British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, October 21, 2014 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) (20141021pm-Hansard-v15n10) (20141021pm Hansard v15n10)

20141021pm-Hansard-v15n10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Th ird 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) Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 10

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Third 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. Amrik Virk 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. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson 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 ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, 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 (BC Liberal) ............................................. 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 Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant 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, Hon. 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, 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 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...........................................................................Hon.

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 .................................................................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 .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan 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 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 4767 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 4767 Bill 6 — Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act Hon.

M. de Jong Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 4767 Bill 3 — Canadian Pacifi c Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act (continued) L. Krog B. Routley Hon. S. Th omson Th rone Speech Debate (continued) ....................................................................................................................................... 4772 L. Reimer M. Elmore Michelle Stilwell V . Huntington J. Martin D. Eby R. Lee S. Robinson Hon. N. Y amamoto J.

Darcy Hon. D. McRae J. Rice

TUESDAY , OCTOBER 21, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members C. Trevena: In the precinct today are a number of people who are representatives from the Automotive Industries Association of Canada — Greg Sims, the executive director, and Jason Kerr, the director of government relations; also, Gary Hoover, director of the Western Canada Tire Dealers; Dave Deley, the general manager of store operations with Fountain Tire; Michael Rutherford, the director of busi- ness development for O.K.

Tire; and Kim Reynhoudt from Canadian Tire based here in Victoria. Th ey are in the precincts today and are having meet- ings and had meetings with myself and meetings with the government side. Th ey’re talking about road safety and the safety of all of us as we drive around this province, and they’re talking about the importance of small busi- ness in our communities. I know that we all have the opportunity to meet with them this evening. Th ey are hosting a reception for all members who wish to join.

I hope the House will make them very welcome. [1335] Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS INCOME TAX ACT Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: With the introduction of balanced budget 2014-2015 earlier this year, the government re- vealed its intention to introduce a new tiered income tax that would be applicable to the LNG sector.

We also at that time pledged to introduce legislation containing the details of that tax by October. It is October, and this bill, No. 6, Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act, is provided for in the legislation that I’ve tabled to- day and also amends the Income Tax Act to implement a corporate income tax natural gas tax credit. The LNG income tax will apply to the net income from liquefaction activities at LNG facilities in British Columbia. Th e tax rate on net income will be 3.5 per- cent, eff ective for taxation years beginning on or aft er January 1, 2017.

During the period when net operating losses and the capital investment are being deducted, a tax rate of 1.5 percent will apply and is creditable against the 3.5 percent rate. In 2037 the LNG income tax rate will increase to 5 percent. Th is ensures that proponents have time to build a strong foundation in the communities in which they operate before the full extent of the taxes apply. It also ensures guaranteed revenue fl ow for the next generation of British Columbians.

Also effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, the natural gas tax credit under the Income Tax Act provides a non-refundable credit based on the cost of natural gas owned by a corporation at the inlet to an LNG facility in British Columbia. Th e tax cred- it can be used to reduce the eff ective British Columbia corporate income tax rate to as low as 8 percent. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting aft er today.

Bill 6, Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act, intro- duced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on or- ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3, Canadian Pacifi c Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act. Second Reading of Bills BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILW AY (STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT (continued) L. Krog: I am delighted to see so many members in the chamber who want to debate Bill 3.

It’s always a fl at- tering thing when the members take such an interest in the work before them. Y ou know, a very wise judge quoted a senior Vancouver counsel to me many years ago, the late Ralph Long, who once said that a poor settlement was better than a good lawsuit any day. What we’re really dealing with here in Bill 3 is essentially, arguably, a poor settlement. [1340] In this case the defendant is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and several John Does and ABC contractors. So we’re not the plaintiff in this proceeding, and that, of course, raises some issues. 4767

British Columbia Debates4768 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 The CP Rail is willing to go away for $19 million. Essentially, what that means is they will extinguish their rights to both the stone and timber under several thou- sands of hectares of land as set out in the

schedule to the action, which was fi led under registry No. S134003 in the Vancouver registry back on May 30, 2013. Th e rights to those lands, in terms of stone and timber rights, will be gone. Now, that may in fact be a good deal for the province of British Columbia. It may save a great deal of litigation costs, and it may indeed potentially bring, could bring, some revenue to the province, actually. But that’s not the intent of the bill, which is fairly clear in a careful reading.

Th e minister hasn’t had time to or chosen to — what- ever the case may be — explain to the House the back- ground that may lie with this fully in a way that I’m sure is going to come out during the course of committee stage. I don’t mean that as a criticism. All I am saying is in a practical way, we’re being asked to essentially approve a bill which, obviously, unlike many pieces of legislation that come before this House, actually has a signifi cant history behind it, and that history is incredibly important.

Th e opposition is going to want to know, legitimately — I’m sure the minister’s folks are listening carefully to every word I have to say — what sort of evaluations were done to determine whether or not the $19 million is an appropriate settlement sum; whether or not the rights that are being purchased, if you will, are in fact worth that much money or if there is a potentially larger claim; and if it is good benefi t for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Because what is also clear, as I said earlier this morning before lunch, is that some British Columbians in particu- lar are going to benefi t signifi cantly as a result of this bill. Th e stone and timber rights that other private land owners have purchased over time quite specifi cally, in addition to purchasing what is referred to in the litiga- tion itself as essentially surface rights…. Th ose owners have paid more. Owners under this bill will get the bene- fi t of those rights being forgiven — well, literally gift ed to them — by the province of British Columbia,

whereas others have paid signifi cant sums of money. Th e opposition’s understanding is…. I can’t guarantee that these fi gures are accurate, but one landowner in the Kootenays paid $250,000 to have the stone and timber reservation removed on a 160-acre plot. On a small, 3.1- acre lot in the Kootenay Land District a real estate agent brought the reservation from CPR For $10,000. We have another situation where it was part of a purchase of 379 acres, the subsurface rights. Th at was $1 million.

Obviously, some of the land involved in this may be productive, some of it may be covered with timber, or some of it may have precious little stone on it, but we don’t know that. We haven’t heard the minister address that in his opening remarks with the introduction of this bill or his comments in second reading. Th ere is a great deal that the opposition doesn’t know and, frankly, that the opposition needs to know, but most importantly, we are simply the voices of the people of British Columbia here.

Th e people of British Columbia deserve to know why their government is not simply settling this claim and taking an assignment of all of the rights that the CPR would have and then determining, once having secured those rights, what is an appropriate disposition of those rights with respect to those lands that are marked as private under this, because we’re talking about a great deal of real estate. My understanding is that we’re talking about several thousands of hectares of land, and surely it behooves the Crown to do the best that it can.

We hear over and over again in this chamber that the government cannot af- ford, for instance, to stop the clawback of child support to parents on social assistance — $17 million, less than the total sum being paid out for this. [1345] We hear over and over again: “We can’t possibly aff ord to do that because, aft er all, the budget has to be balanced under all circumstances. ” Y et to the hungry children of British Columbia quite literally we say: “Sorry, you’re not a priority. ” But to landowners in the interior, who may be fi ne and deserving and upright citizens and have contrib- uted to the province in ways that we can’t even imagine, nevertheless, we say: “We’re prepared to gift to you pot- entially millions of dollars of rights with respect to stone and timber on your property. ” I have to say — I hope the minister is going to be able to answer these questions when it comes to committee stage — I’ d like to hear from the minister what possible justifi cation a government has that on one hand says to the poor and vulnerable, “Sorry, we can’t help you, ” but says to those who already own real estate….

Some of these owners may well be extremely wealthy British Columbians, may in fact own thousands of hectares of this land, but we don’t know that yet. On one hand you say to them: “We’re prepared to give you Christmas early this year, in October. ” But to the chil- dren of the province who live in circumstances which everyone, I’m sure, would agree must be pretty grim — if your parent or parents are on social assistance — you’re prepared to say: “Sorry. Tough luck. No money in the kitty. Y ou’re on your own. ” Th ose are what we’re supposed to deal with in this chamber, the balances here.

I look forward to hearing from this minister, who I believe to be a man of good conscience, how he explains just the single juxtaposition I have raised here today, which is between the poor chil- dren of this of province and property owners who will get the benefi t of this bill. What possible justifi cation is there for that? How can you possibly explain this away? Wouldn’t it make more sense to, in fact, take the rights, dispose of them to the private property owners, even at a discounted rate, and then take that money and allow the parents of this prov-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4769 ince whose children live in poverty to keep the child sup- port that the other parents are legally obligated to pay? Not an unreasonable question. I look forward to that minister’s explanation. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members H. Bains: In the House today joining with us is my good friend, an outstanding community leader, ex- president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, with stellar com- munity service. Surjit Singh Gill is here with us.

Along with him are his brother Amrit Singh Gill and Professor Devinder Singh Suner. Also joining with them is my brother-in-law from Stockton, California, Jagmohan Singh Badyal. He’s here with us. Please help me welcome them to this wonderful House. Debate Continued B. Routley: I, too, would like to add my voice to the discussion about Bill 3.

While there is much that we do not know about this bill — I look forward to the oppor- tunity that we’re going to have tomorrow to have a more fulsome briefi ng on all of these issues — I am familiar from my past career with the problems that were created by certain actions on private land. I’ll just give you a few of the examples of those. One was the private lands that were held by companies such as Pacifi c Forest Products, back when they still existed, in the forests of British Columbia. It was primarily forested land, and the granting of rights to the railway, the old E&N land grant….

Th e purpose was to create the railway. Well, today, as history has unfolded, we no longer have a railway. I’m sure our forefathers, if they could have looked ahead…. Of course, at the time they were just simply focused on opening up this raw land to busi- ness opportunities, and I think we can really refl ect on that when we’re thinking about the relationship to what was then raw land and look at what’s going on now on Vancouver Island. [1350] Now we’ve got road corridors, all kinds of infrastruc- ture and development.

I’m certain, though, that we would have said, if we were there at the time that the language was being draft ed: “Not only are you going to be granted this land for the building of the railway, but we want you to ensure its upkeep and that it’s maintained. ” I wish, personally, that the forefathers had seen the need to have a clause in there that said that if there’s no longer an established railway and a corridor linking communities on Vancouver Island, we would reserve our right to take that land back. Unfortunately, we’re benefi t- ing from the hindsight of seeing what has actually hap- pened since that time.

Again, I’m sure our forefathers couldn’t have imagined a day such as we’re actually liv- ing in today. I do understand that this bill is about an action taken by Canadian Pacifi c Railway. Th e CPR was suing the province of British Columbia, and I understand that this is in eff ect a settlement agreement. Th is is about lands in the Kootenays, in the Okanagan regions. Th ese are about rights that were held on stone and timber. Well, those are similar kinds of rights that were handed back in the same era of time on Vancouver Island. Th ere was stone. Th ere were timber rights. It was exploited.

I might add that they carved off a forest company called Pacifi c Forest Products. I’m sure that was part of the CP Rail, although don’t hold me to that. I don’t have the time to research the history of what went on back in the spinning off of forest companies from railways. I do know that Pacifi c Forest Products was somehow related and had the benefi t of all of those lands, and they did eventually sell out those lands.

Th e areas on southern Vancouver Island all the way from Sooke right up over the San Juan used to be the dividing line between the lands in southern Vancouver Island and leading up to the Pacifi c lands in the Cowichan region. So it was a large, huge tract of land — all private lands. It was not logged sustainably, and that was one of the downsides. Y ou would have thought that people were going to log it in a sustainable manner. Th ey didn’t log it in a sustainable manner. In fact, I got to be there when they went from a 300-man crew down to a 100-man crew working for Pacifi c Forest Products in Sooke.

I still recall the day that I got called out to the camp to meet with the manager. Th ey were downsizing from 100 men down to 25. Th ey made that announcement, and they said: “We’re going down to 25 men so that we can continue on into the next century. ” Well, a century, it turned out, was only a year away. A year later the rest of that Pacifi c Forest Products crew was laid off . Th ose were folks that had worked on private land, thought they were working on it sustainably. In the end, basically all of the company crew was eliminated and replaced by a small group of contractors.

As a matter of fact, I might add that during that time I got to know Vince Ready on pretty well a fi rst-name basis. Vince and I have been to many, many mediations and arbitrations over the private lands issues and the contracting out that went on during that time. In fact, it would take at least two hands to count the number of times I went before Ready over private lands. I do understand that the government has found them- selves in litigation. Obviously, I can’t second-guess, with- out having a briefing, exactly why they came to the conclusion that they needed to cut a deal for $19 million.

British Columbia Debates4770 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Obviously, we’re going to have some thoughtful questions about how it became $19 million. Why wasn’t it $15 mil- lion or $10 million? What was the motivation? How did they come about those values? Who valued the timber? Who valued the stone that I’m sure was not all actually…? [1355] I mean, it wasn’t gold in them there hills, or I don’t think we’ d be giving it away — getting it back for $19 million and then promptly turning around and giving it away.

It’s the giving it away part that really gives me pause, because as other speakers have mentioned, we’ve heard already from at least one person who has said: “Well, wait a minute. I paid good money for this value. ” I oft en hear the folks from the other side talk about their free enter- prise hearts and how they know all there is to know about business and that we just don’t get it. Th ey try to tell us. And yet here the plan is to give it away. We haven’t even got it yet, but as soon as we get it, we’re apparently going to give it away and not even recover a dollar.

Y et other people have paid good value for the stone and timber. So I will be asking a lot of questions about why that’s the case and what the motivation is for that line of reasoning. Obviously, the other issue that comes into play is First Nations rights. When you look at the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions about consultation…. Again, we’re turning back the clock in time and dealing with a matter that refers to 1892 to 1908. Th at was when the province was granting three historical railways — B.C. Southern Railway, Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Co….

Th at was the time that this was grant- ed, these rights. I’m sure there was some rationale behind it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t…. As one of my colleagues men- tioned, there were a lot of decisions made over time. Whether it was B.C. Rail, the whole notion was to open up northern British Columbia, so I can understand that there were actions being taken. I should pause there for a moment and caution today’s decision-makers on things like LNG. We have to think about the decisions that we’re making today, because look at the long-term ramifi cations they have.

I’m sure we’re going to be talking about lands, whether they be private lands or Crown lands — all part of the manoeuvring that will go on with government looking at how to do some- thing new with LNG. Back to this decision to carve out a settlement. Again, I may in the end be supportive of the government’s notion of carving a settlement if I can be convinced that there were other legal matters, that they were convinced that there could have been even more cost to the province.

Normally, my experience with lawyers in the past has been that lawyers will say: “Y ou should cut this deal, pay the $19 million, because it could be twice that amount if we go to court and lose. ” So I do understand the nuan- ces and possibilities of dealing with a matter such as this. I’m sure any reasoned person is going to say to them- selves: “What the heck have these guys been doing all this time?” Since 1892 to 1908 somehow they missed out on the fact that there were people busy buying up land rights that happened to have their timber and all of their stone and who knows what other minerals under there.

But gee whiz, they were busy doing something. Th ey didn’t have the time to pay any attention to the fact that somebody was actually harvesting timber or other minerals. Gee, they were just quite busy running their railway to have the time to worry about timber and stone, I guess.

Now they’ve gotten around to it and de- cided in 2013, this says, to sue the B.C. government. [1400] Th ere were probably some lawyers that had a real idea of how the province ought to pay and probably came for- ward, dug through the fi ling cabinet and found a few bits of timber rights and some old mineral rights and said: “Well, let’s go and take the government to task. ” So here we are, dealing with this. Some of the notes that you look at — you say to your- self: “Oh boy, what does this mean?” It says they’re go- ing to extinguish all stone reservation interests.

All stone reservation interests that are currently held by CPR are going to be extinguished. Th en they’re going to grant…. “ A historic grant of railway land that includes a stone res- ervation in respect of which the stone reservation inter- est is extinguished under subsection (1) must be read as if the stone reservation had not been included in the his- toric grant of railway land. ” Oh, here we are. Fun with words, hon. Speaker. I could use the “j” word, but I won’t go there. I won’t go there, not today. It’s too soon. Y ou look at the extinguishment of timber reservation rights.

All timber reservation rights held by CPR are ex- tinguished. So we’ve got a real deal here. We’re busy ex- tinguishing rights. But just for greater certainty…. Again, I love these. Y ou’ve got to love these lawyers and spin doc- tors who come up with this stuff . It’s just so much fun. I can honestly say that when I was younger, growing up, I never, ever envisioned the day I’ d be having fun read- ing legislation and fi nding something humorous about it. But it really is quite fun and quite humorous if you’re in the right mood.

I’m in the “Settlement and extinguishment of claims. ” What could be better than that, to have a clause that says: “

(1) Th e payment of compensation by the government to CPR under the settlement agreement constitutes full and fi nal settlement of all claims by CPR against any person, whether or not the person is named or described in the cur- rent action, in relation to any of the following matters: (

a) a matter that is raised or referred to in the current action”? My goodness. More about the stone reservation and the timber reservation. Claims by CPR under subsection (2) of this

section and claims by CPR against any person in relation…. Th e lawyers really went to work.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4771 Th en we get down to another one of my favourite kind of clauses. Th ey’ve got

section 7: “Certain actions and proceedings prohibited. ” Th ese are the things that are prohibited, and we can’t wait to hear the full explanation for this one: “ A person has no right of action and must…. ” No, this is a person. Th is includes pretty well every- body — not just British Columbia; anybody anywhere on the planet, I assume, and any new ones to come. If you’re a person, you have no right of any action and “must not commence or maintain an action or other proceeding against the government for compensation or damages in relation to the enactment of this Act. ” Th ey’re going to enact

an act to make sure that you as a person, anywhere where you are and where you live — that includes the folks up there — have no rights. None. Be certain of that. Th ey’re extinguished as a result of the proceedings in this legislation. Y ou might ask, and you’ d be right to ask…. Certainly, the opposition has an obligation to thoroughly ques- tion all of these matters and go through this with a fi ne- tooth comb.

It does trouble me that oft en we have these trial bal- loons land on our table and the government says: “Oh yeah, well, you guys should just run in here and sup- port us, because we’ve got this $19 million lawsuit prob- lem that we want to make go away, and it’ll all be good. ” Apparently they’re going to get around to giving us a more fulsome and complete understanding of what this is all about, and the fi ne details.

I do want to go back to if you were one of the persons that had shelled out real cash — in some cases thou- sands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dol- lars, maybe even millions of dollars — to buy timber and mineral rights from the railway. [1405] I don’t know why somebody in the railway didn’t have a department in charge of this, because they were ob- viously taking in some cash. Maybe they were too busy coupling and uncoupling trains to really worry about such matters. Maybe they were riding in the caboose. Somebody had to be on the last caboose.

Whoever it was that was in charge obviously stopped paying atten- tion for a while. Now we’ve this legislation brought down, the heavy hammer here, that’s going to extinguish all of the rights of other persons, including those folks that might say: “Well, wait a minute. I want to be compensated because I paid good money, and now my neighbour gets this hand- ed to him for free. ” Th e province is just going to have this giveaway plan. Th is manna from heaven somehow comes fl oating down with this substantial gift — what I would call a substantial gift .

And again, there is this matter of: what about the First Nations right to be consulted? Y ou think about it. I know that in the time that I was representing people working on forested land, private lands, I saw the exploitation that went on — the hundreds of millions of dollars. Had our forefathers known what a tremendous asset that was in terms of the millions, if not billions, of dollars in timber rights that went down the road, out of those rights that were granted…. Basically, it was a free gift in return for what? Well, we got a railway. It wasn’t all that long.

In a century or less the railway had come and gone. Th e trains are gone. Th ey’ve stopped riding. I got to ride, by the way, when I fi rst started here in 2009. I actually took the train home from Victoria. I’m glad I did that, because it was prob- ably one of the last few rides on the train. As we were going over the bridge at Niagara Creek, by Goldstream Park, the conductor had them stop the train on the trestle.

I said: “Why are you doing that?” He said: “Because you’re on the train, and you’re asking me all these questions about the train. ” So he says: “I thought I’ d want to stop here and let you just think about the fact that this trestle hasn’t had any work done on it for 50 years. Y ou’re here riding across this trestle with us. Every time we go across this trestle, we think about whether or not it’s going to be our last, whether or not this trestle is going to really make it one more time. ” Fift y years is a long time with not a lot of maintenance on the trestle. When you think about these things….

Th ey’re com- plex. I’m sure this is no diff erent. I’m sure there’s a multi- tude of questions that we can get into, and we intend to be thoughtful about it. Again, I know that the min- ister works hard at these things, and his crew are usu- ally very good at sitting down and giving us a briefi ng. Unfortunately, this time around we’re getting a briefi ng aft er we get to talk about it for a while.

We do get to express today, right now, our concerns about instruments that may validate certain rights for the government, but it also retroactively is giving a gift to certain parties who may or may not have known that they were going to be receiving this gift . Th at in itself is a huge question. How many…? If some people knew that they needed to buy the timber and mineral rights, and other people bought land and they didn’t even know that somebody else owned their tim- ber and their mineral rights…. Imagine you’re sitting in your lawn chair.

One day a great big machine comes in and starts digging a hole, and they’re digging for mineral rights. I gather they’ d be perfectly within their rights to do that. Maybe that’s what happened. I don’t know. Maybe that’s what brought alarm bells to the government, and they’re going: “Oh my goodness, what have we got here?” [1410] Anyway, I think that’s pretty well it for me in terms of what I’ve got to say on this matter right now. I’m sure I could think of a few more things to chat about, but I’m not sure how relevant they would be. I’m sure the rel- evance will come with the full briefi ng.

British Columbia Debates4772 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Again, I look forward to that briefi ng and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about this mat- ter today. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the min- ister to close the debate. Hon. S. Th omson: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite and the questions raised, and I look forward to addressing those during the committee stage of debate. I was going to make a comment around the rel- evance of some of the comments from the member op- posite, questioning whether the comments he was really making were relevant or not.

Th ere is probably some de- bate over that. But I’m sure that in the fullness of time in the committee stage we’ll address the relevant questions that have been raised. Th ere has been quite a bit of comment around provid- ing the appropriate briefi ng on this legislation. I just want to make it clear that we received a request for a briefi ng just yesterday on this. Th e lack of availability of the key staff didn’t give us the opportunity to provide the briefi ng right away. But we have organized an appropriate brief- ing for the members opposite.

I look forward to doing that tomorrow, which I’m sure will help provide some clarity around some of the questions and comments that have been made. Again, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate where we’ll be able to address those in detail. An important piece of legislation. Th e comments that were made around the necessity for it, too, we understand. We will look forward to address- ing the specifi c comments around First Nations consulta- tion, valuation — all of those points that have been raised. With those comments, I move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. S.

Th omson: I move that the act be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Bill 3, Canadian Pacifi c Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. T. Lake: I now call continued debate on the Speech from the Th rone. Th rone Speech Debate (continued) L. Reimer: Hon.

Speaker, it’s an honour to rise in the House to respond in favour of last week’s throne speech and, in addition, to update you and the members of our House as representative of the best riding, Port Moody– Coquitlam. While the legal name of my riding is Port Moody–Coquitlam, it also includes the beautiful com- munities of Anmore and Belcarra. Before I begin, I would like to thank a number of people who have supported my move to provincial pol- itics and have allowed me the rewarding experience of serving others as MLA.

Th ey are my family — my won- derful husband, Les, who is now the offi cial grocery shop- per; our sons, Gord and Bill, who are now engaged and following both local and provincial matters; my wonder- ful mother, Norma; and my brother and his family — and my wonderful friends, who I do not see enough of but who are always there for me. In addition, my ability to assist and represent others always depends on our staff , who keep our busy lives sane. I would like to thank my constituency assistants — Mary Sanzovo, Vicki Collins and Barbara Spitz — very much for the support they have provided me in our offi ce.

My thanks also go to Isabel Acosta Sowerby, who is on maternity leave with her three young, wonderful boys, the newest a newborn named Azeff . I’m not certain any of us expected our offi ce to be as busy as it is. To my staff who support me all the time — my communications offi cer, Fatima Siddiqui; Stephanie Wray, my research offi cer; Suneil Karod, who takes good care of me as my legislative assistant here in Victoria — thank you to all.

I wish I had more time to recognize the wonderful work you all do more oft en. [1415] Th e throne speech delivered last week reaffi rms our clear direction in building a stronger economy, a strong- er society and a stronger British Columbia. First, let me begin by echoing the remarks delivered by some of my colleagues that our country and our province are in an enviable position in the world. We are blessed with hav- ing one of the highest standards of living. We enjoy per- sonal freedoms and liberties that others around the globe still dream of, and we live in a free, democratic society.

As British Columbians, we should never take these things for granted, and we must never forget the men and woman who fought valiantly in both world wars and on missions since for these freedoms and for our democracy. November 11 is Remembrance Day, and we shall never forget. Th is theme has resonated most especially with myself and the people of Port Moody–Coquitlam, as just last month we honoured a local fallen hero, Lieutenant McKnight, and hosted his current engineer cadet unit from North Vancouver. His original cadet unit served our country bravely during the First World War.

Th e actions of these heroes should serve as a constant reminder for us to learn from yesterday and to continu- ously strive towards the betterment of our province. Th is is why I fully support the Speech from the Th rone. Th e throne speech reminds us that we can’t get anywhere if we do nothing. Th e status quo won’t serve us well.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4773 My community of Port Moody–Coquitlam is an ex- ample of this. I’m honoured to represent my constitu- ents, and it is the people of these communities that keep it moving forward. Th ere’s much to celebrate. Th is past September I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the re-expansion of the Port Moody Arts Centre. Th e Centennial/Appleyard home was conjoined to the Port Moody Arts Centre via an atrium.

It was an interesting process to watch as the home was placed on the property on a frame and then gracefully lowered so that its fl oors sit at the same level as the arts centre fl oors. Th is has allowed the expansion of programming, galler- ies and services for the community, while recognizing our heritage. More recently I had the opportunity to celebrate the 30th anniversary of our local Eagle Ridge Hospital. Th e foundation there works really hard to ensure they have state-of-the-art medical equipment and programs and services for patients. Th ey’ve been working hard to ad- vocate for a much-needed expansion.

Mossom Creek Hatchery, which burned down last December, is in the process of being rebuilt thanks to our wonderful community and our local businesses and both civic and provincial governments, who all chipped in to move things forward. Th is new building, which is built with cement instead of wood for fi re hazard rea- sons, will be a state-of-the-art hatchery on the beautiful Mossom Creek. If status quo is not enough in our communities, then I ask: why should it be for government? How can it be when world markets are changing rapidly? How can status quo work in the global fi ght against climate change?

We need in our world to utilize cleaner energy, and LNG will allow many who use coal the opportunity to be more environmentally responsible. An expanded economy will allow us to compete in rapidly changing times. In order to grow and to move forward, our fi rst order of business is to ensure that all British Columbians are equipped with the skills and training necessary for the future we envision. Th is is why our government is work- ing hard to deliver on the B.C. jobs plan, our long-term strategy to secure a strong and prosperous economy for British Columbia now and for generations to come.

It provides job stability and opportunity for families and communities throughout B.C. Already steady progress has been made in achieving B.C. ’s economic goals, and we’ll continue to seek new ways to grow our economy and support job creation. If we don’t seek these avenues, then how will we get where we want to go? If we don’t push forward with a plan, how will we get where we want to be?

We are seeing signs of success, such as a near-record 2.3 million people work- ing in B.C., $3.9 billion in economic growth last year, $7.2 billion in economic expansion since 2011 and more than 50,000 new jobs since August of 2011. Th is year the focus is on four cross-sector areas of stra- tegic priority: small business, international trade, manu- facturing, and aboriginal peoples and First Nations. Each of these is in an area of renewed focus to help foster job creation across the original eight sectors of the jobs plan and across our province. We also have a new forum, the B.C.

Job Makers sec- tion of the website, so small and medium-size businesses can share their success stories with government and each other. Success stories are a tangible way government and industry can cite evidence that the jobs plan is working for our people and for our communities. Th ere again, while we may not be exactly where we want to be, we are headed in the right direction, and we have a plan. [1420] Th is plan focuses on ensuring that we provide more and better opportunities for women, because divers- ity is critical to building B.C. ’s highly skilled workforce.

Employment levels for women are at near-record levels, and women are earning more money today than at any other time in our province’s history. We have also in- creased funding for child care and introduced full-day kindergarten to help improve opportunities for women. In 2013 the average hourly rate for women in B.C. reached $22.05. Th is is an increase of 36 percent from $16.26 in 2001. Th e average hourly wage rate for men in- creased by 34 percent over the same time horizon. Since August 2001, B.C. has added 425,000 jobs to the labour market. Women accounted for 51 percent of this job gain.

In August 2014 over 1.1 million women worked in the province, among the highest in B.C. ’s history. In 2013 close to 38 percent of the self-employed workers in B.C. were women. Th is is higher than the national average of 37 percent. B.C. ’s share ranked fi ft h in Canada aft er Newfoundland and Labrador with 41 percent, Quebec with 38, Nova Scotia with 38 and New Brunswick with 38. We may ask ourselves: why is this important? Why do we need to constantly move forward?

We have to ensure that we provide what we provide today, but we will still need to provide fl exibility for increasing population and fl exibility for innovation with those services as well. Th e following are services we’ll need to think about. Th e Ministry of Children and Family Development will invest $292 million on child care in 2014-15, a 38 per- cent increase since 2000-2001. Th is funding goes towards operating funding for almost 107,000 licensed child care spaces in communities throughout the province.

Child care subsidies, including special needs supports for low- income families, help approximately 45,000 children and their families every year. Child care resource and referral programs off er qual- ity child care referrals, resources and support to families and providers in over 400 communities throughout the province. Minor capital funding helps licensed group child care providers meet licensing and safety standards.

British Columbia Debates4774 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 B.C. is steadfast in its commitment to the early years, currently investing more than $1 billion annually on early learning and childhood development initiatives and child care services. An additional $129 million is invested an- nually in full-day kindergarten. We are improving early learning while reducing child care pressures on families.

Budget 2014 confi rmed an additional $350 million over the next three years to sup- port families, individuals, and community safety, in- cluding an additional $243 million over three years for Community Living B.C., an additional $15 million over three years for the Ministry of Children and Family Development for children and youth with special needs, an additional $15 million over three years for increased RCMP policing costs and $6 million for legal aid–related services. In health care and education, as we know, the budget will increase $2.5 billion over three years.

Total health spending by function will reach $19.6 billion and be more than 42 percent of all government expenses by 2016-2017. B.C. continues to achieve key health outcomes that lead the country while maintaining the second-lowest rate of health spending per capita among provinces. Provincial funding for the K-to-12 and post-secondary systems continues at Budget 2013 levels. Th e B.C. train- ing and education savings grant program announced in Budget 2013 is anticipated to benefi t 27,000 children in 2013-14.

In the year since government fi rst announced the program, the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent. Children born in 2007 or later are eligible for this $1,200 grant. Families now have up to three years aft er a child turns six to apply for the grant. Our government is also making significant invest- ments in skills training to ensure that British Columbians are fi rst in line for the jobs of tomorrow.

Th at includes $2.3 billion for capital spending towards skills-training facilities and post-secondary, and $1.3 billion in cap- ital towards a world-class K-to-12 system over the next three years. Budget 2014 provides $29 million over three years to ensure the appropriate management of the province’s LNG strategy to foster the successful development and growth of the industry.

An additional $9 million over three years will help support environmental assessments of resource development impacts of proposed LNG fa- cilities and pipelines, mining and other major projects. [1425] The film and television production regulation has been amended to include the capital regional district in the distant-location tax credit. Th is applies to produc- tions with principal photography beginning on or aft er February 19, 2014. A new investment of $5 million over fi ve years will help attract global aerospace and defence contractors to B.C.

B.C. early childhood tax benefi ts will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years old, eff ective April 1, 2015. Families with those young children can receive up to $55 per child per month. Most will receive the full amount while those with family incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 a year will receive a partial benefi t. About 90 percent of B.C. families with young children are expected to be eligible. Personal income tax rates. We know that we have the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $121,000 a year.

Provincial per- sonal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. Today an additional 400,000 people no longer pay any B.C. income tax. An in- dividual, as an example, earning $20,000 a year pays $650 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. A seniors couple earning $40,000 pays $791 less in provin- cial tax than they did in 2001. An individual earning $50,000 a year pays $1,340 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001. A family of four earning $70,000 a year pays $1,990 less in provincial income taxes than they did in 2001.

Many British Columbians buying their first home will pay less property transfer tax as the threshold for the first-time homebuyers program has increased to $475,000 from $425,000 — an exemption that can save the purchaser up to $7,500 when buying their fi rst home. We’re working hard to better the lives of British Columbians, but we can’t do that without exercising re- straint with our taxpayer-funded purse. When the budget was introduced in February of this year, we were one of only two jurisdictions in Canada to balance our books.

Balanced budget 2014 reaffi rmed our government’s com- mitment to control spending, to diversify and create jobs, to grow the economy and to increase our relationship with emerging economic interests. It was a signifi cant accomplishment, one that showed leadership and resolve. With a commitment to not living beyond our means, spending more money than provided by taxpayers is not a sustainable way to manage an economy. Th e greatest advantage of a balanced budget is having the fi scal free- dom to make strategic inve stments that help B.C. fam- ilies.

Taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion. Th is in- cludes $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or ex- pand K-to-12 facilities, $2.3 billion for capital spending by post-secondary institutions across B.C., $2.6 billion on health sector infrastructure and $3.4 billion for trans- portation investments. Th ese are just a few examples of how this government continues to invest in British Columbians and just a few examples of why I’m honoured to stand in support of the Speech from the Th rone.

Th ese are the good-news stor- ies that we need to maintain and to build on. We need an expanded economy. To do this, we must support a larger, more expansive LNG industry. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to present to you.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4775 M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise in response to the throne speech that was delivered and to speak on behalf of constituents in Vancouver-Kensington and also con- stituents around the province. I’ d like to just give recogni- tion to my offi ce staff — constituency assistants who do a great job supporting the work I do there and really do a great job of welcoming constituents, providing services in diff erent languages and just being great public servants in the area.

So I want to thank them for their hard work. [1430] Also, I’m going to get into talking about some of the specifi cs in the throne speech. But I want to just share, fi rst of all, a few of the activities and events that I think have been quite special in Vancouver-Kensington, and set the context and the backdrop in terms of some of the points I’m going to be raising with respect to the throne speech on particular areas of concern that residents in Vancouver-Kensington share.

First of all, I was very excited when the South Vancouver Majors All-Stars from the South Vancouver Little League won the 2014 Canadian championships and represented Canada in the world Little League in August in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. When I was elected, folks from the Little League — actually parents — approached me and said, “Mable, we don’t have a batting cage for our Little League, ” and asked for help and support. I approached and worked with the parks board and was very pleased to help them establish that.

I know my colleagues around the province also ap- preciate just how active Little Leagues are right across the province and how parents and kids are involved and engaged. Very excited and very happy that they not only won the Canadian championships, but that they repre- sented Canada. [D. Horne in the chair.] We also had, very significant…. The Dalai Lama spoke just down the street from my offi ce, at John Oliver Secondary School today, bringing a message of compas- sion. John Oliver hosted this event because of its work linking compassion and learning.

I think it shows the dedication of the leadership, the teachers, the principal at John Oliver and really the community, refl ecting the type of community that we have in Vancouver-Kensington. We also have in Vancouver-Kensington a lot of diverse backgrounds. We celebrated the 88th anniversary of the Polish Harvest Days in September. We’ve got the Polish community festival — always a big event and celebra- tion there. Also a very special opening that I attended: the open house for Bahay Migrante — the Migrante House — which is Migrante B.C., an organization that advocates on behalf of temporary foreign workers.

Th ey purchased and renovated a house just down the street from my of- fi ce, actually. Th ey had their open house advocating on behalf of temporary foreign workers and providing a space for people who were in need of housing or needed access to legal services. Th ose were very positive developments that I wanted to convey in terms of the community. It’s very diverse but very active and involved, participating in building com- munity and bringing issues and concerns forward to me in my role as MLA.

In addition, we have an excellent community-based policing offi ce, the South Vancouver community poli- cing centre, led by very capable folks. Th ey’re a volunteer board, and they just do an excellent job. I know of other community police centres in other areas. We just have two full-time offi cers there, but they in- volve hundreds of volunteers from the community and really contribute not only to ensuring that streets are safe but building a sense of community through their many programs and activities. Th eir Citizens on Patrol program — where they have a bike patrol, a foot patrol, even a pooch patrol.

Th ey’re very innovative, so people who walk their dogs also keep an eye out for their neighbours. It’s an excellent program of engaging neighbours and young people being involved. I’m very supportive and appreciative of the work they do. Really a measure of success. Th ey’re looking to open an- other satellite offi ce — I hope along Fraser Street, clos- er to my offi ce. Th ere’s great support from the business improvement association looking to also have that model really take root there. So that’s positive.

They’re very active in their road safety program SpeedWatch — pedestrian safety, bike safety, traffic studies. In particular, I want to highlight a couple of their community and education outreach programs. Th ey have an international student safety project, and they’ve also done a project against international traffi cking. [1435] Th is is very signifi cant and a real contribution to be- ing able to produce these materials and really be leaders in these areas.

I wanted to give an idea of, to recognize, some of the community groups and activities underway in Vancouver-Kensington, to give a background to some of my comments with regards to the throne speech. First of all, I was listening hard to the throne speech for commitments and promises that would address the concerns and priorities of my constituents. We have a lot of folks, and I know that many of my colleagues as well….

Most of the work coming into the offi ce is case- work, people who have questions or diffi culty navigat- ing through the system around social assistance, having access to legal aid, single parents dealing with a crisis in access to aff ordable housing. Th ese are a number of the concerns that come forward to me in my offi ce on a daily basis. My hope was that the throne speech would address some of these concerns. But

British Columbia Debates4776 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 I would say that I was disappointed in the lack of focus, number one; the lack of content; and, I think, a lack of recognition of those challenges, certainly, that I identify as priorities in Vancouver-Kensington. We heard from the Premier during the election — wild promises in terms of the promises to be delivered from liquefi ed natural gas. Certainly, there are, you know, ex- pansive fi elds of natural gas, and there was the potential there.

We heard wild promises — I would characterize them as wild promises — of a prosperity fund that would eliminate the sales tax, eliminate the debt, provide bil- lions of dollars in revenues and create just scores of jobs. Th at’s the rhetoric, on the one hand. Today, and cer- tainly in the throne speech, we’re seeing the reality. While there is the great potential for liquefi ed natural gas, we’ve seen a delay — missing those targets. Just today, as a matter of fact, by coincidence we have the income tax announced for liquefied natural gas. We’ve had that come out.

In fact, we see a downgrade not only from the promises of the Premier in the last election, of hundreds of billions of dollars, but even in terms of the previous budget. It was just eight short months ago when the government laid out what it thought would be a fair return to British Columbians in terms of liquefi ed nat- ural gas around an income tax rate of around 7 percent. Now we’re seeing that in actual fact that has been cut in half and that we have…. So for eight months….

We’re seeing the reality of a real downgrading of those expecta- tions and, I think, a real disappointment in terms of the lack — very poor leadership. Y ou know, in eight months, the kind of jostling, certainly with the wild plans, the wild promises in the public — what the impact is in terms of actually landing on a deal. Y ou know, today the amount of downgrading…. It’s cut in half. It’s cut in half in terms of what is actually going to be delivered, and, certainly, the focus on LNG is also the question with regards to the actual number of plants that are going to be delivered.

We heard in the throne speech, which focused exclu- sively on liquefi ed natural gas, on the one hand, that de- lays in the implementation…. Y ou know, we’re still waiting to actually have a commitment for those projects moving forward. So we’ve really seen…. It’s been disappointing, for the mismanagement in terms of this resource. [1440] Th at’s specifi cally in terms of looking at what’s prom- ised.

Th e one thing is the wild promises from the Premier and from this government with respect to liquefi ed nat- ural gas, and the reality, which falls far short and also is disappointing in not being able to really see the returns for British Columbians in terms of what looks like our fi scal framework. Another aspect I want to touch on is the promise of jobs. Certainly, we’ve seen and we’ve heard a lot about that — that that is a priority. I know that is certainly im- portant for British Columbians.

We look at what is, on the one hand, the promise of jobs, and on the other hand, we look at what’s being de- livered — what in actual fact. We see that promise that we’re going to have great job creation in British Columbia, but in reality, the reality doesn’t quite meet those grand promises. It’s falling far short in actual fact — today for British Columbia, second worst in terms of private sector job creation in Canada. Certainly, that is disappointing and doesn’t meet the expectation and the need of British Columbians.

We see that there’s the claim that jobs would be created in our private sector, but with the second-worst rate for job growth in the private sector, the reality, again, doesn’t meet that rhetoric. So that is a problem. When we talk about jobs, not only is there a lack, a very dismal record of job creation in the private sector, we see, on the other hand, what type of jobs and jobs for who. On the other hand, we’ve heard stories comes forward around the open door policy around temporary foreign workers into British Columbia — tens of thousands now of temporary foreign workers here.

Clearly, if the B.C. government jobs plan is to pro- vide jobs for temporary foreign workers, I think you can count that as a great success — certainly in the tens of thousands, ten times the success of creating jobs for tem- porary foreign workers versus jobs for folks in British Columbia in the private sector. We’ve seen, as well, an exodus. People have had to leave British Columbia to fi nd jobs elsewhere. So we’re seeing a net exodus around that. In addition, to add insult to injury, we have stories.

Not only has this government taken no responsibility and no oversight around the fl ood of temporary foreign workers into British Columbia. Th ere is no oversight, there is no monitoring of employers, and there are no investigations. Th ere are rampant problems and discrimination against these temporary foreign workers. Th e entire program is structurally fl awed, and it creates the conditions not only for denying British Columbians an opportunity for those jobs, but it gives employers basically control over these workers.

I know my colleagues were talking about temporary foreign workers being terrifi ed to come forward with problems. Th ey are basically in a situation across our province…. In every community and in every commun- ity of my colleagues across the way, you have temporary foreign workers who are terrifi ed to come forward, who are held under the grip of their employer, who will en- dure terrible conditions that are a disgrace that we see in our province and in our country. It’s unacceptable. Th is government has taken no ac- tion. Th ey are allowing this to continue. It’s a disgrace.

In every community in our province, this is happening and going on. I visited…. I have calls into my offi ce, and I hear, when I bring this up, “Oh, Mable, no, there are no problems, ”

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4777 because people don’t come forward and complain. Well, when it’s an employer-driven program and when people have their job under the behest of their employer, if they complain and come forward, they’re sent back home, and their work permits are not renewed. Th is is a situa- tion that is a disgrace in our province and allows people to be discriminated. [1445] Th ey’re not even second-class citizens, because they don’t have access to those rights. Th ey don’t know they have rights.

Not only is there a lack of enforcement and investigation but any support for these. It’s a great, I would say, stain on our province and just a deplorable record around this government and their so-called jobs plan. Th at is the reality of this government’s record on jobs in British Columbia. When we look at, besides their grand promises around liquefi ed natural gas, we see, to the exclusion of every- thing else…. Also disappointed at the lack of recognition that — surprise, surprise — British Columbia has a very diversifi ed economy, very robust. We have other sectors of the economy.

We have tourism, which is very robust. We have our forestry sector. We have mining. We have our tech sector. Many other sectors are — because of the single focus on liquefi ed natural gas to the exclusion of others — not being paid the due attention that they need. Th is is part of the failing, I think, of this throne speech and really points to the failing of the record of the govern- ment in terms of their dismal leadership around navigat- ing and ensuring that we develop our liquefi ed natural gas sector and provide jobs for British Columbians. Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has the fl oor. M. Elmore: Another issue I want to address, which the throne speech falls short on, is addressing aff ordabil- ity for British Columbians. We heard, on the one hand, great promises that in the election there are going to be no taxes brought in by this government, by the Premier, and taxes are going to be kept low. Well, why is it that we see record tax increases — hidden taxes, I would charac- terize — and we’re seeing the cost of living really skyrock- eting out of the means of families and putting incredible pressure on families?

When we look at the increases in B.C. Hydro — a hid- den tax increase, 28 percent. When we look at the in- creases in ICBC — 23 percent over the last number of years and still more fees, more raises expected. Tuition has doubled since 2001. When we look at the cost of fer- ries, ferry fares are going up. We also see costs rising for medical services premiums. Now, these are hidden taxes that apply and are also regressive taxes. Th ey apply across the board, and they are not dependent. Th ey are not based on income, but they apply to everybody.

Th is increasing burden — and you put that on top of the lack of aff ordable housing — is creating incredible pressure on families, hardship. We see a record num- ber, just a very disgraceful record of child poverty in our province. On top of it, to even make it worse, this government is continuing to claw back child support payments from single parents, mainly from single mothers. Th ese are single-parent families who the other parent, mainly the father, is paying, wants to contribute towards the up- bringing of their child even though they’re separated.

Single-parent families on social assistance are not able to have those child support payments go towards raising their child, go towards the basic necessities, go towards back-to-school items, for buying food or clothes or con- tributing towards programs for their children. It’s clawed back by the government. [1450] Now, what is going on? What is going on in our prov- ince? I think the government should give its head a shake — and us also. Each member sitting across there give your heads a shake. What is this going on under your watch? Just a disgrace.

Th ese are children and single-parent families living under the poverty threshold. Y ou’ve got their parents, mainly fathers, who are doing the right thing and mak- ing their payments to support their child, which would help for the basic necessities. We’re not talking about con- tributing to going to Disneyland or these types of things. It’s towards basic necessities. It is disgraceful, and it is just a real symbol of what is wrong with this government, with the B.C. Liberals and with the throne speech. It is inexcusable, and there’s no excuse for it.

When we look around what characterizes this throne speech talking about liquefi ed natural gas…. Th e exclu- sion of other sectors, the lack of recognition of the pres- sure that families and British Columbians are under with respect to aff ordability and just the compounding and the layering of the hidden taxes makes life less aff ordable for British Columbia.

When we look at the dismal record of the so-called jobs plan, British Columbians leaving B.C., a lack of new jobs being created in the private sector and just scores of temporary foreign workers coming into B.C. with no oversight, we see, I think, that this speech really charac- terizes and really gives an example of the priorities of this government and of the B.C. Liberals, of the Premier really not looking out for British Columbians, not considering what families are going through.

My colleagues across the way will know that they’ve got families right across British Columbia that are facing these challenges and these diffi culties, and there is no rec- ognition of that in the throne speech. Certainly, that’s a disappointment in terms of what we need to see happen in this province and where the throne speech and the

British Columbia Debates4778 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Premier and the B.C. Liberals are taking us here in B.C. I want to address concerns around the environment and protecting our air, land and water. When you ask British Columbians or you ask anyone who visits our province…. Th ey come here for the natural beauty, for the spectacular mountains, the ocean, our rivers, our wilderness. I’m also a great supporter of our park system. I’ve done a lot of hiking and enjoy that.

When you ask British Columbians or anyone who has come to British Columbia what their impression is, it’s certainly respect for our wilderness and respect for our parks and really the incredible natural beauty that we have here in British Columbia. When we hear any lack of that recognition in the throne speech, we see, certainly, the record of not only a lack of protection for the environment but also a record of the Park Act, which looked at allowing more industrial activity in our parkland, moving in the wrong direction against British Columbians.

We have a lack of commit- ment towards species-at-risk legislation. We have a real diluting of our environmental assess- ment, a cutting of our mining inspections and also a real unbalanced approach in terms of development at all costs versus a balanced approach of looking at not only developing our natural resources to benefi t all British Columbians, which is what the opposition is propos- ing, but that environmental concerns should also be fac- tored in. [1455] We should see jobs for British Columbians and also consider First Nations concerns. Th ose are, as well, lack- ing in the throne speech.

It’s following, as well, on the issue of aff ordability. Not only is the burden increasing on families and British Columbians — the plethora of the hidden tax increases. We wonder: why does B.C. continue to have the high- est child poverty rate? Well, those are factors contribut- ing towards it — and, also, a lack of any commitment to addressing that. While we have eight jurisdictions in Canada that have adopted a poverty reduction plan, again, zero commitment or I think just a lack of focus or a lack of prioritization on taking the steps towards ad- dressing that problem.

Again, it’s a real shame in our province that we do not have a plan around poverty reduction. We had a pilot project for a regional poverty reduction plan, and we know where that went. It didn’t go very far. Th ere were about 120 families — something like that, or less than that — that were able to access that program — just a real failure and a lack of focus or leadership on dealing with these issues facing us, confronting us here in our province.

Th e real disappointment in terms of not only the bur- den of hidden taxes on families or the lack of investment in and focus on reducing poverty in British Columbia, the lack of child care, the lack of aff ordable housing is made even more galling when we compare it to and contrast it to the record of wasteful spending and mis- management on a number of projects — just incompe- tence. It’s incompetence equating to, when you add it up over a number of projects, over $3 billion in either over- spending or mismanagement or cost overruns — a real record of fi scal incompetence in terms of managing pro- jects.

When we look at the northwest transmission line cost overruns, the Vancouver Convention Centre, the B.C. Place roof, the Port Mann/Highway 1, it totals over $3 billion. It’s a disappointment, and British Columbians de- serve better. Michelle Stilwell: Before I delve into my response to the throne speech proper, I’ d like to take a moment to give a few words of thanks to the constituents of Parksville and Qualicum for electing me and giving me the oppor- tunity to represent them here in Victoria.

Of course, I’ve spent much of my time this summer travelling around the area, meeting many of my con- stituents and going to organizations around Oceanside, listening to the ideas and the concerns of my constitu- ents, attending announcements and groundbreakings. Every day it reminded me of how lucky we are to live in a beautiful part of our province, in a beautiful part of our country, where we have so much to be grateful for, so much to be thankful for.

I’ d also like to take this moment to express my gratitude to my staff in the constituency offi ce, Shari Cummins and Heather Mahony, who work so hard every day to ensure that the needs of my constituents are met and well taken care of. I of course would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge my wonderful husband and my son, Kai, for supporting me and encouraging me and being so understanding as I try to do my very best to serve the people of British Columbia and the people of Parksville and Qualicum. As an Olympic athlete, I know the importance of focus and hard work to achieve one’s goals.

I found it fi tting that the focus of the throne speech was ensuring that our legislative agenda was clear and focused in the dir- ection of LNG. [1500] Some may say that it’s putting all of our eggs in one basket, but I simply see it as having a focused plan to achieve one’s goals, goals that will take hard work, dedi- cation and teamwork. One of the things that I’ve learned over the years is: don’t take anything for granted. Anything that is worth achieving is worth fi ghting for. Y es, luck can play a fac- tor in achieving success and your goals, but luck should never be taken for granted.

Another lesson is how we need to change and look at new technologies and ideas as opportunities for success.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4779 What is successful today will change and even become obsolete tomorrow. Companies and products that were once everyone’s darlings can soon be resigned to the his- tory books or the proverbial scrap heap. Just think for a moment. Horses and buggies were replaced in less than a generation by automobiles and trucks. Airlines quickly replaced ocean-going vessels in transporting people across the oceans, opening up the world to global travel. Ten years ago video and DVD rental stores were commonplace, but now they’re extinct.

Th ey’re replaced by on-demand services through cable and Internet companies like Netfl ix. Even how we view the Internet is changing. For most, slow dial-up modems with cables hooked up to the desktop computer are a memory, replaced with laptop computers or tablets connecting wireless, high-speed Wi-Fi connections. Even our cell phones these days have evolved rapidly over the past decade. It’s not long ago that we held to our ears cell phones that were the size of a shoe.

Th ey’re now called smartphones, and these devices can perform most functions that once required purchasing half of the goods in a RadioShack catalogue. My point to all this is that our province has a choice to make. Do we choose the path of growth, create hope for the future and leave a sustainable legacy for our children, our grandchildren and future generations? Or do we con- tinue along the existing path and not seize the opportun- ity that is presented to us and put at risk B.C. ’s reputation as an innovator, not to mention our future economic sta- bility? Well, I say we choose the path of growth.

We can’t take things for granted. We need to roll up our sleeves. We need to work hard together to achieve the best possible outcome for our province. We need to responsibly develop our resources so that we can create a legacy that will benefi t all British Columbians and all Canadians. I don’t think anyone here would be surprised to hear me say that I believe in free enterprise, and I hope most of you all do. My hope is that you know that it is the entrepreneurial spirit by people willing to take a chance that has shaped our province for the better.

I believe in and support small business and local organizations that encourage their growth. It’s because of their hard work that our neighbours have jobs, our municipalities have tax bases, our children’s sports teams get sponsored and our communities thrive. Small businesses are the grass roots of our villages, our towns and our cities. Ninety-eight percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses employing fewer than 50 people. Th ere are few big businesses in British Columbia, as least not to the extent of our counterparts in Ontario, Quebec or Alberta.

While we should celebrate and help cultivate our small businesses, it’s unfair to rely solely on them for growth. We need to think big and to look at other foundations to grow our economy and our province. Th e throne speech is about thinking big. It’s about choosing growth, creating legacy and hope for the future. While this session is not the longest in length, it is cer- tainly one of the most important in recent times, because we’re here to move forward with the legislative frame- work for B.C. ’s liquefi ed natural gas industry. In fact, today, just moments ago, the taxation frame- work for LNG was unveiled.

We can now move forward with certainty for businesses and investors. Th ey now know what is being off ered so that they can make their decisions. More importantly, British Columbians, who are the owners of the natural resource, now know what’s in it for them. Th is framework specifi es how the resource will be responsibly developed to protect our environment and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [1505] Just to be clear, I want to ensure that we all know that natural gas has been safely extracted in British Columbia for over six decades.

Th at’s longer than most of us have been alive — certainly longer than me. Th is includes ex- traction using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as it’s usually called. Th e science is clear, and it’s proven on this. Hydraulic fracturing is a safe, effi cient and environment- ally sound method of extracting natural gas. Natural gas is also the cleanest of all fossil fuels, and by getting people and countries to switch to using it, the planet and future generations will be better off . Just think: over the past 20 years or so China has changed drastically.

It’s now the world’s second-largest economy and soon will take over our neighbours to the south. China gets most of its power from coal. It’s the world’s largest consumer of coal, and the country’s de- mand for energy is growing. It means that they are going to use more coal. No surprise — that’s not good. We’ve all seen the pictures and the videos of the pol- lution in China, the deadly haze that’s clearly visible. I’ve been there when I competed in the 2008 Paralympic Games. I was there at a time when they took drastic measures to make it better. Th ey shut down manufactur- ing plants to reduce the emissions.

In all that had been done there, there was still a haze, and I still found it dif- fi cult to breathe. A 2013 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimat- ed that emissions from coal plants were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in China in 2011, plus damaging long-term health of hundreds of thou- sands of children. Last year China surpassed Europe in CO2 emissions per capita — approximately 7.2 tonnes per person compared with 6.8 tonnes per person in Europe.

Based upon China’s estimated population of 1.367 bil- lion people, this works out to about 9.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions last year. Th e Chinese government realiz- es that reliance on coal-generated power is not good and that they need to quickly address their CO2 emissions. At last month’s UN climate change summit in New Y ork, China pledged that the country will peak its carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible. China has set some

British Columbia Debates4780 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 ambitious targets domestically to put coal use as a part of its eff ort to deal with air pollution problems. Currently 12 of China’s 44 provinces, which account for 44 percent of the country’s coal consumption, have pledged to con- trol their consumption. Th is is, of course, good news be- cause it shows that China is committed to increasing the use of natural gas. A report released in August from the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast that China’s de- mand for natural gas will more than triple in the next 25 years.

In 2012 demand for natural gas in China was reported at 5.2 trillion cubic feet. In 2040 this is ex- pected to hit 17.5 trillion cubic feet. Now the U.S. Energy Information Administration said this increased demand of over 12 trillion cubic feet will have to come from two sources: one, domestic production; two, liquefi ed nat- ural gas imports. Well, it’s well known that China does possess sig- nifi cant shale gas resources. Th ey face some signifi cant hurdles.

Th e fi rst is that most shale gas formations are buried far deeper underground than the reserves that are found in British Columbia, and this increases their drilling costs. Second, Chinese shale is laden with clay and is far wetter than our shale through hydraulic fracturing. Th is increases the production costs. Th ird, where most of China’s shale gas formations are located, there is little ac- cess to transportation given the terrains. Finally, and I think most importantly, is the lack of nearby water near most of their shale gas deposits. Without water, you can’t extract this gas.

Th is year the director of China’s natural energy administration pre- dicted that domestic supply would amount to only 30 billion cubic metres by the year 2020. Th is fi gure barely meets 1 percent of China’s energy needs now, never mind 2020 or in 2040. Th is is B.C. ’s opportunity, and we need to absolutely seize on this. Now, there might be some who say it’s too late for B.C. to get into the game. But I would disagree with them. I refuse to take what they say for granted, because LNG is worth fi ghting for. Our future is worth fi ghting for. I say: stop with the pessimism.

Start focus- ing on what is possible. [1510] Th ese people are just like the video rental stores and the buggy whip manufacturers who refuse to see new ideas and evolve and adapt to the changing world. Like them, they will become but a footnote in the history books when they’re proven wrong. British Columbians are optimistic and looking for leadership that will say yes and have a positive outlook for our future. I truly believe that most British Columbians want to see the natural gas industry grow and export LNG to countries including China, South Korea, Japan and India.

Most British Columbians know what a successful and thriving liquefi ed natural gas industry will mean for our province. Developing LNG, we can continue to support B.C. ’s small businesses and make sure that they continue to thrive. It means the opportunity for immense wealth to be developed that will support our most vulnerable citizens of British Columbia through funding of social services and disability support. Just recently our government released Accessibility 2024, our plan to make British Columbia the most pro- gressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabil- ities.

Th is ambitious ten-year plan is designed around 12 building blocks ranging from employment to accessible service delivery, which refl ects themes that emerged aft er listening to the public and advocacy organizations. Th ese 12 building blocks included income supports, financial security, accessible housing and accessible transportation. But in order to achieve this goal and to assemble these building blocks, it’s going to take money.

Liquefi ed natural gas will be the source of revenue for this, to create a society where no person is ever told that their goals and dreams aren’t realistic because of their disability. Successfully developing LNG means that we would be able to contribute more to our education system, includ- ing hiring teachers and investing in our schools’ infra- structure. As a government, we’ll have additional funds to put into the classroom, and teachers will be able to earn more money.

Th is is why I support programs like the LNG Buy B.C. program, which is connecting LNG pro- ject proponents with homegrown companies through- out the province. Our government wants the entire province to fully par- ticipate in the opportunity that LNG will provide. Th is is why I’m so pleased to work with the Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce by organizing the Buy B.C. in- formation session this coming Friday, featuring our colleague from Peace River South. Th is will be a great opportunity for the people and businesses on Vancouver Island to learn how LNG can benefi t them.

I’ d like to ask my colleagues from central Vancouver Island to spread the word to their constituents. Port Alberni also wants to take a chance and get into the game with LNG. In July the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and Steelhead LNG announced an agreement for an LNG project on the First Nation’s own land on Sarita Bay at the southern end of the Alberni Inlet. Success in Port Alberni would mean jobs for hundreds of people and families on Vancouver Island. Over the next ten years more than half a million young people will enter B.C. ’s job market.

We’ve created a blue- print to help guide them through their educational and career journey. We’re training people right now for to- morrow’s jobs through B.C. ’s skills-for-jobs blueprint. I am so proud to support our positive transformation of B.C. ’s education and training system, helping students access an increased variety of career options, including

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4781 well-paying careers in the growing skilled trades and technology fi elds. Th is will help them get jobs in LNG- related fi elds as one of the blueprint’s objectives — a shift in education and training to better match with the jobs that are in demand. Our government is supporting this shift , including on Vancouver Island. Th is summer I was proud to help take

part in an event in Nanaimo to announce that trades students would have access to more training seats, especially in the LNG- related occupations. For Vancouver Island University this translated into 132 seats: 80 for welders foundation, 36 for electrician foundation seats and 16 heavy-duty- equipment mechanic apprenticeship seats. [1515] For Camosun College, 90 seats were added: 18 steam/ pipefi tter, 18 welder and 18 carpenter, as well as 36 elec- trician foundation seats. For North Island College, 16 heavy-duty-equipment mechanic seats.

Success in developing a thriving LNG export sec- tor will lead to continued and increased funding for our health care system as well. I can’t stress enough how important this is, given our aging population. As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I know what’s at stake. Right now almost 1⁄6 of B.C. ’s population is over the age of 65, which is about 700,000 people. Within the next 20 years the number is expected to double to over 1.4 million people. A responsible government needs a plan, and it needs to make sure that there will be funding in place to sup- port the plan for our aging population.

We know an older population equates to more demand for health care, for more assisted-living supports and for resources to fam- ilies who will look aft er our aging loved ones. Developing our LNG resource means that there will be money for us to continue to fund places like the Oceanside Hospice Society and help support end-of-life care services for Oceanside residents and their families.

Th ere will be money to continue to build aff ordable housing complexes for seniors and families with low in- come or low to moderate incomes, such as the Qualicum park village, which is currently being built to replace an existing 20-unit building — 24 one-bedroom and ten two-bedroom apartments. If we choose to not seize this LNG opportunity, we are putting into jeopardy plans to take care of our growing elderly population. We need to work hard for the sake of all British Columbians, young and old. It’s what a respon- sible government will do. I started off by talking about taking nothing for granted.

As elected leaders, we absolutely owe it to our constitu- ents to create a legacy that will benefi t future generations and give hope to everyone today. British Columbia was forged by people who did not take things for granted or who did not say no. B.C. ’s indigenous people, our First Nations, built settle- ments and created thriving cultures that we all cherish today. Early inhabitants from Europe and Asia travelled thousands of miles from their own lands to trade with First Nations but also to trap and mine and fell B.C. ’s nat- ural resources, such as fur, gold and trees.

Over time, our province has evolved and thrived and has earned a reputation around the world as a welcoming and pristine place to visit, to live, to work and to trade. British Columbia is a success, and we must make sure it remains so. We can’t take anything for granted. We face competition from overseas rivals who don’t want us to choose growth or to develop our resources. Th ey realize that our abundance of natural resources, a well-educated and skilled workforce and our advantage of geographic location to the Pacifi c are threats to them, to their own interests and their trade prospects.

Over the next few weeks and few years there is a great deal at stake. It’s our province’s future, and we must evolve and take nothing for granted. British Columbia must change and look to the future, because we cannot aff ord to miss out. I support the throne speech, and I urge all my col- leagues to also support and vote for it. Th ank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the House today. V .

Huntington: We are here this fall responding to a rare throne speech that reiterates the consuming goal of this government: the way to make LNG happen before the trade window closes, making LNG happen in what government characterizes as the chance of a lifetime — an either-or opportunity. I think most British Columbians wish the government well in its negotiations on this clear-cut economic oppor- tunity.

We would like to see the benefi ts of an effi cient LNG regulatory and taxation regime that accrue not just to industry but even more to the people of the province. [1520] We hope it will be the prize government claims, be- cause it will mean the diff erence between unimagined — according to government — prosperity or the slower, more classic B.C. economy that has, with ups and downs, maintained a standard of living and a quality of life that has served us fairly well. Th ere is doubt out there. We are hesitant to accept the assurances by government that wealth is at our doorstep. Why?

Because so many of us have values that extend be- yond this government’s narrow focus on development. Do we want the levels of prosperity promised if it means our resources are going to be gutted for the benefi t of off shore buyers? Do we want a prosperity that pretends to mitigate irredeemable losses to our environment? Do we want a prosperity that is built upon imported labour, imported physical plants, imported attitudes toward cor- porate citizenship? We shouldn’t have to be worried about these things. We should be confi dent that the broader values the public

British Columbia Debates4782 Tuesday, October 21, 2014 interest holds would be the same as those of government. But we aren’t confi dent at all, and we worry that the long- term public interest is not being protected. We worry about the environmental impact of these de- velopments. Why? Because our Minister of Environment has a mandate to say yes to development in spite of con- cerns that the possibility of disaster is real and the real- ity of disaster would mean irretrievable loss of sensitive habitats. It didn’t matter that the Fraser River estuary is threat- ened by an aviation fuel spill.

It didn’t matter that Site C has alternatives that could and should have been exam- ined. It didn’t matter that our parks were once off -limits. It didn’t matter if we reduced enforcement and inspec- tion, and if we have to manipulate facts about emissions in order to pretend we are building a clean industry, well, that doesn’t matter either. Th e result is that we the people no longer trust that our Environment Minister is charged with protecting our beautiful land.

Rather, we know it is there to streamline or gut every eff ective piece of meaningful environmental legislation and regulation on the books, a reality that the government called in its budget “process improvements” that will “ensure that timelines are appropriate for…eco- nomic development. ” Th e tax regime the government is bringing in. Will we fi nd we have given up our sovereignty in order to get the promised prosperity? Will B.C. really prosper the way government claims?

Will we discover that the Premier’s promises for an LNG windfall weakened the provincial bargaining position in an internationally competitive marketplace? Will we ultimately see a net benefi t from LNG development? Th at is the question. Can we believe that the costs and benefi ts of the total package have been holistically exam- ined, with all our inputs and incentives fully costed and calculated into the overall potential? Now there are hints that the tax package will limit mu- nicipal taxation room. Will government legislate an LNG tax cap for municipalities, just like it has for port develop- ment?

Will the province compensate municipalities? Has the province brought municipalities into the discussion, or will it just announce the penalty aft er the fact? Have those costs been built into the cost-benefi t analyses? Th ere are so many questions, and the lack of detail and transparency, sadly, results in less-than-enthusiastic sup- port for the project.

What a diff erence it would make if the government had ensured some form of all-party or independent involvement in this once-in-a-lifetime op- portunity to enrich British Columbia, if the government had somehow reached out to the opposition and brought the opposition leaders into the fold with regular, detailed, confi dential briefi ngs. If the government had a real desire for input, it would have strengthened this generational opportunity in the eyes of British Columbians. It is hard to stand up with a wholehearted yes when so many questions and so little knowledge dominate the project of a lifetime.

All of that said, I hope the government does well in its negotiations. I hope the potential of LNG is realized. And I hope the north isn’t torn apart in our urgency and that our land continues to be a beautiful and rich legacy we can pass to the future. Th e government has worked hard to make LNG a re- ality, and I wish it well.

A prosperous LNG industry in B.C. ’s north will be the generational game changer the government claims, if it is done well, safely and with the interests of the people foremost in mind. [1525] In his response to the throne speech, the Minister of Natural Gas Development said something very interest- ing.

He admitted: “ …it’s a challenging thing to take on something this massive in a short period of time and amass the resources of government and focus it in one direction. ” He went on to saythat every single ministry, every single deputy minister, every single ADM and other people right down through government cooperate without silos, and “we’re all working together in a way I have never seen in my 18½ years in this House. ” I wonder what we could have accomplished if this gov- ernment had approached some of our other great issues in the same manner.

What would happen if government decided to tackle the subject of health care in the same focused, determined way? What could we do with the social policy fi le if we focused on the issue, without silos, with a determination of a single priority directive to all deputies, ADMs and administrators? We could probably solve our greatest public policy problems. Th at’s what would happen. Th ese huge public policy dilemmas need just such a vast new approach, an approach that considers the issues so critical to the public interest that the silos of govern- ment are broken down just as they have been in the LNG fi le.

I know that the government will say: “We did it because without LNG we can’t aff ord health or social supports. ” But that possibility is what makes the need to innovate so much greater.

Can you imagine what this province could accomplish if our deputies, our ADMS, our administrators, directors and policy analysts were directed to revolutionize the de- livery of health services to the province; if the fi nancial and service silos were removed and the whole delivery system re-examined with a new and innovative eye; if the barriers to delivery in areas of mental health, dementia, care homes, at-risk youth, acute care, emergency care and on and on were rethought and reorganized; if we actually measured our success by the outcomes that a new, prag- matic delivery model could engender?

Similarly, can you imagine what could be accomplished by a focused priority review, across all ministries, of our social policy framework? We could focus on the develop- ment of a modern, effi cient, compassionate approach

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, October 21, 2014 4783 to delivering services to those who need assistance. We could look at whole new possibilities — possibilities that would give that dignity, that would reduce complexities, that could reduce costs and provide enriched care. We could develop that child poverty plan. We could look at the costs and benefi ts of a guaranteed income. We could reduce the layers upon layers of bits and pieces of support. We could give individuals the ability to make their own decisions, live without fear of homelessness or hunger.

Th is government could provide the leadership that sets that direction, because revolution does need in- telligent and extraordinary leadership. Th e throne speech goes on — ad nauseam, I must say — about leadership. I answer that throne speech boast by challenging the government to achieve its goal in the LNG sector and then to go and apply that focus and leadership to other policy areas — areas that desperate- ly need every single deputy, every ADM, every director, every administrator to put their minds to the task.

Make war against ourselves, and lead us to a goal of achieving a new way of delivering health and a new way of sup- porting our most vulnerable. Show real leadership, and truly accomplish a revolution in this province. It can be done. Th e government is doing it in the in- dustrial sector. Now it should move on to the social and health sectors, and it should be the leader it claims to be. J. Martin: It truly is a privilege to be able to respond to the throne speech today. On behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack, I’m thrilled at this opportunity.

Particularly, I would like to espouse and elaborate on the government’s eff orts to promote and expand the LNG industry in British Columbia. Th e throne speech outlined the government’s plans this session to present a competi- tive tax regime that will attract global investment and help construct the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. It’s a bold vision, and there are no apologies for that. It had better be a bold vision.

We are acting on our promise in the last election to seize an opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to harness our natural re- sources in order to provide a better future for the people of British Columbia and for generations to come. [1530] Th roughout the history of this province we have relied on our natural resources to pay for public infrastructure and social programs such as health care and education.

Without forestry, without mining, without fi sheries, we would not have been able to build hospitals, schools and just about every road and bridge and piece of infrastruc- ture that spans this wonderful province. Virtually every job in B.C. is either directly tied to natural resources or it’s at least dependent on the resource industry to gener- ate spinoff employment in the private sector. Th ere is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in this province with our industrial development. In the B.C. lumber industry our products are exported around the world, and we’re proud of that.

We’re proud that our mining industry has customers in major industries de- pending on the metals and minerals that can only be produced by British Columbians. Why would anyone feel bad about our ever-expanding agriculture industry? Our food and wine products are gaining a reputation worldwide that makes our province synonymous with taste, quality and excellence. Why on earth would anyone want to stand in the way and deliberately try to impede the development of our natural gas industry?

British Columbia is already the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country, and 13,000 people are already employed in the produc- tion of natural gas. Th ese are good, high-skilled, well- paying jobs, and our plan is to create more of them by exporting natural gas in its liquid form to developing economies in Asia. Th e world needs energy, and British Columbia is better positioned than anybody else to provide it. Th e province sits on trillions, literally trillions, of cubic feet of natural gas.

It is suffi cient to supply not only our own domestic needs for generations, but there’s plenty more sitting in the ground ready for export. W e have to fi rst build the export facilities necessary to render the gas down to a liquid form so that it can be safely exported abroad to those emerging economies. Th is takes investment, and it takes leadership. It will also take both the cooperation and the participation of First Nations. It will take time to prepare our workforce in ad- vance so that British Columbians are fi rst in line for all the jobs to emerge from the natural gas industry.

We’re going to do it right the fi rst time. We’re going to develop the cleanest LNG export industry on the plan- et. Again, I ask: why would anyone deliberately oppose the opportunity to grow our economy and support job creation? Unfortunately, the current Leader of the Opposition and his party always seem to be fi rst in line to shout down any made-in-B.C. proposal to expand opport

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141021pm-Hansard-v15n10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141021pm Hansard v15n10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	53989d9bfcb5fb5733b435fb192bd23088766fe6

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