cial natural gas LNG tax than was originally proposed by the government. But critically, it locks that in for a period of 25 years. I listened to the Minister of Finance on CBC, about a week ago, say: “Oh no, no. We’re not binding the hands of future governments.

We’re simply saying that if a future government changes the tax regime, the proponent will be reimbursed dollar for dollar by the people of British Columbia.” It’s sophistry. Th at’s tying the hands of future governments. It’s tying the hands of British Columbians. We have a deal that could have up to 70 percent tempor- ary foreign workers at its late stages and 40 percent over-

British Columbia Debates9006 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 all during most of construction. We have a quote from an interview of Michael Culbert of Pacifi c NorthWest LNG, in which he says: “We will hire Canadians if Canadians are available to do the job….

It comes down to the abil- ity to source Canadian labour. ” It’s unfortunate that the Jobs Minister — who has repeatedly stated how important it is for us to employ British Columbians, to create opportunities for British Columbians, to create training opportunities for British Columbians — is not in this House, because when she was Advanced Education Minister in 2002, she oversaw the dismantling of the apprenticeship requirements that conform to Canada’s Red Seal requirements in British Columbia.

Th at is why so many young British Columbians don’t have the certifi cations that are needed and will be neces- sary to accept these jobs and many other jobs. Th e gov- ernment need look no further than themselves for any shortages that foreign corporations may fi nd when they come in here looking for skilled workers. We are now reaping the reward of Liberal government policies from their fi rst term in offi ce.

I am going to close my remarks shortly, because others on this side of the House — particularly the member for Surrey-Newton, whose responsibility it is, particularly, to speak to this issue — have a number of remarks to make. But it is important. Th e Minister of Environment referred to the statements of Matt Horne, of the Pembina Institute. Matt Horne, in a recent blog, has pointed out that this agreement ties the hand of government with respect to future environmental regulations in a number of very signifi cant ways.

If a future government wanted to address greenhouse gas policy or rising emissions in British Columbia and the impacts of those emissions — for instance, by requiring the proponent to use more renewable energy rather than burning natural gas — it would be the people of British Columbia who would have to be paying, eff ectively, for the industry’s environmental impact in British Columbia, not the person, the people, who are profi ting from it. It is not keeping our environmental options open for government and the people of B.C.

It is not leaving room for a future government to deal with environmental poli- cies or to deal with measures that have costs that are im- portant, that we may deem to be important, in the future. Th at is why so many people on this side of the House disagree with the government’s approach, disagree with the 25-year deals and disagree with the guaranteeing to Pacifi c NorthWest LNG and Petronas that they will not have any additional costs if things change, as we know they will, over the next 25 years. With that, I will take my seat. Hon. S.

Anton: It’s with great pleasure that I rise today to off er my support for Bill 30. [1520] Over the past few weeks I have had the great pleas- ure of attending graduation ceremonies at two of British Columbia’s largest high schools, both in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview: Killarney high school and David Thompson Secondary School. In each school there were about 350 grads crossing the stage to receive their Dogwood diplomas. Th e students looked terrifi c.

Prepared for the next stage of their lives by our excellent public school system, they had a smile on their faces, a spring in their step, an optimism in their faces. Now, my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview is a very multicultural riding, and it has a very strong presence of many new immigrants. Many of those grads were not born in Canada. Others were born here, but their parents were not. In either case, their families, and most of the families whose young people crossed the stage, had im- migrated not too long ago to Canada, to give their chil- dren opportunity.

Whether they came here recently or they came here many years ago, they came for opportunity. Th ey came here for the economic and cultural prosperity that they believe Canada off ers, and they were right. Th is country off ers prosperity and opportunity, and there is nowhere in Canada where the opportunity for prosperity is greater than in British Columbia. How do we achieve opportunity and prosperity? In the resource industries by focusing on building our resource industries and, in particular, by building respectful part- nerships with First Nations.

By establishing skills-train- ing programs that match training with anticipating jobs. By creating security through excellence in policing and rule of law. By having a justice system that is uni- versally admired and recognized for its fairness and its independence. By having a health care system that achieves the best health outcomes in the nation. Th at’s what we have in British Columbia. We have an education system in which our students have outcomes amongst the top three in the world. By building an economy that is vibrant and strong — that is what we are doing in British Columbia.

We are — members may possibly have heard and know — in the third year of balanced budgets in British Columbia. Few economies in the world have achieved that. And today, just a short while ago, the Finance Minister released the public accounts showing a $1.6 billion surplus for the last fi scal year, which will go immediately to paying down our operating debt. Th at is a remarkable achievement. British Columbia leads the country in economic growth. We have a triple-A credit rating as a result. Our trade from British Columbia is the most diversifi ed in the nation.

Th is is the direct result of concerted eff orts of this government, made to expand trade outside of tradition- al markets, attract the attention of international invest- ors and build and promote our British Columbia brand overseas. Since those eff orts began in earnest a decade

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, July 15, 2015 9007 ago, we have managed to grow our total exports to pros- perous economies like China by more than 600 percent. No wonder those students and their parents looked so optimistic. Whether their families have been here forever, whether they’ve been here for many years, or whether they have arrived quite recently, they want the same thing for their children: opportunity. But opportunity doesn’t come to those who stand still and wait. It doesn’t come to those who just say: “No, no, no, it’s all a mistake.

Don’t do it. ” Opportunity comes to those who seek it, to those who work for it. Th at is what our government is doing today, seeking the massive op- portunity presented by investment in liquid natural gas. Th is legislation is the seizing of opportunity. Th e pro- ject development agreement between the province and Pacifi c LNG marks a signifi cant milestone on the path to realizing the single largest capital investment in our province’s history.

We are saying yes to that on this side of the House. [1525] It will provide Pacifi c NorthWest LNG with the cer- tainty it needs to make long-term plans to do business in British Columbia and will help us set the stage for a brand-new industry that has the potential to employ thousands of British Columbians and be a key economic driver in our province for years to come.

We have been preparing for this opportunity for nearly a decade, with progressive royalty programs, infrastruc- ture upgrades, clean energy policies, comprehensive en- vironmental assessments and direct engagement with First Nations, industry and communities. Th is is an in- vestment in our future. It doesn’t just mean more jobs and increased revenue for government. It means more fund- ing for services like health care and education and more funding for infrastructure in British Columbia. Th e industry estimates that more than 240 million tonnes of LNG were traded around the world last year.

In fact, global trade in LNG doubled between the years 2000 and 2010 and is expected to grow by another 50 percent in the next fi ve years. Th is presents an unprecedented op- portunity for our province to strengthen our economy by entering into the market of a commodity that has global signifi cance. Th e economic prospects are substantial.

Under the current tax and royalty framework, our province could see more than $8.5 billion in total royalties and tax rev- enues by the year 2030, with the Pacifi c NorthWest LNG project alone generating 4,500 jobs at peak construction and creating an additional 630 direct and indirect pos- itions. Th is is a massive investment with a massive po- tential payoff . Michael Culbert, president of Pacifi c NorthWest LNG, has already stated that the company is committed to hir- ing as many local British Columbian and Canadian work- ers as possible to support the construction and operation of the facility.

Now, I know the members opposite don’t like to hear that, but that is the commitment. To follow through on this objective, Pacifi c NorthWest LNG is working closely with a number of educational providers and associations to ensure our workforce is prepared for these great opportunities. Th e House will know that the Minister of Jobs has been working in a most determined way in the last two years, as has gov- ernment over the last many years, to make sure that our youth and our workers are positioned to go into the jobs that are ready for them.

Th is is also our chance to forge new partnerships with First Nations and to work together with the private sec- tor and First Nations to create LNG-related benefi ts for aboriginal communities throughout British Columbia. We know, as do First Nations, that there are great bene- fi ts that can fl ow from the growth of British Columbia’s natural gas sector with jobs and economic opportunities. Nearly 90 percent of the 32 First Nations with LNG proposals in their traditional territories have indicated their support for one or more pipeline benefi ts agree- ments.

We’ve also reached agreements with 14 bands near the proposed Pacifi c NorthWest LNG facility in Prince Rupert and are working hard to address any outstand- ing concerns. On the environmental side, as the Minister of Environment has said, we are continuing to work togeth- er with First Nations and the private sector to ensure that the highest environmental standards are achieved. We are committed to making B.C. ’s LNG facilities the clean- est in the world.

Natural gas is the world’s cleanest-burn- ing fossil fuel, and converting just one heavy-duty truck from diesel to natural gas has the same eff ect as taking more than 300 cars off the road. By exporting LNG, we can help other jurisdictions reduce their dependence on higher greenhouse gas–producing fuels such as coal. We have high expectations for LNG projects in this province. Th ey must be responsibly developed and safely operated, and First Nations will be engaged and involved with their advancement.

Pacifi c NorthWest LNG is looking to produce large, stable volumes of natural gas in British Columbia for many years to come to supply its export needs, and it’s not the only company looking to do so. Th ere are 20 pro- posed LNG projects in various stages of development around British Columbia from Delta to Campbell River to Prince Rupert. Th ere are also three facilities that in- tend to focus on providing fuel for the domestic trans- portation and heavy equipment industries.

Eleven of these proposals have already received export approval from Canada’s National Energy Board, while provincial environmental assessment certifi cates have been issued for seven. [1530] To date, more than $7 billion has been invested by in- dustry to acquire natural gas assets that will support the development of the industry, while more than $2 billion

British Columbia Debates9008 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 has been spent preparing for the construction of LNG infrastructure. I am guessing that every single person in this House knows directly somebody who has already been work- ing in preparation for the industry being developed in British Columbia. I know I certainly know several people in my acquaintance who have been working on projects, whether they be engineers, whether they be biologists, whether they be working in forestry. Th ey are all work- ing with companies who are aiming to develop the LNG infrastructure and industry in British Columbia.

Th e Pacifi c NorthWest LNG facility alone represents a total investment of nearly $36 billion in our economy. Th at’s a very big number. Th ese investments have prov- en that there is strong confi dence in and commitments to B.C. ’s natural gas future from major global compan- ies. Th at is what we have today — a massive opportun- ity for British Columbia, a generational opportunity that leverages our geographical advantage and our abundant natural resources to create a brand-new industry.

Th is agreement with Pacifi c NorthWest LNG is the fi rst of its kind and brings together government and major global players to set a path toward ratifi cation. Bill 30 provides long-term certainty that investments will be treated equitably and consistently and will enable future agreements with other proponents. People want security, and British Columbia off ers security in every sense of that word. Th is work lays the framework for establishing a thriving, competitive LNG industry while allowing us to set a standard for environmental and so- cial responsibility.

LNG provides an amazing opportunity to improve ac- cess to skills training, to

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150715pm-Hansard-v28n1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150715pm Hansard v28n1
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	159f722c12bd77ed8a5c973b0f689a685a398a8d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).