British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, November 4, 2014

20141104pm-Hansard-v17n4

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, November 4, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 4

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, November 4, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5183 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 5183 Bill 6 — Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act (continued) D. Plecas M. Elmore S. Hamilton H. Bains L. Th roness C. Trevena D. Bing K. Corrigan A. Weaver S. Robinson S. Simpson M. Karagianis

TUESDAY , NOVEMBER 4, 2014 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a great pleasure to have members of my Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women in the Legislature today for lunch and a series of meetings. Attending in the House today are the chair, Chastity Davis, as well as Mary Teegee, Sophie Pierre, Darlene Shackelly, Paulette Flamond, Debbie Williams, Marge White, Barb Ward-Burkitt and Kim Baird. Would the House please make them welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 6.

Second Reading of Bills BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS INCOME TAX ACT (continued) D. Plecas: It gives me great pleasure today to join my fellow members and consider Bill 6, the Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act, along with its companion environment legislation, Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. [D. Horne in the chair.] These are two of the most substantial and historic pieces of legislation to ever be introduced into this House. Th is legislation will have far-reaching benefi ts that will ex- tend for generations.

Needless to say, it is with great pride and thankfulness that I stand alongside my colleagues and, in particular, the Premier in her steadfast deter- mination and unprecedented vision to launch an entirely new export industry. Establishing a new industry, as we should expect, is no easy task. Although the natural gas industry has been present in B.C. for 50 years, this is the fi rst time we have made a concerted eff ort to seek out and capture the in- terest of energy companies to design and build LNG facilities in B.C.

Our critics tell us that we’re facing an uphill battle. [1335] To begin with, our critics claim that government is hindering our own eff orts to attract investment by in- sisting on developing the cleanest LNG industry on the planet. Y es, it’s true. It would be an easier path if we were to lower our environmental standards, but this is not go- ing to happen. We are going to choose the more diffi cult path because it is the right thing to do, not only for us in the present but for succeeding generations of British Columbians.

B.C. ’s world-leading benchmark will limit GHG emissions to 160,000 tonnes of CO 2 per million tonnes of LNG pro- duced. Th ese are the lowest emissions of any similar fa- cility in the entire world. Th e province has arrived at this target by surveying LNG facilities worldwide and determined that a 0.16 benchmark would surpass the standards of any other jurisdiction. One day future generations will look back and thank us for choosing to develop the industry properly. If we start out on the correct path, then the technology to extract the gas will only begin to improve over time.

Th e legislation we have before us is designed to encourage technological advancement and innovation. Th e scale of taxation is escalated over time to provide companies the opportunity to invest in better technology — specifi cally in waste energy, carbon capture, cogeneration and the use of natural gas in vehicles out in the fi eld. Th ese types of technology will drive further innovation. Our critics have also attacked the government’s ef- forts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become a carbon-neutral government.

In fact, the NDP vehement- ly opposed the carbon tax, saying it would be a disaster for the economy. Th ey said it was impossible to reduce emissions without costing jobs. Th at was in 2007. Lo and behold, in 2012 the government achieved its interim target for GHG emissions, that being 6 percent below 2007 levels. Th is was an aggressive target, and we achieved it without hurting the economy.

Th e govern- ment remains committed to eventually achieving a 33 percent reduction and eventually an 80 percent reduction from 2007 GHG levels — so much so that the Minister of Environment noted in her speech in this House last week that British Columbia is a leading example in terms of setting and meeting our own climate change targets. In fact, we are attracting international attention and literally convincing other jurisdictions to follow our lead. France and Mexico are introducing carbon taxes this year.

Th e European Union is following its regional program, and Chile is announcing plans to implement a carbon tax. Th rough the Pacifi c Coast Collaborative that B.C. is a part of, we know that Oregon and Washington state are also following suit. With this kind of progress, I wonder what is going through the minds of some members op- posite who have been quite vocal about opposing carbon off sets. Th ey say carbon off sets are not good policy, that we are essentially paying people to emit and letting pol- luters get away with it.

If the critics are really serious about opposing carbon off sets, they should inform First Nations in this prov- 5183

British Columbia Debates5184 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 ince, who are currently in the process of negotiating with LNG companies to protect the environment and gener- ate much-needed revenue in those communities. Th ese are B.C.-based off sets and will benefi t the province as a whole. I’ d like to remind my fellow members that the pro- posed tax regime contained in this bill represents just one element that makes British Columbia internation- ally competitive. We have an abundant supply of natural gas.

We have emerging technologies that will continue to drive innovation and more environmental extrac- tion techniques. We have the geographical advantages as Canada’s Pacifi c Gateway. More specifi cally, our large reserves of natural gas are close in proximity to proposed facilities. We have a skilled workforce. We have a robust infrastructure. We have the shortest transport times from North America to key markets in Asia.

We have cooler extraction and en- vironmental temperatures that reduce energy costs dur- ing the liquefi cation process. [1340] It all adds up to the fact that while the price of ener- gy will fl uctuate over time, the demand for energy will always increase as countries like India and China grow their middle class. Th ese economies will expect the same comforts and enjoyments that we in developed econ- omies have known for many years. Th is demand will pro- pel B.C. ’s LNG for years to come and generate a source of revenue for generations.

For example, if just one medium-sized plant starts to export LNG, it will gener- ate $800 million per year for taxpayers. Currently there are over a dozen LNG plants proposed for B.C. All of that said, I’m not only supportive of Bill 6; I want to stand up and cheer. M. Elmore: I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 6, the LNG Income Tax Act. As I’m making my remarks, I just want to take us back and cast our memories to the grand promises we heard from the Premier and the B.C.

Liberals in their pre-election bluster with respect to pros- pects for developing the liquefi ed natural gas reserves that we have in British Columbia. If you recall, we heard grandiose promises of LNG be- ing able to create tens of thousands, 100,000 jobs; that it would enable B.C. to become debt free — indeed, we saw on the campaign bus of the Premier, “Debt-free B.C. ” — as well as promises to eliminate the sales tax and elimin- ate debt in British Columbia. In addition to that, we also heard about promises to create a prosperity fund in the amount of $100 million and beyond.

Basically, we would see the development lead to these fantastic windfalls for British Columbians, and really, it would solve all our problems. Th ose were the promises that we heard from the Premier and from the B.C. Liberals since the last election. Now, today, we are here looking at the reality where the rubber hits the road. We can see, indeed, it’s a con- trast, certainly, in the promises that were made and what is being proposed now on the ground and what is the re- ality.

When we look at these areas in terms of the prom- ises, the grand promises we heard for what we would be able to realize over our liquefi ed natural gas indus- try, the Premier was quoted: “Development in natural gas can stimulate $1 trillion in new economic activity across the province, 100,000 new jobs and $100 billion over 30 years. ” As well, in terms of debt-free B.C., we heard prom- ises that the debt would be eliminated within 15 years, by 2028. But in actual fact, let’s take a reality check.

Th e claims on the one hand for a debt-free B.C. are met by the reality that we see the total provincial debt as of March 31, the end of the last fi nancial year, at nearly $61 billion. We’ve seen under the Premier that the provincial debt has actually grown the fastest and is the largest in B.C. his- tory. Th at, certainly, is a real contrast in terms of claims on the one end before the election and the reality today, as we’re discussing Bill 6. [1345] In addition, fi nally, we’re seeing the bill come forward, and it’s been just one delay aft er another.

We’ve heard that there were promises — great, grandiose promises — in terms of our LNG sector. When we look at what is proposed with respect to the benefi ts coming from the LNG sector, we see that in reality it falls far short — falls short of the promises for the windfall that we would be seeing in terms of revenue coming forward, falls short in terms of the promises for jobs, falls short in terms of the promises to create the greenest industry for greenhouse gas emissions around the world.

I’m going to outline each of those areas in terms of the disappointing reality check of where we are in British Columbia with respect to developing our liquefi ed nat- ural gas reserves. Certainly, the opposition side, the NDP , recognizes that LNG, liquefi ed natural gas, has played a key role and is an important sector of our economy and has contributed to supporting the British Columbia economy, has created jobs right across the province and is an important resource for us that British Columbians rely on in terms of energy fuelling our homes and our businesses.

When we look at the reality, however, the opposition…. We outline four conditions in terms of balancing our eco- nomic development which also apply to our LNG indus- try. I want to lay those out, because I think it provides a clear contrast in terms of what the opposition is putting forward with respect to how to responsibly develop not only our LNG industry but our economic sector in B.C. We have outlined four conditions for the LNG indus- try. One, it should include guarantees of jobs and train- ing for British Columbians and opportunities for British Columbians. Second, we should see….

Th is is a resource that is in the ground in British Columbia and is owned

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5185 by British Columbians, and certainly there should be a fair return from this resource. Th ird, there should be benefi ts and inclusion of First Nations in terms of consultation, partnership agreements and ensuring that First Nations are included in the de- velopment of the industry. Fourth, developing the indus- try should ensure that we protect our land, air and water and also live up to our climate commitments in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve heard from members of the B.C.

Liberals that they actually call into question the science of climate change. Again, I’m going to outline the importance of taking our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions seriously and to show leadership on that. We have not seen, I think, a serious commitment towards doing that with respect to our LNG industry. First, in terms of the opposition, I want to touch on our position that to develop the LNG industry, we must ensure that there are opportunities, jobs and training for British Columbians here in B.C., ensuring that folks who are looking for work have opportunities to work in this fi eld.

It’s disappointing that we’ve seen, a number of years, a lack of commitment, a lack of investment and really a dismantling of our apprenticeship trades and skills train- ing programs, which, had they been in place, would be able to equip British Columbians to access jobs that are coming up in the industry. [1350] In fact, we hear that the Premier, on her recent trips abroad, has been making commitments to hire tempor- ary foreign workers for jobs in the liquefi ed natural gas industry. I think this is the wrong direction for British Columbia.

We know that there are currently 74,000 temporary foreign workers in B.C. We also have over 100,000 British Columbians looking for work. In particular, we also have a higher-than-average unemployment rate amongst our First Nations indigenous people. Certainly, there’s an mismatch in terms of opportunities coming forward and a real need to provide training and an increased number of apprenticeships to ensure that British Columbians have access to those jobs.

It’s also very troubling, I have to express, in terms of comments that we’ve heard coming from the Premier and also this government with respect to their view on the temporary foreign worker program in British Columbia. It has been characterized that the temporary foreign worker program is an opportunity for workers to come to British Columbia and that they have a path of citizen- ship. We know that that is not the case.

Th e temporary foreign worker program is called the temporary foreign worker program, not the permanent immigration program, because it brings workers into British Columbia and into Canada — over 500,000 in Canada and over 70,000 in British Columbia — to work as cheap labour and with very little access to support and services. I think that should be a clear distinction. When we talk about jobs for our liquefi ed natural gas industry, we need to see a commitment to training and an increased number of apprenticeships to allow for British Columbians to have access to those skills, to work in those jobs.

Two, we need to see a commitment from this government towards permanent immigration, towards inviting and welcoming workers into B.C. and ensuring that they have access to the rights that other workers have and that citizens have. I’ve heard, and it’s been framed: “Oh, all workers who come into British Columbia have exactly the same rights as any other workers. ” But in reality, when you look at the temporary foreign worker program, it is a privatized form of immigration, where workers come in and their passports and their work permits are held by their em- ployers. Th ey’re in a very vulnerable situation.

Th ey’re re- luctant to come forward if they have diffi culties or they’re experiencing problems. Why? If they complain, it’s their employer who puts them on a plane and sends them back. That is not in line, I think, with values of British Columbians. Th e Premier and this government should understand the diff erence between permanent immigra- tion and temporary workers.

We need to see a commit- ment, particularly in the LNG industry, towards respecting workers, ensuring that they have access to services, are treated fairly and are not exploited because of structural weaknesses and structural problems with the temporary foreign worker program. We need to ensure that. As well, there’s a lack of oversight. Th ere is a lack of re- sponsibility by this government in terms of any type of oversight with respect to the temporary foreign worker program.

We have provinces such as Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario that at least have a measure of oversight, where they ensure that employers and also recruiters have to be registered and licensed. Recruiters have to fi le a bond. If there are problems and if they’re found in vio- lation, they’re removed from the list for approval. We see basically no oversight or responsibility from this government with respect to monitoring, overseeing and regulating the increasing numbers of temporary for- eign workers coming into B.C.

At the same time, we see a lack of investment in skills training and apprenticeships to ensure that British Columbians who want to work in these sectors have access to those jobs. As well, a lack of commitment to ensuring that the funding cuts that are coming to English-language-learning courses, to the col- leges across B.C. — that that will be supported…. [1355] Th is is also another area that ensures that naturalized citizens who are here, new immigrants, have access too. Oft en they come, and they’re highly skilled.

Th is is oft en a bridging area that allows them to access other oppor- tunities and upgrade their skills. So this is another area where it’s very disappointing to see a lack of commitment from the government ensuring that

British Columbia Debates5186 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 for the jobs we have here in B.C., we have British Columbians who have the ability to be trained and to be able to avail of these jobs — just a lack of that area being adequately ad- dressed in terms of developing the LNG sector. As well, when we talk about needing a fair return for our resource, which belongs to all British Columbians, again we’ve seen a disappointing…. I don’t know how you could characterize it except that it’s an appalling lack of ability to negotiate a fair return for British Columbians.

We heard grandiose promises, and it really did not con- tribute towards British Columbia receiving a fair return, I think. We heard the Premier out making big promises in pub- lic and really setting the stage for British Columbians to have any leverage or ability to negotiate a fair return. We saw a huge climb down publicly over the course of eight months, when we heard that the return, in terms of the tax, was expected to be 7 percent, but now we see that it is down to 3½ percent.

We heard our colleague from Fort Langley–Aldergrove, the Minister of Natural Gas Development, characterize the government: “We don’t negotiate taxes. ” But I guess when you go into a room with industry and you walk out with a 50 percent lower tax rate — so cutting that in half — that you negotiated your way to a 50 percent lower rate. Th at is characterized as negotiations but just not very good negotiations. Interjection. M. Elmore: “Capitulation, ” my colleague from Stikine is commenting.

Certainly, we’re seeing negotiation really from a weakened position and in the wrong direction and really disappointing in terms of ensuring that British Columbians…. On the one hand, we heard great prom- ises before the election in 2013, and now due to the blus- ter of the Premier in public making big promises and the government having to back down from the offi cial num- bers of expecting 7 percent, we’re down to 3.5 percent. I want to also comment further — the justifi cation around this huge climb-down from 7 percent to 3.5 percent.

Th e reason given for that was that there were changing market conditions, that these conditions had changed and had impacted the reality of being able to secure the 7 percent. Well, on the one hand, my position is that the government should have been well advised about what these changing market positions were. Th ey weren’t any…. Y ou know, it’s not a mystery.

It certainly wasn’t a big surprise, and the government should have been very clear about what some of these changing eco- nomic conditions were. [1400] From the 2014 market overview there was an outlook that the LNG selling prices and expected increases in construction costs have reduced the investor projected returns. We’ d seen a decline in the selling prices of LNG — no mystery there. As well, we saw an increase in the global LNG supply due to competition, again citing that China’s economic growth was slowing. China was acquiring natural gas, had signed an agreement for a natural gas supply.

Japan was looking at restarting its nuclear power program. Oil prices were declining, and there were also concerns around increased construction costs. Th ese are econom- ic concerns that were well known and well-established in the fi nancial sector and reported — so no surprise to anyone. Besides the point that the government should have been well aware and advised of these changing economic conditions, to use it to try and justify that that’s why the tax was cut in half does not add up. Why? Th e tax that is proposed is a profi ts tax. It is a surplus profi ts tax that does not impact….

Th e tax only applies to the profi ts that are generated out of the whole production process. With respect to the rationale that the changing eco- nomic conditions contributed towards that, it doesn’t add up. It certainly is a very lame excuse for basically a very poor job on negotiating and British Columbians be- ing pushed back and the Liberal government having to cut the tax in half.

In terms of the opposition, we are also in favour of developing our LNG industry but in a balanced way that includes jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, ensures that we get a fair return for a re- source that belongs to British Columbians and should go toward benefi ting all British Columbians.

As well, there’s the expectation not only from the opposition but, I think, from British Columbians that developing our LNG in- dustry has to balance the concerns and ensure that our air, land and water are protected and that British Columbia is meeting our climate commitments and our commit- ments towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Again we see that this is not the case. Th e previous speaker, the member, characterized that the…. Again there was the promise.

We heard the grandiose promise that not only we would see incredible — in the billions of dollars — revenues come forward from liquefi ed natural gas; we would see a record number of jobs. However, it appears to be that those are available for temporary for- eign workers. We heard that the industry was being touted as be- ing the cleanest industry in the world. Th is is a big claim. Again, it falls far short of the claim — the claim, on the one hand, of being the greenest industry in the world. Th e reality is a completely diff erent fact. When we look at…. It’s on paper. Certainly on paper we see….

We hear the claims that it is the cleanest indus- try, but when we look at the reality and what the reality is…. Y ou can say one thing — for example, that we’re go- ing to have incredible dollars, hundreds of billions, real- ized from the industry. But in reality, what do we see? We

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5187 see that it’s cut in half. Again, it’s called into question, and British Columbians are not getting a fair return.

We see, on the one hand, the claim and the promise that we will have multitudes of jobs for British Columbians, and on the other hand, what’s the reality? [1405] We see that there are record numbers of temporary foreign workers coming in, a lack of commitment from the government for English language learning courses that would allow British Columbians to gain the skills to have those jobs and a lack of investment in apprentice- ships and skills training. It doesn’t add up. When we hear, as well, the claim, on the one hand, that the industry will be the greenest, certainly, in the world….

Now, how does that meet with reality when we look at the facts? Well, we see that it’s…. Interjection. M. Elmore: On paper that’s the claim. Th e government and the Premier seem to like saying one thing. Th ey can make wild promises in the public and wild claims. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has the fl oor. M. Elmore: In reality, when we look at…. Is this ac- tually in fact the case? Well, we have that it’s claimed as the cleanest. Th at’s a great promise. But in reality, that’s in theory. Why? Why is that in theory?

Because the legisla- tion does not actually require greenhouse gas reductions. Well, oh, look at that. So we can say one thing and com- pletely do another. What else? Well, the claim that it’s the cleanest indus- try…. It only happens to capture 30 percent of the emis- sions at the plant. Th ere is an exclusion of over two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions due to upstream emissions. Th ere is a complete…. We’re not even talking about 70 percent of the emissions that are going to be coming out from the industry. On the one hand, it’s a great promise.

When you don’t have an actual cap or when you do not have a need to re- duce emissions, that’s a problem. When you also exclude 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, that seems to be a big consideration, if this government is serious about actually meeting targets. When we also look that there is…. British Columbians just listen to the great promises but don’t read the fi ne print around how a free pass is be- ing given for these emissions. When we talk about the…. Th ere is a UN report out this weekend.

I hope members of the government were paying attention, in case more of them had concerns around what the science is around climate change. Do humans have an impact on that? I hope they were paying attention around the recent report that was out from the United Nations outlining the dire consequences and the need to take drastic steps to reduce human-caused green- house gas emissions and the impacts on our climate, the impacts on our economy and the impacts on people around the world. Certainly, the provisions that we have with respect to our liquefi ed natural gas industry don’t meet those con- cerns.

When we look at…. We actually have a commit- ment. Th e government is bound by law to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia by 33 percent. Th is is looking at…. So we have that law, the requirement, that B.C. must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020, and that’s by 2007 levels. Th e provisions put forward for the liquefi ed natural gas industry for developing that…. Number one, it is im- possible to reach that. Th e provisions around the green- house gas emissions do not set a cap on that or ensure that that will be reduced.

It exempts over two-thirds of emissions that come out, and it does not address how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other aspects of our economy. [1410] We are not only falling short; we have…. It’s unaccept- able — the lack of leadership and the empty promise. Th is government is claiming, on the one hand, to deliver the cleanest industry and, in reality, abdicating any respon- sibility and any commitment around meeting our targets of greenhouse gas emissions. Th at’s clear.

When we look, as well, in terms of characterizing — to sum up my comments and bring those to a close; I see my time is winding down — the resource that British Columbians value, our liquefi ed natural gas reserves, there’s a need to ensure that when we develop our indus- try, it has to be in a balanced way.

Th e opposition is saying we have to ensure that there’s a guarantee of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, that there’s a fair return for our resource, that benefi ts also have to be extended to First Nations and First Nations have to be included, and that our air, land and water are protected to ensure that our climate commitments are met. And it falls far short. S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. Th ese are indeed exciting times.

Th ere’s a real passion that our government has, and that ener- gy is translating into an optimism that we fi nd in every corner of this province. LNG is one of the most excit- ing areas where we are moving forward and we are con- stantly growing. Natural gas is by no means a new industry in British Columbia, as we all know, but we have an unpreced- ented opportunity to strengthen our economy. Revenue collected by government will support the services we all depend on, like health care, education and infrastructure

British Columbia Debates5188 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 development. We are able to invest in the province’s fu- ture and make it a place worthy of leaving to our children and our grandchildren. B.C. produced 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the last 12 months, the energy equivalent of 273 million barrels of oil. By choosing to develop the world’s cleanest- burning resource and ship it to the world’s fastest- growing economies, we’ve chosen growth. Major global companies have shown a strong commitment to B.C. ’s natural gas future.

Th ese companies are already making large investments to prepare for LNG exports. The global demand for liquefied natural gas has doubled in the last ten years, and it’s predicted by ex- perts to increase by another 50 percent in the next seven. Demand is fl ourishing, and we’re uniquely positioned to take advantage of that demand. B.C. is serious about becoming a stable and reliable source of energy on the global stage. Th is is one of our classic commitments and, I think, a defi ning moment for the government in many ways.

LNG will diversify our economy and provide a signifi cant source of public revenue for decades to come. Th e introduction of the LNG income tax gives propon- ents the certainty they need to make investment deci- sions while ensuring that British Columbians receive the revenues they deserve from this expanded industry. Th e government is confi dent that B.C. will be highly competi- tive, an attractive jurisdiction for new investment in B.C. ’s new LNG industry.

We’ve been consulting with industry on a new revenue framework that will deliver long-term benefi ts for British Columbia and provide industry with the certainty it requires to be successful. Currently there are 18 LNG projects in British Columbia that have invested more than $7 billion to ac- quire natural gas assets right here in B.C. An additional $2 billion has been invested in preparation for construc- tion of B.C. ’s LNG infrastructure. If that is not a commit- ment by the business community and the community that is responsible and is concerned with exporting LNG from our province, I don’t know what is.

In addition to a low overall tax system and a competi- tive royalty regime, B.C. ’s LNG industry has many advan- tages over rival jurisdictions: large reserves of natural gas in close proximity to proposed facilities, a skilled work- force, a robust infrastructure, the shortest transport times from North America to key Asia markets, and a cooler extraction and environmental temperature that reduces energy costs during the liquefaction process.

Th is legislation is another step towards providing the certainty companies need to move forward and make fi nal investment decisions. [1415] Th e LNG income tax applies to the net income de- rived from liquefaction activities at LNG facilities in B.C. Th e tax rate on net income will be 3.5 percent, ef- fective for taxation years beginning on or aft er January 1, 2017. During that period when net operating losses and the capital investments are being deducted, a tax rate of 1.5 percent will apply and is credible against the 3.5 percent tax. In 2037 the tax rate on net income will increase from 3.5 to 5 percent.

Th is ensures the proponents have the time to build a strong foundation in the communities in which they operate before the full extent of the tax is ap- plied. It also ensures revenue fl ows for the next genera- tion of British Columbians. To encourage investment, the tax framework will see a new B.C. corporate income tax rate available to any LNG income tax payer that sets up a permanent establishment in B.C. Th is credit will be calculated based on the cost of natural gas owed at the LNG facility inlet.

Th e credit will have the eff ect of reducing the provincial corporate in- come tax rate from 11 percent to as low as 8 percent for that company, making this the lowest corporate income tax rate in Canada. Th is will help attract new corporate income tax revenue to B.C. LNG represents massive potential for British Columbia, and our LNG income tax regime is just one element that makes B.C. internationally competitive for new LNG de- velopment. We have the supply. We have the technology, and we have a great geographic advantage.

We can move forward to develop this industry that the whole province will benefi t from. Specifi cally, in addition to the overall tax burden and competitive royalty regime in B.C., we have the largest reserves of natural gas in close proximity to proposed fa- cilities. We have a skilled workforce and, as I mentioned before, a robust infrastructure. It’s going to be a huge benefi t as we go forward. One important goal remains the elimination of the provincial debt over time. Let me speak to that.

Th e rev- enues derived from the LNG industry are signifi cant and will help to further diversify our economy and reduce the provincial debt. But wait. We already have one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios and lowest debt in the country. By pursuing a robust LNG industry that generates more revenue, government will be able to pay down that debt faster, reducing the burden on future generations. The LNG export industry will support strong eco- nomic growth and provide employment opportunities throughout B.C.

Revenues derived from the LNG sec- tor will assist the province to reduce the provincial debt quicker and support infrastructure in government ser- vices such as health care and education. Over the coming years, the provincial government will be helping communities prepare for the emerging oppor- tunities and demands of a growing natural gas sector and new LNG industry. Preparing for economic growth is a good challenge to have. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to harness the potential of new jobs and de- velopment. In May we announced grants of up to $1 million to

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5189 help local governments affected by significant indus- trial growth in the northwest. Already communities are receiving grants and undertaking initiatives such as housing assessment and action plans. Together, we will determine how to capitalize on economic opportunities, while at the same time we will help these communities with their challenges. Call them growing pains, if you will, but what a problem to have. Let me digress. Let me mention the comments made by the member for North Coast just yesterday aft ernoon in this House.

She said, among other things — and I’ll join my colleague the member for North Vancouver– Seymour in thanking her: “I do look forward to the con- struction jobs that they’ll benefi t from. I do look forward to the training opportunities that we’ll get. I support the LNG industry. ” Oh, and then she had a conversation with a real estate agent in her constituency who said that they have a zero percent vacancy rate, all based on speculation of LNG. What a problem to have: a zero vacancy rate. What will that lead to? Let me think about it for a second. Maybe more housing starts?

Maybe more opportunities for people to live in the community? I don’t think that’s a bad problem to have. It’s a challenge, and we’re helping small- er communities deal with that challenge as we go forward. [1420] One of the final things the member for the North Coast says is: “We want to be partners in the LNG in- dustry. We’re trying to prepare. We’re trying to contrib- ute. ” I thank her for that as well. I’m glad to see that she joins us in celebrating the opportunities that we have going forward.

First Nations also have an important and direct role in the development of our natural gas export potential, and that’s why we have a particular focus on ensuring that aboriginal people benefi t fully from economic and labour market opportunities. Skills-training and ap- prentice programs are being expanded to increase First Nation participation. We signed an economic partnership agreement with 15 First Nations along the planned pipeline route for Kitimat LNG, a proposal by Chevron Canada. Similar agreements are being negotiated now to secure long-term economic opportunities for First Nations all over B.C.

As a result, First Nations will have a new source of economic strength and stability. B.C. ’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint: Re-engineering Education and Training ensures that B.C. has the trained workers needed to fi ll the top LNG-related jobs and other in-demand occupations, placing our youth and workers fi rst in line for the jobs of the future. By 2022 we’re expecting one million job openings in British Columbia, along with an increase in demand for more and higher skills. More than 78 percent of jobs will require some form of post-secondary education, and 43 percent will be in trades and technical occupations.

Our plan shift s funding and programs to data-driven systems where training dollars and programs are target- ed to jobs in demand. Not only will our new system be data-driven; it will be outcome-driven. As the economy evolves, we will adjust funding and programming. We will track, measure and report out on performance and outcomes to ensure that we’re achieving the desired goals. Our blueprint is focused on changing culture and at- titudes, and that includes getting more young people involved earlier in trades and technical training.

Our gov- ernment currently invests almost $7.6 billion each year in education and training. Re-engineering our system doesn’t mean spending more. It means targeting more of the substantial resources already available to meet labour market priorities. Th at’s why, starting this fi scal year, we’re targeting over $160 million to do just that. In four years this will reach nearly $400 million annually. Over the span of our ten- year plan, this represents about $3 billion redirected to- ward training for high-demand occupations.

Th e blueprint we’ve developed sets out the actions we must take to make the most eff ective use of our existing resources and future investments in education and train- ing.

It’s actions such as doubling the number of ACE IT spaces to 5,000 over the next two years, giving students more choices and encouraging more students to pursue skills and trades training; targeting $270 million annu- ally, by 2017-2018, of post-secondary operating grants towards in-demand jobs; investing $185 million in infra- structure targeted for skills and trades training; investing $6.6 million in critical trade seats to reduce the wait times in trades critical to the LNG sector and other industries; reforming the Industry Training Authority so that B.C. ’s trades-training system is ready to meet the growing de- mand for workers; using up-to-date, industry-validated data to drive program decisions; and increasing appren- ticeships in high-demand areas.

For kids and parents in the K-to-12 system, we want them to have a head start to hands-on learning so they’re ready for the workforce and more advanced training when they graduate. For students in colleges, universities and institutes, we’re matching training with jobs in demand and maxi- mizing the spaces available to provide for the programs students need to compete successfully in the workforce.

For people looking to get into the workforce or move up in the workplace, we’re building stronger partner- ships with industry and labour to better connect British Columbians with the on-the-job classroom training they’ll need to boost their skills or achieve certifi cation. We’re working collaboratively with industry, labour and First Nations to deliver the skilled workforce B.C. ’s growing LNG and other sectors need and to create the opportunities for long-term, well-paying jobs that strengthen our families and our communities.

British Columbia Debates5190 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 B.C. ’s skills-for-jobs blueprint is about making sure British Columbians have the skills they need and are fi rst in line to get the jobs of the future. Our priority is to ensure British Columbians are fi rst in line, Canadians second, and then we look outside our borders. [1425] The B.C. jobs plan is our long-term strategy to a secure, strong and prosperous economy for British Columbians now and for generations to come.

Th e focus is on four cross-sector areas of strategic priority: small business, international trade, manufacturing and aborig- inal peoples and First Nations. Each of these is an area of renewed focus to help foster job creation across the original eight sectors of the jobs plan: agrifoods, forest- ry, international education, mining and energy, natural gas technology and green economy, tourism and trans- portation.

Supporting job creation is our top priority, and through the B.C. jobs plan we’re supporting economic growth, diversifi cation and opportunity to fuel job cre- ation, supporting families in communities throughout British Columbia. British Columbia’s robust fiscal record creates the greatest certainty for industry investment. With our strong record of fi scal responsibility, balanced budgets, low and declining debt-to-GDP ratios and triple-A credit ratings, British Columbia provides stability and reliability, which is crucial for investment decisions.

Creating an LNG industry is a priority, which is why our decisions across government are coordinated to en- sure it’s created in a nimble, fair, competitive and an en- vironmentally stable way. To help, an LNG strategy was developed which set in motion a plan to build the indus- try. Th e strategy focuses on building infrastructure to get goods to market, creating jobs for families and creating economic advantages that will leave a lasting legacy for future generations of British Columbians.

Th e strategy captured the attention of large companies and global investors who have since come forward with a variety of LNG proposals now at various stages of de- velopment. Most of these projects are planned for north- west British Columbia, in communities such as Kitimat and Prince Rupert. Th ese projects are so signifi cant that they represent the largest private sector investment pro- posals in the province’s history. Th e strategy we have developed to meet the LNG in- dustry’s workforce challenges engages with labour, in- dustry, First Nations and government in the planning process.

We will continue to work with these partners moving forward and ensure industry that B.C. has the qualifi ed and skilled workforce to meet those challenges. LNG is also specifi cally aff ecting growth in my com- munity of Delta. Th is is due in part to the Tilbury LNG facility expansion. In November 2013 FortisBC an- nounced plans for a $400 million expansion of its Tilbury LNG facility, including one additional storage tank and associated liquefaction equipment. Th e expansion will provide LNG to the transportation market, remote com- munities and the marketplace in general.

Since the November 2013 expansion announcement there has been considerable interest for LNG supply — from the Pacifi c Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska and inter- national markets. Our friends have been in my offi ce. We’ve had those discussions. It’s real, and I invite any member in this chamber who wants to come and see it to visit my community. I’ d be glad to take you for a tour. On Friday, August 8, 2014, Hawaii’s electric board ap- proved an LNG supply agreement with FortisBC.

Our abundance of natural gas and our proximity to the Asian ports have rewarded us in British Columbia with the competitive advantage of LNG and that sector, and we must act upon it now. We recognize how fast-growing this industry is, and we’re working with our Asian trad- ing partners to make sure that we’re ready for their in- vestments in the industry.

Th e economic benefi ts in British Columbia are im- mense, and we will reward all British Columbians in every region with new jobs, in procurement opportun- ities and with increased government revenues to invest in hospitals, schools and transportation infrastructure. Stewardship, as it relates to environmental responsibil- ity, will also make B.C. global leaders in energy markets. I questioned the remarks from the member for Vancouver-Fairview earlier this morning, and he said: “Th e highest environmental standards can’t simply be a statement.

It has to be accompanied by a plan, a plan that shows British Columbians how this government in- tends to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets. ” Well, I think we’re doing that. It’s a little thing called Bill 2, and we’re debating it in this House. It’s one of the most pro- gressive pieces of legislation that this House has prob- ably ever seen when it comes to this environment and how we protect it. [1430] We’re seeing opportunities in our communities already because of the LNG industry, with hundreds of millions of dollars already being spent.

Our government is work- ing on revenue-sharing opportunities so that local gov- ernments and First Nations can share in the benefi ts that will come with a growing resource sector. Manufacturing drives all sectors of the B.C. jobs plan — in forestry, agrifoods, technology, mining, natural gas. In 2013 alone manufacturing contributed $13.8 billion to the B.C. economy. With investment in growth and the ex- port and domestic markets, it is anticipated that demand for our province’s manufactured goods and services will grow, particularly in Asia.

Annacis Island and the Tilbury Industrial Park, two of the largest business parks in B.C., support manufactur- ing, processing and supply facilities within a commun- ity of high-end industry. What makes these sites unique is the range of industrial activity that takes place there.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5191 [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Th ese businesses and those like them need a highly trained workforce. In support of this, our government has invested $1.5 million in funding to move training programs to a new centre in Delta, on Annacis Island. Th e heavy-duty transportation programs off ered by the B.C. Institute of Technology and Vancouver Community College are now being taught at the new motive power centre.

Th is centre is going to train heavy-duty mechanics, transport trailer mechanics, diesel mechanics, commer- cial and transportation mechanics, railway conductors and forklift operators, among others. Th ese are good, skilled trades that will help British Columbians earn good livings and support their families. It should also be noted that the majority of manufacturing jobs are perma- nent, full-time positions, with an average wage 15 percent higher than the provincial average. It makes sense to locate these programs from two schools into one centre focused on heavy-duty transpor- tation.

Students from this new motive power centre will be in demand. It’s estimated that 43 percent of the one million jobs expected to be created by 2020 will require trades or technical training. Th e new motive power cen- tre opened this September and will play an integral role in the B.C. jobs plan. An estimated 13,000 people are already employed in B.C. in the fi eld of heavy-duty commercial transporta- tion. As diesel technicians and transport trailer techni- cians, they will be in high demand. When the new motive power centre opens later this year, it will truly mark a new

chapter in the economic security of British Columbians and in my riding of Delta North. Manufacturing is a part of our community and supports all businesses and fam- ilies within it. I’ll close by asking for the members opposite to simply come forward and take a position on this issue. We have had the critic for LNG dancing around saying everything but “we support this industry. ” I think that deep down in their hearts they really do support it, because they don’t want to have to say no to economic growth and economic prosperity in this province. It’s a good thing, and I think everyone knows it.

Everyone should embrace it. In the immortal words of Monty Hall: “Come on down. ” I mean, join us in helping make this province a better place to live for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. We can do this together. Y ou know what? We’ll probably give you a little credit. It’s important that this industry not have marbles thrown at its feet every step of the way. We need encour- agement. We need help from this entire House. It’s go- ing to be for the benefi t of ourselves, our province and everyone who is going to live in this province in the years to come.

Having said that, thank you very much for your time. H. Bains: It is my honour to stand and to speak on the bill. I would say it is quite a defi ning moment, as the member previous to me, from Delta North, put it. I will speak to this bill, but let me talk about this defi ning mo- ment that the member for Delta North talked about. Y es, but I must say that this is another one of those moments when this government misled the people of this province, misled the constituents of each one of the members represented there.

I dare to go back to add some of the other moments that this government went through. [1435] Y ou remember when they said they would not rip up collective agreements before the election? Do you remember that, Member? Th en what did they do aft er the election? Th ey did exactly what they said they would not do. Y ou remember that they would not sell B.C. Rail? Th en aft er the election, well, they did exactly what…. Another defining moment for this government — saying one thing before the election and doing quite the opposite. A member from Duncan talked about the HST. Y ou remember that?

Th e government said no to the HST be- fore the election. What did they do aft er the election? Y es, they brought in HST. Another defi ning moment of this government — saying one thing before the election and doing quite the opposite. Y ou may also recall that they said before 2009 that it would be a balanced budget. Guess what. Aft er the elec- tion it was like a $2 billion defi cit — again, saying one thing before the election and doing quite the opposite. We are seeing the same movie again, another one of those moments of this government saying one thing before the election and doing quite the opposite.

Let’s examine what they said before the election about this particular bill that they are talking about today. Y ou know, I don’t fault the member for Delta North for following the instructions that come from the Premier. Th ey have spin doctors sitting downstairs. How many do they have? About 200 of them? Th e way they’re churn- ing up these speeches for these members to stay within the box, they may have to hire more spin doctors down below to help the Premier. I don’t fault them. Th ey are doing what they’re told, being good soldiers. Th ey’re do- ing what they’re told, but the reality is quite the opposite.

If they really think through…. He would not have said this is a defi ning moment if he knew the history of how this government actually has operated election aft er elec- tion aft er election, saying one thing before the election and doing quite the opposite aft er. I will get into this particular bill. Th is bill actually is designed to deliver what this government said that they would deliver, what they said before the election. Y ou may remember that they said that through this industry they will have a $100 billion prosperity fund. Th ey said that there will be 100,000 jobs.

Th ey said that there will be no sales tax. Th ey said that our debt will be paid off . Y ou’ve

British Columbia Debates5192 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 seen that bus. I saw that bus: “Debt-free B.C. ” What actually has happened aft er the election? Debt is growing at a faster rate than any time in history under the watch of this Premier. Starting at $45 billion when this Premier took over, it is going to be $68.9 billion dur- ing this fi scal cycle — $25 billion dollars. And they call themselves fi scally responsible. Th e fastest rate of growth of debt under the watch of this Premier. Th e member for Stikine talked about being fi scally re- sponsible and having good managers.

We have example aft er example aft er example of how they bungled up all those projects — cost overrun aft er cost overrun aft er cost overrun. No wonder we don’t have money available for our schools. We don’t have money available for our health care. We don’t have money available for our roads and infrastructure. Th at’s the legacy of this government. Let’s examine this bill a bit more in detail. Y ou would wonder how they came up with 100,000 jobs, how they actually came up with the prosperity fund. Where did they come up with those numbers?

What they did is they went out, and being prudent, I would say, they wanted to show that they’re prudent. What did they do? Th ey commissioned a study. Th ey commissioned a report by Mr. Grant Th ornton. But they told him what those con- ditions would be and what multipliers he must use and how many jobs they must use per facility. [1440] Th is is what happened. Th e member for Columbia River–Revelstoke brought it up yesterday, and I think it’s worth repeating what he actually said, because it was so factual. It set the exact direction where this government is coming from.

Basically what they have done is created artificial and false assumptions. Th at’s how they came up with those numbers. What did they do? Th ey told Mr. Grant Th ornton, “Th ese are the numbers that you must use, ” and then came up with…. Th ey knew the result they wanted to have in that study. Th ey knew it right in the beginning, so this is what they did. Th ey said to Grant Th ornton: “Y ou have to use the number 2,400 as the number of jobs that will be provided by those fi ve LNG plants. ” Do we have fi ve LNG plants out there right now? Do we have one? Well, it was supposed to start in 2013, I be- lieve.

Wasn’t it? What happened? Where is it? Interjection. H. Bains: Th e Minister of Finance says: “I think it’s 2015. ” All right, so are we going to have, in 2015, any of those plants up and running and producing? No. Anyway, let’s take a look at what they did: fi ve LNG plants, the 2,400 jobs that they must use. Th at’s how they came up with the 100,000 jobs. Th en they said: “Y ou must use a multiplier of 30. Each of those jobs would have the multiplying eff ect of all the indirect jobs. ” It’s a 30 multi- plier that they used.

So that everyone knows, in this House and outside, exactly the same study was conducted by the House of Representatives in the United States. What did they do? Th eir multiplier was 3.5. Th e 30 is what this government, this Premier, gave to Grant Th ornton that they must use as a multiplier. In the United States — the same industry, talking about the same stuff — they used a multiplier of 3.5. Eight times — what do you call that? Th ose are false assumptions. Don’t you?

Th ey came up with the number that they wanted, then they went to the public and said: “Well, that’s how many jobs it will create. ” No wonder people are questioning. Let’s take a look at the Ernst and Y oung report also. Y ou know what they have to say? Th ey said: “Look, the Liberals gave us, doing the math…. Don’t blame us. We just came up with the numbers that they gave us, so don’t blame us. It’s their math. Th ose are the numbers that they gave us, so what can we do? Don’t blame us. ” Th at’s how they created those false assumptions. Now they’re facing the reality.

Now we know exactly what’s going to happen. Th at’s why I’m saying to those members — you know, the backbenchers: don’t just pick up the numbers that are given and the spin that is passed on to you by the Premier’s bureaucrats. Well, not the bureaucrats, but the PAB, as they used to call it — whatever they call them. Th e spin doctors, I call them. Th ose are the people who write their speeches and put the boxes together: “Y ou must stay within this message box and keep on repeating. ” Y ou have a job to do for your constituents. Y ou are ac- countable to your constituents.

All of these members: you went out there, each one of you, before the election. Y ou promised all of these things to your constituents. We didn’t. I didn’t. I have no problem saying yes to this bill, because I know this is the reality now, but you misinformed your constituents. Y ou will have to look deep down in your conscience. How are you going to support this? Y ou’re not delivering what you promised your constituents through this bill. Th at’s what is happening. How are you going to look them in the eye and say: “I didn’t deliver what I told you that I would deliver.

I’m not doing it, because that’s what the Premier tells us to do. Th e Premier told us before the election that this is what’s coming, but now the reality is not even half of it. It’s not even a fraction of what we promised. ” Th at’s the role that you have now. Th at’s the responsibil- ity that you have — to go back to your constituents. How are you going to face them? How in good conscience can you support this bill? Deputy Speaker: Th rough the Chair, Member. H. Bains: Y ou promised so much. Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. [1445]

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5193 H. Bains: Th rough you, Mr. Speaker. Y ou promised so much to your constituents — 100,000 jobs, $100 billion prosperity fund, no sales tax. All debt will be paid off . Th at’s what you promised. Are you de- livering all of that through this bill? Look at the numbers — not even close. How are you going to face your constituents? How are you going to say yes to this bill when you know that you promised some- thing diff erent to your constituents than what you’re de- livering today, what you’re voting on? I don’t have an issue in supporting this.

To me, even if this created 100 jobs, I’ d take them. Th ese are good jobs, good-paying jobs — 200 jobs, 1,000 jobs. Whatever comes, I’m for jobs. I will support the bill because of the jobs, but I will not oversell. I never oversold. I didn’t. I can, in good conscience, support this, but I have issue…. I don’t know how they are going to live with their con- science when they go back to their constituents and say: “We’re not delivering what we promised. ” Well, I guess some of those who were here in 2001, 2005 and 2009 — they’ve done it before, right?

Th ey’ve done it before, so I don’t think they will have any issue with this. It’s all the new members that came on board aft er the 2013 elections. How are you going to go back and face your constituents? Each one of you promised all of those things to your constituents. Now you have to go back. “We’re voting, actually, on something diff erent than what we promised to you. ” Th at’s the dilemma that they’re in. I would support it because jobs are attached to this. Despite the fact that they have bungled up negotiations with the industry…. Th ey’ve completely bungled up. I’ve done some negotiations.

Y ou don’t show your cards going to the table and then expect that you will get everything you want. Th at’s exactly what this Premier did. Th at’s how they did it. Like the member from Duncan said yester- day in his speech, I’ d love to negotiate with these folks — love to negotiate the way they are negotiating. I would like to see them on the other side of the table when we’re doing some negotiations. Th at’s not how you conduct negotiations. Well, let’s talk about some of the other things that are being said. Th e minister of gas, I guess they call him now. I don’t know what the real title is.

Th ey said: “Y ou walked into a room with industry and walked out with a 50 per- cent lower tax rate. ” Th ey said: “We don’t negotiate taxes. ” But you did. Y ou walked in there, and you negotiated 50 percent lower taxes. Y ou negotiated your way to 50 per- cent lower taxes. Th ose are wonderful negotiations. Th en he went on to say: “Th e project development agreements, on the other side, are negotiations. ” Y ou have started off by giving away B.C. tax revenue. What’s next — jobs? I think the minister had an issue yesterday with us saying those jobs should go to British Columbians.

He had a big issue with that. Interjections. H. Bains: Well, read the Hansard yesterday. Th at’s exactly what he had issue…. I don’t see a big problem. British Columbians must get those jobs. Th at’s the way it should be. Th at’s the issue here. Th e Premier somehow said that the temporary for- eign worker is the mantra to our immigration. Th at’s what she’s saying. Th e minister echoed those comments. Th e minister echoed the same comments.

Are they say- ing that instead of real immigration we bring everyone through the temporary foreign worker process, and then, if we like them, we’ll keep them and give them immigra- tion? Th at’s not immigration. Don’t confuse the two. Th ere’s an immigration sys- tem where people come here as immigrants. Th at’s how Canada was built. But they want to bring in temporary foreign workers. Th ey get abused, they get exploited, and the government is saying nothing, doing nothing to pro- tect them. [1450] Why aren’t you putting in some measures so that they don’t get abused and they don’t get exploited?

Y ou know how many cases you have. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. H. Bains: Manitoba — they wanted to do a progres- sive way of dealing with them. What did they do? Th ey actually said that if temporary foreign workers are com- ing, they will provide them protection. And they do have protection. But here they are closing their eyes to abuse and ex- ploitation — closing their eyes. Th ey’ve done nothing to protect them — nothing — and then they think that’s the way to immigration. Th at’s what they’re promoting — im- migration through temporary foreign workers.

Immigration is what Canada was built on and this province was built on. Y ou don’t have to hand over your passport. Y ou shouldn’t have to hand your passport to your employer, as is the case with temporary foreign workers. How many cases are out there? Th e minister knows that. If they want to know that, they could actually get out there and fi nd out how many of those cases there are. Th ey don’t want to do anything. Th ey don’t want to provide them protection, so they think nothing happens. Th ey bury their heads in the sand like nothing is happen- ing. Th at’s not how Canada was built.

We say that if they are good enough to work in Canada, if their skills are needed, then why don’t you make them full-time immigrants with full rights? Th at’s how you bring them here. If those skills are needed, bring them here full-time. If you have a shortage of skills…. Th at program was put in place because there will be times when we don’t have particular skills in certain areas. We

British Columbia Debates5194 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 may not get workers in certain areas because of the geo- graphical situation. If you need them, in the past you’ d bring them in as immigrants — full immigrants — and then they have full rights. At least when they see that there is…. If there’s abuse, they have a place to go to exert their rights. But no. No, that’s not where they want to go. Th en they accuse others somehow that we are against immigration. It’s just so ridiculous — the comments that come from the Premier every time she says something about anything.

Th at’s why it’s hard to believe anything they say anymore. An Hon. Member: Are you done yet? H. Bains: Not yet. I have a lot to say. I know the min- ister loves to hear me speak. We say that LNG, if you manage it right, is the right industry. Th is is the right industry if you do it right. How do you make it right? Y ou include an express guarantee of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians — not like this Premier. On one hand, they’re saying B.C. workers come fi rst, then Canadians. On one hand, that’s what they say.

But then she runs around the world promising the rest of the world to train their workers to come and work on our LNG projects. Th at’s what they do: say one thing here and do quite the opposite. So guarantee jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, provide a fair return to our province. Y ou don’t see much of a return here. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have one speech at a time, please. Continue, Member. H. Bains: Th ank you, Mr. Speaker. Y ou know, any time you touch a sore point, they start to babble away. Th ey don’t like to hear the truth.

I said an express guarantee of jobs and training oppor- tunities for British Columbians. Th at’s how you can do it. Th at’s one of the conditions. Th en you provide a fair re- turn to our province — not that you promise 7 percent, and then you negotiate 3½ percent. Th en out of the 3½ percent, all the preconstruction cost, all of the cost over- runs, plus the corporate income tax — 3 percent — that can be deducted from it. [1455] What is left for British Columbia, people will be won- dering. No job guarantees from this group here to British Columbians and hardly any return.

Also, we say that the third condition must be the bene- fi t for our First Nations. Th ey must be consulted, and they must be full partners on that. Also, for our children and their children, we protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments that we made. Not what they are trying to profess in Bill 2. What are they saying? Th ey said originally…. Th is is what they said. Interjection. H. Bains: Th e Minister of Jobs doesn’t want to hear some of the facts here. Th is is what they said. Th ey promised the cleanest LNG life cycle. Th at’s what they said. Th at’s what they prom- ised.

What are they delivering? Th e cleanest LNG facili- ties. Y ou know what the diff erence is, Minister? About 70 percent. What they are capturing here under Bill 2 is only 30 percent, which is just the facility. Upstream, nothing. None of that is included in this. Th at’s where 70 per- cent of the emissions come from. Th ey’re not included under Bill 2. Only 30 percent is included — so not deliv- ering what they promised. Th ey said the cleanest LNG life cycle, which means upstream and the facility. But guess what they are promising under Bill 2?

Only the LNG fa- cility, which captures only 30 percent of the emissions. Th at’s what they are promising. Well, you know, it’s true to their form: say one thing, promise everything, know what to say, know what people like to hear, and that’s what they will say. But then they deliver only what they already know they want to deliv- er, which usually is quite the opposite. Th at is a serious problem with this. Let’s look at some of the bill’s conditions. Taxes cut in half. Th ey said it is because of the changing economic conditions. Well, let’s examine that for a minute.

In 2012 Macquarie Bank wrote a report which doubt- ed that even four LNG plants would be built in B.C. but predicted that B.C. would become an LNG exporter by 2020. Th ey suggest that delays, cost overruns and emer- ging markets are all real threats that could undermine the economics of the project. September 2012. Did that ever stop this government from continuing to make those out- landish promises? No. Th en let’s go to February 2013. Th e B.C. government came out with its predictions for the prosperity fund, in- cluding 100,000 jobs.

Th e report by Grant Th ornton used an econometric model provided by the province that produced an estimated 30 indirect and induced jobs — were created for each assumed direct job. Th ey created…. Th ey knew that those jobs were not there. Now they can’t blame the economic conditions. Again in 2013, in April, at an LNG conference in Vancouver, global energy experts doubted the credibility — they named the Premier’s name; I will not name it — of the Premier’s optimism.

Th ey said Asian buyers won’t be paying the windfall prices that have been in place since Japan shut down 48 of its 50 nuclear power stations aft er the Fukushima disaster, that Asian buyers will seek to re-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5195 coup the price of gas from the price of oil, and that B.C. will face stiff competition over prices, with new supply coming from Africa, the U.S. and Australia. Our own Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of B.C. predicted some time ago that the United States will be self-suffi cient — not only self-suffi cient within the next ten years, but they will be in a position to export energy. [1500] Can you imagine? Th e highest importer of energy will be in a position within ten years to export energy. What will do that do to the world prices?

Th ey were warned, so they can’t come in here now and say: “Well, we didn’t know the world market condition. ” They were warned about stiff competition coming from Africa, from U.S., Australia and Asia. Th ey said that those countries, those jurisdictions, have geographical advantage over Canada. Th at’s what they warned them. Now they’re saying, “economic conditions, ” so cut the tax from 7 percent to 3.5 percent. Th en in May 2013 Citigroup warned that we will face increased supply competition aft er the U.S. Department of Energy approved 26 LNG export facility applications in Texas on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

I mean, all of that is no secret. Th is government…. Th ey have experts. Th ey know exactly what is going on, on the world market, but they ignore all of that. Th ey continue to promise outlandish promises and outlandish assumptions that they will continue to make about cre- ation of jobs, about a $100 billion prosperity fund, about no sales tax, about debt-free B.C. They knew that they could not deliver. They knew that that’s what’s coming, and that’s what they will be fa- cing. Th ey can’t use today and come here and say: “Well, economic conditions have changed all of this.

Th en it’s from 7 percent to 3.5 percent, and that’s why we will al- low them to deduct their preconstruction costs, their cost overruns. And any cost overruns will be also there for them to deduct — and then also the copper income tax 3 percent rebate or the credit that they will be entitled to. ” In October 2013 Canada West Foundation wrote a re- port titled Managing Expectations, assessing B.C. ’s LNG industry. It said that Asia may soon have more than enough natural gas of its own and that B.C. will face com- petition from domestic production in China and from pipeline imports to China.

Our minister here responded to the report by saying: “I don’t mind being accused of being an optimist. ” Th ey knew that the market conditions are changing. Th ey can’t just come in here now with: “Well, we didn’t know. ” Th at’s not a good enough excuse. Th e problem is they overpromise. Th ey showed their cards before they went to the table, bungled up negotiations. So who’s go- ing to pay? It will be the British Columbians. It will be British Columbians who should have those jobs and training opportunities. Th ey will not have them.

Th erefore, it’s this government, it’s the Premier and the minister who should be actually looking in the mirror and saying: “Who?” It’s not the market conditions. Look in the face; look in the mirror. Y ou are the people who are responsible for not having to get us $7 rather than $3½. In December 2013 there was a conference in India of the Asian buyers club. Countries representing 70 percent of the world LNG import, including India, Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan, met to discuss how to get a better deal. All of them are working to have a better deal, only this government says that they didn’t know.

Russia signed a big.… Deputy Speaker: Th ank you, Member. H. Bains: Time ran out. I have a lot to say. I know the minister is going to miss that now. L. Th roness: Well, I’m really happy to speak to Bill 6, which is the Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act. I’ve been listening to the member for Surrey-Newton. It seems like he’s pushing and pulling at the same time. He’s fi ghting the act. He’s criticizing the government. He’s angry. Y et he’s going to vote for it in the end. It will not be the fi rst time and not the last that the NDP have criticized and turned around and then done the opposite.

Th ey will have to be dragged into prosper- ity. We’re happy to do that as a government because all taxpayers, whether NDP taxpayers or B.C. Liberal or whatever, are going to benefi t. All British Columbians are going to benefi t from this great regime of LNG that we’re putting into place. [1505] I have a confession to make, and that is that I’m not a tax expert. We have 86 pages of tax information here. Th e language of the bill is pretty well incomprehensible to me. I don’t claim to be a tax expert, so I’m going to talk to the big principles of the bill with regard to LNG in B.C.

I want to set the stage for my comments by talking about the price of natural gas, because the tax regime that we’re setting in place is integrally linked to the inter- national price of natural gas — and particularly natural gas in Asia, as opposed to the U.S. Th e price of gas today in North America is about $4 per million Btu. Th e price in Asia, though, is closer to $10. It shows us where our most desirable market has to be. It’s not in North America. North America has plenty of nat- ural gas. It has an abundant supply. It has an oversupply. It has a glut of natural gas.

So we have to turn toward Asia, and that’s why we’ve been focusing on exporting LNG to China and Japan and other places like that. Th e Premier has pointed this out before. It’s the only policy that makes sense. However, there is a downward trend in natural gas prices around the world. Even the

British Columbia Debates5196 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 Asian price fell by nearly half in the fi rst half of this year, from about $18 to about $10 per million Btu. In February, while the price was still high, we an- nounced our tax regime. It was a preferred regime. It had a maximum price of 7 percent as a tax, and it made good sense. But when we saw the price fall nearly in half, we had to adjust our expectations to meet that changing reality, and we’ve done that. Th e market fell, roughly, in half. It makes sense that our tax rate would also fall by about the same amount, so we’ve set that tax at 3½ percent.

Since natural gas prices tend to go along with oil prices, the news today that oil has fallen to a new low of $77 a barrel is a signal that gas prices could also fall even more, and it could stay like that for some time. It underscores the wisdom of the lower rate that is set by this act. Now, our tax rate, 3½ percent, is not going to change until the year 2037, and it’s going to move up then, from 3½ to 5 percent, which will give us 23 years of certainty and stability.

Th e industry knows that we’re going to have stability beyond that as well, when it moves up to 5 percent, but for 23 years we’re going to have a low tax rate of 3½ percent. Companies know we have a stable economy. We have a stable government. We have a stable workforce. Th ey can trust that the rates that we set will be stable. It provides an incentive to companies to make their fi nal investment quickly in a couple of ways. First, if prices move back up again…. And I would point out here that demand in Asia is huge.

Demand in Asia is projected to go through the roof as China replaces coal with natural gas, and gas prices might go up over time. So it’s good to lock in now so that you can make more profi t over a longer period of time as prices go back up with demand. It’s a good incentive to have this tax rate. Th e second incentive for the tax rate is to start projects as early as possible to benefi t from that low tax rate for as long as possible.

Every year they wait to begin produc- tion is one year less that they will get to enjoy the lower rate, and one year more that they’re going to have to pay the higher rate of 5 percent aft er 2037. Th at could make a big diff erence over time, so it provides an incentive for companies not to wait but to start construction right now, to make that decision to take full advantage of the low rate for as long as possible. We think it’s working already. I want to quote today from an

article in the Globe and Mail yesterday, where the president of Chevron’s exploration arm said this: “Th e British Columbia government is very attentive to the realities of the industry. Th ey have listened to what we have said, they have listened to what the buyers have said, and I think they’ve made some very good moves in terms of what reality is out there and what it takes to make these projects economic. ” [Applause.] Y es, that’s worth applause.

People were afraid that we would land outside the zone, that we would chase business away with our tax rates, but companies are very seriously considering this legislation. I want to point out that we have 18 companies that have expressed interest, and none have actually pulled out. Th ey’re still in the game. Chevron lost a partner, that’s true. BG Group said a few days ago that they’re going to delay their decision, but that’s far from pulling out.

In fact, companies have already spent almost $9 bil- lion in B.C. ’s north to buy assets like land and natural gas and to build infrastructure and to prepare the way for their bids. Th ey’re playing for keeps. Th ey would not be investing like this if they were not serious. We think it’s eventually going to bear positive results for B.C. [1510] Now, let me talk for a moment about the benefi ts of LNG for B.C. Can we quantify them? Well, fi rst, there are all sorts of intangible benefi ts that are hard to quantify, like the feeling of hope and optimism and confi dence that LNG is going to bring to B.C.

We could talk about the training of a great workforce. We could talk about great- er involvement and prosperity for First Nations people, the value of new people moving here from other parts of Canada and around the world — especially to B.C. ’s north, where the population is low. We could talk about the development of northern cit- ies and rural areas, new demand for all sorts of prod- ucts and services, the positive impact on agriculture, the building of new schools and homes and communities, new opportunities for recreation. As well as work, the social and cultural benefi ts can be huge.

Th ere are, of course, more tangible economic benefi ts which are all important, because we have several streams of revenue, not just one, not just this tax. Th ere’s the pri- vate sector revenue, the income that workers are going to bring home and they’re going to spend. Th ey’re going to buy all sorts of things and pay consumption and income taxes to the government. Th ere’s the revenue from construction and all of its spinoff revenue. Th ere are corporate and provincial taxes to be paid as well as the LNG tax.

Th ere are also off sets that companies are going to pay to meet greenhouse gas targets and research funds that they’re going to invest in. All of that is going to stimulate all kinds of other projects. It’s estimated that just one plant will bring in, when all the streams of revenue are totalled, about $8 billion over a ten-year period. Th at means that four plants over 23 years during a period of lower taxation are going to bring in revenue to the tune of $75 billion. Five facilities would yield just over $90 billion. Now, we thought it was going to be a little more than that.

We’re a bit disappointed that we had to lower our tax, but this is hardly small change. Th is is a massive amount of money, and it’s going to allow us to create a prosperity fund. It will allow us to slash our public debt and make us a leader in Canada in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio. It’s going to ensure that our social programs remain strong.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5197 We’re going to be able to do many great things for B.C. in the decades to come. I want to point out that this incredible chance, this in- credible opportunity, this once-in-a-lifetime chance is presented to this province virtually free of charge. Th ere’s no downside risk; there’s only upside opportunity. Th e taxpayers of B.C. don’t have to invest billions to make B.C. ready for these companies. Th ey’re coming on their own. Th ey’re attracted by the market. Th ey’re paying their own way, and we are going to reap the benefi ts.

We call the shots in terms of the environment. We call the shots in terms of how the companies develop and where the development happens. We’re in the driver’s seat in these projects. British Columbia is in the driver’s seat. Now, what if LNG is not as successful as we had hoped? What if fewer companies invest than we anticipated? If it should happen that the government loses face — and that would be fi ne; the government could lose face — at least taxpayers will not have lost anything.

In fact, we will have already gained much through the almost $9 billion that has already been spent, and we’re going to make contacts around the world who know now that B.C. is open for business and B.C. is a great place to invest. Th e global interest we have generated alone could produce fruit, quite apart from LNG. I want to give some reasons, because my constituents may be wondering: why should a company locate in B.C. and not in Australia or the U.S. or some other place? First of all, we have large reserves of natural gas, huge reserves, and we have access to that gas. How much gas do we have?

A report, exactly one year ago, was made public. It said that we have three trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Th at’s enough to serve all of this province and a full-scale LNG export industry for 150 years — 150 years. We have no shortage of natural gas here, and British Columbians never have to worry about a lack of domestic supply. What’s another reason, another advantage? We have a highly skilled workforce, and we’re going to need it because we’re expecting one million new jobs by 2023.

Almost half of them — 43 percent — will require trades and technical training, so we’re going to augment our workforce to meet this challenge. We’ve invested in more trades and technical training. Our plan to do so was made public by the Minister of Tourism and Jobs. [1515] We’re revamping both secondary and post-secondary school systems to give more opportunities earlier for skills training, so students can make the decision about their careers as early as possible. We’re going to match skills training with jobs. We’re going to partner with in- dustry to make sure it all happens.

Th e key point here is that we have a plan, and we’re funding that plan to make it work for jobs for British Columbians. What’s another reason? We have robust infrastructure. We have a top-notch power grid with the sixth-lowest electricity cost in North America already. We have clean electricity. We have a great highway system. We have a magnifi cent port in Prince Rupert, a port in Kitimat. Of course, companies are going to add to that infrastruc- ture themselves. One of our greatest natural advantages lies in our lo- cation on the globe.

We have some of the shortest trans- port times from North America to key Asian markets, closer by up to three days. In fact, Prince Rupert is 68 hours closer to Shanghai than Los Angeles. Th at’s a very important diff erence and an important natural advan- tage on the market. Another very natural advantage has to do with location. Natural gas comes from B.C. ’s north where it’s cold. Th is means that the gas comes out of the ground at a cooler temperature than other places. When you’re cooling gas down to minus 160 degrees centigrade, that is a signifi - cant advantage.

It marks a signifi cant savings in energy and, therefore, in cost. In fact, our temperatures are a third cooler than Australia and 25 percent cooler than Louisiana — two of our competitors. Th is makes it more attractive to situate an LNG facility right here. Finally, we have stable government here in B.C. Th ere are many parts of the world that have great resources, but they don’t have a long tradition of democratic rule and the rule of law. Th at is a real business risk. Governments can change the rules in the middle of the game, and com- panies are concerned about that risk.

In addition to a stable democracy here in B.C., we are a government that is fi scally sound, that’s fi scally re- sponsible. We’ve balanced our budget for two years in a row, and that gives comfort to companies. Because we’re exercising fi scal discipline today, we’re not going to need to raid the piggy bank in the future. It all makes it more likely that companies are going to situate here in B.C. In that regard, I want to talk about an announcement today by Shell. Shell has not made a fi nal decision yet on its huge proposal, but it has taken a step forward by an- nouncing a power deal with B.C.

Hydro where it’s go- ing to build transmission lines in order to tap into B.C. Hydro’s grid. I want to read a few sentences from LNG Canada’s press release. “Th is is the fi rst power agreement signed in B.C. with an LNG proponent. ” I think that’s great news. Although they’re going to use natural gas turbines, and highly effi cient turbines, to drive the refrigerant compres- sors, all the other needs, all the auxiliary power needs, are going to be driven by B.C. Hydro’s clean electricity.

I want to add that First Nations are in on this. “Coastal First Nations welcomes this decision by LNG Canada. ” I want read further. Th e agreement details “the de- velopment, operation and maintenance of transmission infrastructure required to connect the proposed facility to B.C. Hydro’s grid. ” LNG Canada is going to fund the improvement of the infrastructure. Although several steps remain, already expenditures are taking place. I see this development, this agreement today as some- thing like one more piece in a great big jigsaw puzzle. It’s

British Columbia Debates5198 Tuesday, November 4, 2014 putting all the pieces in place, and as each piece of the puzzle falls into place, the picture gets clearer. We can see the picture fi lling out and becoming clearer step by step. In the end I believe that Shell’s commitment, LNG Canada’s commitment, will become more and more ob- vious as it takes step aft er step. So the fi nal investment decision is not going to be a surprise. It’s just going to be that last piece of the puzzle that’s going to complete the picture that has taken years to complete. We hope for that announcement very soon.

For all of the reasons that I’ve cited above, LNG is go- ing to be great for my riding. It’s going to be great for our province. It’s going to be great for Canada and great for the environment. It means cleaner air and less pollution around the world. British Columbians can be grateful for the vision and foresight of those who lead our govern- ment. I don’t think there’s another government in Canada like it, and I will heartily lend my support to Bill 6. [1520] Deputy Speaker: Member for North Island. [Applause.] C. Trevena: I thank my colleagues for their support.

It’s a little diffi cult, I think, to follow the grandiose hy- perbole of the previous speaker. It’s going to be great for B.C., great for Canada, great for the environment, great for everything. Th e member for Chilliwack-Hope is following on in the same hyperbolic language of his colleagues. We had the member for Abbotsford South earlier today talking about how proud he is, and this is a steadfast vision for B.C. Y esterday we had the member from Peace River talk- ing about how it’s going to be bringing out millions of jobs. It’s quite extraordinary.

Th e language that is com- ing from the governing side about this is infl ating what we already know to be a myth. We’re here to speak about Bill 6, the Liquefi ed Natural Gas Income Tax Act. I think everybody recognizes it is a complex act. Th e government has noted it’s a complex act. Our side of the House has noted it’s a complex act. It is about a tax regime for liquefi ed natural gas for the…. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member, you have to go to your own seat. C. Trevena: I think everybody is very aware it’s a very complex bill. It’s dealing with the tax regime for one of our natural resources.

But it’s very interesting to hear the members from the other side talk about this. Th e member for Peace River South is now talking in hyperbolic terms, that by 2022 we’re expecting one million jobs in B.C. He does manage to narrow it down to the 100,000 we’re sup- posed to be getting for LNG. We have, as I mentioned, the member for Abbotsford South talking about the amazing opportunities. The member for Chilliwack-Hope: this incredible once-in- a-lifetime chance. We need to, I think, get a bit more grounded.

Perhaps the member for — I’m just double checking — North Vancouver–Seymour is getting us back to ground when she says in the debate, when she’s just fi nding out about liquefi ed natural gas…. Apparently, she just found out about it last week and said to the House: “What they did was they converted the gas to liquid, and then they went back to gas. And they showed how if there was a spill, there is no spill.

It was very eloquent. “ Apparently, we are going to be utilizing that fellow” — some- body she’s quoting — “and another fellow from Science World to go around and explain to the communities what exactly LNG is and not to be afraid. Because I think the number one thing that we’re dealing with right now in a lot of communities is fear. We want to make sure that there is no fear…. ” Hyperbole or fear. I think we need a bit of honesty and a bit of straight talking here. We have not been having that for at least two years.

Since the Premier came into offi ce we have had constant infl ation of the concept of what li- quefi ed natural gas is going to do. We on this side of the House tend to mock a little because it’s so improbable — so improbable. Th e Minister of Natural Gas, I think, is, to be honest…. When I talk about his colleagues…. It’s all backbench- ers who are standing up and saying how wonderful it is. Th ey’re all desperate to get in cabinet.

Th ey all want to prove that they can use the message box really adequately and that they will have their opportunity to be a back- room cabinet member who doesn’t even have the ability to stand up in question period to answer questions. Th e Minister of Natural Gas has been heckling through most of our speeches. At least it shows he’s paying atten- tion. He’s been talking about the fact that we’re not going to be voting in favour of it, yet each of us has stood up and said: “We are very troubled by the way that the gov- ernment has gone about it, and we know that this is an important resource.

Y es, we support the fact that we’ve got liquefi ed natural gas, and we’re supporting the bill. ” But the minister himself has been, in his statement to the House…. My colleague from Columbia River– Revelstoke had the opportunity to speak immediately aft er him and was just astounded by the minister’s words, and it’s not surprising. I mean, the Minister of Natural Gas, the person who is leading the province about this — there we are — says: “We don’t negotiate taxes. ” Th ere he is.

He says it in Hansard. “We don’t negotiate taxes. ” [1525] Y et if they don’t negotiate taxes, how come in February, when we had the budget…? We got lots of big graphs. It’s all in colour. We have slides up around the Legislature now because the government hasn’t got the ability to have a reasoned argument or a reasoned delivery. It’s got to do everything in PowerPoint. It has its slides there telling us why we’re going to have

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, November 4, 2014 5199 this amazing return of 7 percent on the liquefi ed natural gas tax, and then they go in and they seem to negotiate the tax. Th ey go in and talk to the companies. Th e com- panies say, “We’re not going to put up with that. Th at’s far too much, ” and they say: “Okay. All right. Sorry. We’re really desperate. We’ll take 3½. Will 3½ percent work? Th at’s good. But don’t worry; it’s not going to be till 2037. Is that good enough for you?” Th is is a minister who says they don’t negotiate taxes. Th ey cave in on taxes.

Of course it’s not a negotiation; it’s caving in. I mean, it’s selling out the province. Th is is the minister who has been heckling throughout all our speeches and continues to heckle, who says: “Well, pro- ject development agreements, on the other hand, are ne- gotiations. Unlike taxes where we just cave in and sell out, project development agreements are negotiations. ” Y ou give up the tax revenues, so what is next? We’ve had discussions here about temporary foreign workers. We’ve had discussions about the labour force. What is next?

We’ve had the Premier going over to India on her trade mission when we just got back to the Legislature. And she decided that…. Despite, when she was run- ning for offi ce, that the Legislature was the best place in the world where she always wanted to be, she got out as quickly as possible. So we come back to the Legislature. She goes off to India on a trade mission, and then she starts out saying: “Oh, by the way, we’re going to sign agreements to bring temporary foreign workers over to work in LNG. ” Th is is quite extraordinary. Th en we go on…. Th is is all a little bit late.

We were supposed to be debating this bill last November. Th is was a bill that we had been promised was going to be…. November 2013 was when it was expected. It was coming aft er the election, when we had these amazing, infl ated ideas of this prosperity fund and every- thing was going to be wonderful, with those unicorns and butterfl ies and fl owers and fairies and everything else. We’re going to pay off the debt, we’re going to have trillions and zillions of dollars, and everybody will be really happy.

Y ou know, B.C. would be the nirvana, the golden land, the place in the west where everybody was just idling around and enjoying the wealth. But we are a year late. We have companies who are very worried about what’s happening. But the Minister of Natural Gas, the minister who is also Deputy Premier and still the Minister Responsible for Housing, for some reason, says: “No, the fact of the matter is we’re actually right on time. ” A year late. I think anybody can see that we are a year late, but for the minister we are right on time. When this government was running for election….

We have to go back to the election promises. Th is is the crux of some of our real problems with what this government’s talking about with LNG. It’s going back to that “Debt-free B.C. ” emblazoned on the bus and the promises of gazil- lions of money in the prosperity fund. We also were told that there were going to be fi ve new LNG plants in B.C. before the end of the decade. Well, you know, it’s a bit hard when we’re not really right on time to get those fi ve new LNG plants. A report was commissioned by the province from Grant Th ornton, a very respectable organization.

A re- port was commissioned from them which…. At the time they were trying to prove their jobs claim, and I’m going to come back to that because it’s important. It’s important because in Campbell River, one of the communities that I represent, the biggest community in my constituency, we have an LNG plant that wants to move in, Discovery LNG. It’s got the mill site. It wants to build an LNG plant there. So as a representative of my community, I am con- cerned that it is right, that we get this right.

Grant Th ornton, in a report, said the fi rst project is go- ing to start in 2013, the second in 2015 and the remain- ing three projects in 2016. Well, since we’re in 2014 and there’s a lot of bare earth around the place…. Discovery LNG, at Campbell River, has got the mill site. It has taken apart what was left of the mill, and that’s about it. Other places are still pretty well raw sites. Th e Kitimat plant was going to be up and running by 2015. Th at’s just next year. We’re in November 2014, and the government might have missed this. Th e Minister of Natural Gas might have missed this.

Th e Minister of Natural Gas who says to this House that we’re right on time might have missed the fact that we’re just two months away from the next year when we’re supposed to have these plants up and running. [1530] We are 11 months behind schedule, 12 months behind

schedule for this legislation. I mean, it’s a weighty piece of legislation. We’re still only debating it. We’ve got to go through the committee stage of it, where we have that reasoned discussion with the minister about what each clause means. We fi nd out a bit more. We unwrap it a bit more. Th ey’re able to unwrap it a bit more. We can work out just what it all means. Th at takes a lot of time. Aft er this week in the House we have two weeks left until we wrap up our session. So it’s going to be tight, getting us there a year late — not, as the minister said, just on time.

Th en we have the other issue of the cleanest life cycle for LNG. Th is is what the Premier said: “We’re going to have the cleanest life cycle for LNG. It’s going to be won- derful. ” Th e Minister of Natural Gas repeated this again yesterday: “It’s going to be fantastic. ” Life cycle, as we discussed when we were discuss

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141104pm-Hansard-v17n4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141104pm Hansard v17n4
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6e173adf17d9f7df96c24441fb57242c48c0db1e

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