2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Stephen Smart

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kuldeep Singh Bains

H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Role of community and neighbourhood centres in East Vancouver during teachers labour dispute

J. Kwan

Tailings pond breach at Mount Polley mine

D. Barnett

Wait for Me, Daddy World War II photograph in New Westminster

J. Darcy

New Car Dealers Association of B.C.

D. Horne

Foster Family Month and role of foster parents

D. Donaldson

B.C. Summer Games athletes and volunteers

Michelle Stilwell

Oral Questions

Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach

J. Horgan

Hon. T. Lake

Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach and role of deputy minister

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Government communications on Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach and role of deputy minister

M. Mungall

Hon. T. Lake

Government communications on Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach

M. Karagianis

Hon. T. Lake

Review of Health Ministry investigation into alleged privacy breach

S. Robinson

Hon. T. Lake

S. Simpson

N. Macdonald

M. Farnworth

C. James

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C., Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change , October 2014

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Fraser

J. Yap

Notice of Motion

Amendment to throne speech motion

A. Weaver

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

D. Donaldson

S. Gibson

G. Heyman

M. Morris

L. Krog

J. Tegart

J. Kwan

[ Page 4537 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: We have today with us in the gallery two leaders of the New Car Dealers Association. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome. With us today are Jim Inkster, chairman, and Blair Qualey, CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. I think many, if not most, of us own a vehicle and are probably customers of the members of the New Car Dealers Association, a very important group in communities all around our province. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[1335]

M. Farnworth: It’s my understanding that it’s an important day for a member of this House, the Government House Leader. It’s his birthday. I’m not sure which one, but judging from his length of service in this House, I know it’s not his 30th or his 40th.

Would the House please join this side in wishing the Government House Leader a happy birthday.

Hon. M. Polak: In keeping with the theme, many people in this House will remember Frank Costa, who worked in this building for many years. Today is a birthday shared with his son Noah, who is turning five today. He’s starting kindergarten, and he’s a very big boy.

Would the House please join me in wishing Noah a very happy birthday.

Madame Speaker: Government House Leader — and I do know how old you are.

Tributes

STEPHEN SMART

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve lost my hair, my teeth and soon my mind, Madame Speaker — the trifecta.

David Halton, Joe Schlesinger, Knowlton Nash — these are the journalistic giants that have brought us the news via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. To that list let us add Stephen Smart.

Now, much about Stephen is a contradiction. He is a journalist, and his name is Smart. But for the better part of, well, four or five years, Stephen Smart has patrolled these halls and performed a function that is uncomfortable, as it sometimes is for those of us who sit in this chamber, and is an essential element of our democratic process.

He is, to the relief of us all, not receiving an appointment to the Senate. He is not, to my knowledge, going to work for government, but he is seeking adventure and excitement, professionally and otherwise, in other endeavours. I know every member of the House will want to wish Stephen Smart well.

J. Horgan: I’ll join with the Government House Leader in wishing my very best to Stephen, Rebecca and their young family, as they go on to other pursuits. Of course, this is a tragedy for the press gallery. Not only has their humour quotient gone down, but, of course, their Smart quotient is down to zero right now. It’s been a pleasure, and I’m delighted to see smiles on the faces of his colleagues in the gallery today.

Stephen, you’ve done a great job here. And as the Government House Leader said…. I don’t know if I would put Halton in with Schlesinger or Knowlton Nash, but I will certainly say Stephen Smart and Peter Mansbridge. How about that? Best of luck to you and your family.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: This has been both an interesting year and, in some ways, an extremely exciting year for me. What I want to start with is I want to introduce my first grandchild. I wasn’t here earlier in the spring to do that, but I’m going to now. Ried Laurie Pimm-De Maid was born on March 30 of this year — mother Kristi Pimm and father Tom De Maid. I’m not quite up with the member who was here before, Mr. Les, but I’m on my way.

The second thing I’d like to say is a big thank-you to all of the members who have shown their huge support to both myself and my family through the extreme challenging time that we had this year, and I would especially like to thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for the nice words he had for me in this House. Thank you very much.

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton: On the theme of birthdays, joining us in the House today is Lucy Hansen, my administrative assistant extraordinaire in the Justice office. Lucy celebrated a milestone birthday yesterday. I think she’s confessing to it. I’m very pleased to have her here in the House today to embarrass her by saying: “Happy 40th.” I hope the House will congratulate her.

A. Dix: It’s my honour to introduce Ron Matteson. Ron has been a councillor in the town of View Royal for 19 of the last 24 years. He was also an outstanding public servant for the Ministry of Health for 28 years. Mr. Matteson, as some of you will know, was wrongly dismissed by the

[ Page 4538 ]

government in September 2012. He’s been exonerated, and the government has acknowledged that exoneration. I think all of us in this House would like to wish him well and wish him welcome.

S. Hamilton: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome to the House today my brother Ken and his lovely wife, Janis. They are in the capital for the next few days. Janis is a longtime hard-working public servant for British Columbia and will be celebrating her 25th year at a dinner hosted by the Lieutenant-Governor tonight and, of course, our Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

KULDEEP SINGH BAINS

H. Bains: Last week the South Asian community lost a giant of a leader, Kuldeep Singh Bains. Kuldeep Singh Bains, at 95, passed away. He was part of the group of people we talked about earlier during our spring session who stood up for their community when they had no rights — no voting rights, no right to practise in their professions, no right to purchase property in certain places in certain cities. He passed away. He was part of that group that stood up, took the steps that were necessary and paid a heavy price personally and as a community.

I think it’s a huge loss to the community and to British Columbia. He will be missed, but his work — that we, people like myself, enjoy doing here — is the work of those people. We talked about Jack Uppal earlier, and it was mentioned in the throne speech.

These were the people who actually worked for the community, worked for B.C., worked for Canada to make Canada a better place and British Columbia a better place that we all enjoy today. I say my sincere condolences to the Bains family and that we will miss him.

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: In the House today I have two dear friends. Jonathan Michaels is a local small business owner with Geeks on the Beach, a web-design company that is growing and expanding from Qualicum Beach to a second office here in Victoria. With him is my dear friend Nicole Biagioni, who is a dedicated RN, who works in labour and delivery in the Comox Valley and, as well, takes care of seniors at home in Parksville. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: I rise to introduce my good son Nate Horgan, who miraculously has appeared in the gallery with his partner, Danielle Florence. Danielle, of course, is playing in Pride and Prejudice at the Langham Court Theatre till October 18. Get your tickets now.

Hon. D. McRae: I’d like to make two sets of introductions today, if I may.

First, I’d like to welcome to the House today Seonag Macrae, the new CEO for Community Living B.C. Seonag is accompanied by Sheila Taylor, the deputy minister for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. Seonag joined CLBC in August as a new CEO, and previously she worked for about 18 years in the health sector and community services sector. Before joining CLBC she was the vice-chair for the board of Surrey Place Centre in Ontario, a large provider of services to children and adults with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Please join me in welcoming both Seonag and Sheila to the House today.

[1345]

Madame Speaker, for the edification of the members opposite, before I do my second set — in case they were wondering — Seonag Macrae is spelled M-a-c-r-a-e — little “r.” We might be related, but my dad has assured me it is because of a family dispute about 920 years ago. Anyway, there are never enough McRaes to visit the Legislature.

A second set of introductions, Madame Speaker. Today we have a business person from the Comox Valley, a friend of mine, Jay Oddleifsson, who has worked tirelessly in our community as a business person but also as a board member on numerous community boards. One of the boards that probably members in this chamber have heard of is the Comox Valley music fest, which is one of the best music fests not just on Vancouver Island and not just in British Columbia but in western Canada. He is here today joining us with his family member, Katherine Porter. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Darcy: Joining us in the precinct today is my good friend Brynn Bourke, who is both my constituency president and a wonderful researcher with the B.C. Building Trades Council. Her colleague is Esvelda Rujnic. If my colleagues could please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to introduce the Hon. Daniel Lang, senator for Yukon and Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. Senator Lang is in Victoria to

[ Page 4539 ]

participate in the Maritime Security Conference organized by the Navy League of Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies. He is accompanied by policy adviser Naresh Raghubeer. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: My campaign manager from the 2013 campaign, Jennifer Osmar, is in the House. I know that both sides of the House would like to make Jennifer feel welcome, particularly given the great job she did in the 2013 campaign. She didn’t have much of a candidate. Thank you very much.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ROLE OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

CENTRES IN EAST VANCOUVER DURING

TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Kwan: The summer of 2014 was an unusual summer. It was hot, and it was long. In fact, it was so long that summer went well into September.

For many students, the standard question of, “What did you do this summer?” morphed into: “When do you think we’ll go back to school?” As members of the community struggled with the uncertainty and concern for lost educational time, community centres and neighbourhood houses quickly kicked into high gear.

For the Strathcona Community Centre alone, more than 1,000 youth went into the centre each day that school was not in session. Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre was stretched to the limit in trying to meet the needs of the community. Similar demands were placed on other centres and neighbourhood houses in my riding, but even though they were overextended and they did not have extra funding in place, they did not hesitate to step up to meet this critical additional demand for support and services.

In fact, this work was done without prompting. They did it simply because the need was there. As indicated by Ron Suzuki of the Strathcona Community Centre: “For a lot of the kids, the school is not just a place of education. It is a social safety net.”

There is no question that everyone in our community takes to heart the depth of this statement. It is truly inspiring to see how the community centres and neighbourhood houses just quietly went to work so that the many children in our neighbourhood had access to healthy meals and structured, supervised activities to fill their days. The board members, staff and volunteers are the unsung heroes in our community. They should be recognized for their incredible dedication and tireless effort, especially during this long, hot summer.

I ask the House to join me in thanking everyone at Strathcona Community Centre, Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre, Mount Pleasant Community Centre, Britannia Community Services Society, Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House, Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House and Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House in my constituency for always being there for our community.

TAILINGS POND BREACH

AT MOUNT POLLEY MINE

D. Barnett: On Monday, August 4, I received some terrible news — the breach at the tailings pond at the Mount Polley mine. As a local MLA who knows the community well and so many of the workers, my heart sank. As we all know, this was also terrible news for so many.

[1350]

Despite this occurrence, I’m proud of the way our community responded. People rallied all around and across our region. They rallied around the people of Likely and around the local First Nations and all who were impacted by this disaster.

I was very impressed by how people outside of the community responded, including staff from various ministries. Immediate action and resources, both from the province and from the company, were deployed to help with the cleanup and to minimize the environmental impact.

To the residents of Likely and to families across the province who depend on mining: we truly do stand with you. Thank you for your patience, strength and understanding through this time.

On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Cariboo North and myself, I am pleased to say that we are working with local community and business groups in Likely to create a long-term regional strategy in response to this incident.

I want to let people know that tourism operators throughout the Cariboo region are open for business. The resilience of the people of the Cariboo in good times and bad times is evident, and together we stand as one.

Wait for Me, Daddy WORLD WAR II

PHOTOGRAPH IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: Last Saturday, in a moving and historic ceremony attended by hundreds of people, the iconic photo Wait for Me, Daddy came home to New Westminster. You probably saw the story on the news. This was a single photograph taken by Province photographer Claude Dettloff, but it captured everything about family, separation, sacrifice and the uncertainty of war.

It was October 1, 1940, and hundreds of soldiers were marching down the hill on 8th Street in New Westminster to board a ship on the Fraser River to head off to fight fascism in Europe. Warren “Whitey” Bernard, a five-year-old boy, let go of his mother’s hand and ran after his father, Jack. The image was captured forever and made the front

[ Page 4540 ]

page of the Province the next day, and then it was hung in every classroom in British Columbia and appeared in magazines around the world.

This weekend a series of statues by Edwin and Veronica Dam De Nogales commemorating the Wait for Me, Daddy photo was unveiled on the same spot where this poignant parting took place many years ago. Canada Post unveiled a commemorative stamp on Saturday, and the Royal Canadian Mint unveiled a special $2 coin. Whitey Bernard, together with several of his look-alike grandchildren, was the star of the day together with two veterans now in their 90s who marched off to war that day.

Saturday was a very emotional and powerful day for everyone present, as we all found ourselves thinking of family members who have served or been affected by war. For me it was my father, who served with the French army in World War II and was taken a prisoner of war at Dunkirk; my mother, who, like so many of her countrymen, was part of the Danish resistance; my brother, who served for 27 years in the Canadian military and was a peacekeeper in Cyprus.

It was a day to honour all of them. It was a day to honour military families like Whitey Bernard’s, whose parents’ marriage, unfortunately, did not survive the strains of war. It was also a day like Remembrance Day is — a day to honour those who did not return.

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

D. Horne: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize an important economic driver in our province, the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. Close to 400 new car dealerships that represent vehicle manufacturers from around the globe make up the New Car Dealers Association of B.C.

Just last week the association announced that in three short years, B.C.’s new car dealers have substantially increased their economic impact on the provincial economy by generating almost $11 billion in retail sales in 2013. This is an increase of almost 17 percent from the $9.4 billion in sales in 2010.

[1355]

B.C.’s new car dealers have also added close to 2,500 new full-time-equivalent jobs in the province and increased more than 7 percent, directly employing more than 36,000 people across our province. These are high-paying jobs in more than 50 communities from the north to the Island to the Lower Mainland — across our province.

Additionally, B.C.’s new car dealers contributed to the social development of our society by donating many millions of dollars to local sports teams, charities and others, like the Special Olympics.

There’s no better time to buy a car, so I suggest to all of my colleagues that if they’re in the market, they go to a new car dealer close to themselves.

FOSTER FAMILY MONTH

AND ROLE OF FOSTER PARENTS

D. Donaldson: If you know people in your communities who open up their homes to children in care of the province, then you know that they’re a special breed. These are folks who often have their own children, with all the absolute joy and regular challenges that entails, yet find enough time and energy to make room for kids who need some stability and love in their lives.

October is Foster Family Month, which provides an opportunity to salute the more than 3,000 foster families in the province that open up their homes to more than 5,000 vulnerable children and youth. It’s difficult to overstate how much of a commitment foster families demonstrate towards a greater common good, and more of these families are needed.

Yet sometimes we hear criticisms of those foster parents that are in it for the money. Nothing could be further from reality. The last time foster care rates in B.C. were raised was five years ago. That was an increase of 2½ to 3 percent. Think about what’s gone up since then that all families face. Hydro rates this year alone are up 15.6 percent, ICBC rates have increased by 14 percent since 2009, and school costs associated with activities like sports and arts have jumped. They aren’t motivated by the money, but all this impacts foster families disproportionately.

Luckily, some people are trying to make life more affordable for foster families and kids in care. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has a successful initiative encouraging B.C. post-secondary institutions to waive tuition fees for children in care. She has seven colleges and universities signed up, and it’s hoped that the savings will be passed on to the children, because these are kids who deserve a break.

As the spokesperson on Children and Family Development for the official opposition, I invite all members of the Legislature to join me in thanking foster families in this province.

It’s wonderful what you do, and the province needs more of you.

B.C. SUMMER GAMES

ATHLETES AND VOLUNTEERS

Michelle Stilwell: Bill Bowerman, the coach of the 1972 U.S. Olympic track and field team, once said that victory is having done your best. If you’ve done your best, you’ve won. Well, 3,000 athletes, along with 600 coaches, 400 officials and thousands of family members and friends travelled to Nanaimo, the Cowichan Valley and Parksville this past July for the 2014 B.C. Summer Games. All of these athletes, no matter which of the 19 sports they competed in, were all victorious.

While sports has an obvious competitive nature, any-

[ Page 4541 ]

one who has participated — be it for fun, to keep fit or a more serious endeavour — can attest to the friendships that develop between athletes, and this friendly atmosphere is the hallmark of the B.C. Games.

Not only were the games a victory on the field, in the pool or on the water; they were also an economic win, generating about $4 million in economic activity for Vancouver Island.

A successful sporting event is more than just the athletes, the coaches and the officials. They cannot be pulled off without a team of organizers and an army of volunteers.

On this, I’d like to salute the local organizing committee and the estimated 3,200 volunteers who made the games so successful and memorable — the games president, Jeff Lott, and vice-president, Bruce Hunter; along with longtime games organizers like Diana Johnstone; committee members Rod Milner, Arlene Blundell, Tracey White, Jean-Michel Hanssens, Michelle Behie, Lorne Goodall, Liz Williams, Gord Robinson, Pam Donnelly, Barry Sparkes, Yuho Okada, Dan Kucherka, Ashwak Sirri, Kim Smythe, Gerry Laporte, John Blain, Jenn Houtby-Ferguson; and the many, many others who provided outstanding leadership.

[1400]

To all who participated and to all who are involved in this year’s B.C. Summer Games, you’ve won the cheers of a grateful region and a province. Thank you.

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

J. Horgan: Two and a half years ago the then Minister of Health, the current Government House Leader, started an investigation into the activities of eight individuals in the Ministry of Health. On his watch this investigation undertook to discredit and besmirch these individuals. The day he left, these individuals were suspended, and information was leaked to a major media outlet alleging illegalities and breaches of privacy.

The following day, the new minister said the following with respect to the breach of privacy that she was “deeply disturbed and troubled” by the data breach. She made reference to an RCMP investigation.

Two years later, what do we know? Two individuals have been reinstated. A third was offered an apology and chose not to return to government. Two individuals were unfired. That’s a term, hon. Speaker, if you believe it or not: unfired. Unfortunately, the last one, Roderick MacIsaac, didn’t live long enough to get the redress the government deserved to give him.

My question would be to the Premier. How can the government countenance humiliating, discrediting and besmirching the reputations of public servants who come to work every day to improve the lives of British Columbians? How could you possibly do that?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to, again, personally express my condolences to the family of Mr. MacIsaac for their loss and for what they’ve had to endure since that action occurred. I have spoken with Ms. Kayfish and her husband, personally apologized for the way in which her brother, Mr. MacIsaac, was treated by the ministry at the time. Given Mr. MacIsaac’s status as a co-op student working under the supervision of a ministry employee, terminating his employment was, we believe, heavy-handed.

So I’ve apologized to Ms. Kayfish. My deputy minister has also spoken to her and has offered to meet with her and her husband at their convenience, clearing his

schedule to do so, to try to provide as much of an explanation as possible for his termination — while, of course, respecting ongoing court cases. But once again, I personally regret that the situation occurred. I have to say Ms. Kayfish was very gracious in my conversation with her, and again, I sincerely apologize for the actions that occurred at that time.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Roderick MacIsaac’s life was tragically lost. There are seven other individuals involved. At the time of the allegations, leaked to a major media outlet — no regard for the personal security of those individuals at that time — by this government, it was alleged that there was an RCMP investigation going on. In March 2013 the RCMP commercial crime division on Vancouver Island said that still they had not had a final report from the government. So 12 months after that, still no report from the government. As far as the RCMP is concerned, they have not conducted an investigation, but the file remains open.

My question is to the Premier. Why is it that this government has not acknowledged its failure, advised the RCMP that there was no requirement for them to participate at all and cleared the air with respect to any criminal activity that may have been going on with respect to the seven individuals who you besmirched two years ago?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me remind the House that the ministry was dealing with a number of very real and ongoing privacy breaches. That included the misuse of personal information, confidential medical information, of over 30,000 British Columbians.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner characterized them in her report of June 2013: “…ministry employees were able to download large amounts of personal health data onto unencrypted flash drives and share it with unauthorized persons, undetected.” The disclosures were unauthorized. Another quote: “The circumstances sur-

[ Page 4542 ]

rounding the breaches present similarities to a pattern of attempts to work around the lengthy approval process that was apparent in the documentation the investigation reviewed.”

The now Leader of the Opposition agreed at the time that this breach of data was a very serious concern. An investigation was launched. The RCMP were made aware of our investigation.

[1405]

I have said and will continue to say that some of the actions we took with some of the employees involved were heavy-handed. For that, I sincerely apologize.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, I think that rather than a continued defence of the indefensible, some contrition might have been in order in this regard.

Eight individuals had their reputations denigrated by the government that they worked for. Eight citizens of British Columbia had the power of the state come down upon them — unfounded accusations made about illegality, and allegations that went to their families, their neighbours, their colleagues. They were escorted out of the building with their possessions in their hands, and all you can say is: “There were some violations.”

Not one scrap of data left the Ministry of Health, and the minister knows that. So rather than defend the indefensible, acknowledge injustice. Tell the RCMP that the case is closed. Start releasing the information that you’ve been covering up for the past two years.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to quote the now member of the opposition, who said at the time of the revelation of the Health data breach: “Well, certainly on the first day of the job to have the Health Minister have to reveal an investigation into millions of dollars of misspent public money is a concern. Obviously, you don’t want to have employees that are not able to manage these contracts in place, and I think it was appropriate for the government to take action.”

Now, we have said that some of the action that took place was inappropriate. We could have done better. The head of the public service has launched an investigation into the actions at that time. That investigation will be made public as soon as it is available, hopefully within a couple of weeks. We want to make sure that members of the public service are treated with respect, are treated appropriately when there are human resource implications involved with their work.

Again, to Mr. MacIsaac’s family, we have apologized. We do express our sincere condolences for their loss and the actions that our ministry took

part in at that time.

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

AND ROLE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

J. Darcy: “Heavy-handed” would be an understatement. We have witnessed the actions of a government that did its level best to avoid responsibility for ruining eight people’s lives until the heartfelt pleadings of Linda Kayfish, Roderick MacIsaac’s brave sister, shamed this government into action.

If we’re going to get at the truth, we need to establish some facts. Can the Health Minister confirm that John Dyble, the Premier’s handpicked head of the public service, was briefed on the original investigation and that he approved of the firing of the eight researchers?

Hon. T. Lake: As I have already said, the head of the Public Service Agency, Lynda Tarras, will conduct a review of the government’s human resources practices and processes for disciplining members of the public service. We want to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable approach that’s taken, with disciplinary actions that reflect the severity of the individuals involved and their actions involved.

The Public Service Agency has developed terms of reference and appointed Marcia McNeil to do this work. Ms. McNeil is an independent contractor and has expertise and a background in labour relations law and investigations. We will, through this review, confirm the actions and events that took place during that investigation from the point at which the allegations were received — allegations that were very serious — through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.

We will assess the human resource and investigation procedures and practices utilized in responding to the allegations, and she will make recommendations where required for improving the procedures and practices for human resources and management staff to follow in responding to these types of matters.

Madame Speaker, we are determined to ensure that this does not happen in the future.

Madame Speaker: New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: That was not the question, with all respect, hon. Speaker. Let me remind the minister of certain words that appear in certain internal government documents. On August 15, 2012 — three weeks before the Premier’s government fired the eight health researchers — John Dyble, Health deputy Graham Whitmarsh and Public Service Agency deputy Lynda Tarras sat down for a discussion.

[1410]

The Premier’s office won’t tell us what the Premier’s deputy discussed with them, but it’s significant that the

[ Page 4543 ]

Premier’s office used freedom of information in order to sever the subject matter of the discussion on the grounds that it involved “law enforcement issues.”

Can the Minister of Health confirm that this meeting was held to brief John Dyble on the health care firings and to brief him on the government’s plan to send the matter to the RCMP?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s important that we understand that there’s an independent review of all of the sequence of events that occurred around that time. Any information that is available will be made available to that independent agent, Ms. McNeil. That information will be contained in her report — all of the information, as I mentioned, surrounding the actions and events that took place — and also recommendations to prevent the type of action that we now know, in some cases, was inappropriate, from ever happening again.

We will be happy to share that report in full with the public as soon as it is made available.

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ON

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

A. Dix: One of the most disreputable parts of the Liberal government’s strategy in dealing with this matter was its strategy with respect to communicating the issue. This was implemented in detail by GCPE, the government communications and public engagement organization, under the direction of its then deputy, Athana Mentzelopoulos.

The government announced this action before it told the employees they were fired by leaking information to the Vancouver Sun . That’s what they did. Can the minister explain why they would engage in such disreputable tactics at the expense of the basic rights of employees?

Hon. T. Lake: Rushing to judgment has proven to be not the appropriate thing to do in some cases. We’ve apologized for the sequence of events in which the ministry rushed to judgment, so I would caution the opposition not to rush to judgment in this situation, when we have an ongoing review that will look at all of the sequence of events that occurred. We will share the results of that review with the public as soon as it is available.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: For the minister to speak today about a rush to judgment when they did nothing…. They knew that some of their actions here were completely inappropriate, and they failed to inform the public until Ms. Kayfish spoke last week. For the minister to be giving lessons about rushing to judgment is just disgraceful.

You can look at the freedom-of-information request coming out of Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s office to see how satisfied the government’s team — her team, the Premier’s pal’s team — was about how their leak had gone. Can the minister confirm that Ms. Mentzelopoulos, the Premier’s political communicator, met with Deputy Minister Graham Whitmarsh eight days before the leak to address the strategy to communicate this issue?

Hon. T. Lake: Rushing to judgment is something that we did, and I’ve apologized for it. I don’t want to do it again. I know the member opposite knows this — that when you are in a position, whether you’re leading a ministry or any position where people are relying on you to make judgments, you receive a lot of advice.

I received a lot of advice from lawyers, from civil servants, from political staff. Sometimes you forget that politics is first and foremost about people. Ms. Kayfish and her husband are real people that were deeply impacted by the actions of our ministry. I should have reached out sooner. For that, too, I am truly sorry that I didn’t.

We have a process in place now, and I think it’s important that we allow that process to unfold. We will share the results of that process with the public.

[1415]

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

AND ROLE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

M. Mungall: According to the minister’s October 3 backgrounder, the objectives of the review by Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil are to “confirm the actions and events that took place, including through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.”

The current head of the public service, the Premier’s Mr. Dyble, bears the legal and administrative responsibility for this abuse of power. None of the firings could have occurred without his explicit approval. Moreover, Mr. Dyble met with Mr. Whitmarsh and Ms. Tarras to discuss matters related to law enforcement just weeks before the suspensions, the firings and the leaked allegations to the RCMP that the RCMP were involved.

My question is whether Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating Mr. Dyble’s involvement in these firings — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: Again I want to remind the House that the protection of people’s personal, private medical information is paramount. Breach of confidentiality of that information, as reflected in the members opposite’s comments at the time, is very serious. This is something that is the last thing we want to have happen in government. It is a very serious thing. But when you are dealing with that type of investigation and the people that are involved, it’s important to have balance, to have fairness.

[ Page 4544 ]

Through this review Ms. McNeil will look at all of the events, the sequence of events, the actions that occurred, and assess the procedures and practices that were utilized and make recommendations for improvements. I don’t want to rush to judgment. I caution the opposition from rushing to judgment, and allow this independent investigator to do her very important work.

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ON

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

M. Karagianis: The minister would not answer this question a few moments ago, but in fact just eight days before this story was deliberately leaked to the media, Ms. Mentzelopoulos did in fact meet with then Health Deputy Graham Whitmarsh to discuss a human resources issue.

Now, the minister has consistently referred to this review. Can the minister confirm that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating any role that Ms. Mentzelopoulos and/or government communications, GCPE, had in how the firing decisions were executed and communicated? It’s a simple yes-or-no answer.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure how more clear I can be. The review will confirm the actions and events that took place during the investigation from the point at which the allegations were received through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed. I think that’s very clear.

REVIEW OF

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

S. Robinson: Well, clearly, Mr. Dyble would have briefed the Premier on the mass firings of people working on drug safety, including on the Premier’s pet project, Champix. Clearly, she allowed Mr. Dyble to proceed with the plan that ruined eight people’s lives. The minister just said a few moments ago that they intend to look at the sequence of events that occurred.

I’d like to confirm that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil have been tasked with investigating the Premier’s involvement in the making and execution of the firing decisions. And once again, a simple yes or no will do.

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite have acknowledged that this is the domain of the professional civil service. That professional civil service is led by the deputy that has ordered the investigation through an independent contractor with an excellent background and expertise in labour relations law and investigations.

[ Page 4545 ]

It will review all of the actions that occurred — the sequence of events, the actions that were taken from the time that the allegations were made through to the point at which the termination decisions were made and executed.

We hope to have those recommendations for improvements and an investigation into what occurred at the time, including all of the sequence of events, within a matter of weeks. At that time we will make that report public.

[1420]

S. Simpson: The minister has talked a lot about what will be in and out of the investigation. Will the minister confirm and commit today that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil will be given all documents related in three areas — related to meetings Mr. Dyble had with Mr. Whitmarsh and Ms. Tarras on August 15, 2012, and any documents that may have come out of that meeting; all documents related to the GCPE plan that led to the September 5, 2012, press leak and the September 6 press conference; and finally, will the minister commit to the House today that Ms. Tarras and Ms.

McNeil will be given each and every document that came before cabinet that discussed these firings either before or after they occurred?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, and I will repeat, the review will confirm the actions and events that took place. Not some of the actions and events — it will confirm the actions and events that took place during the investigation from when the allegations occurred through to when the termination decisions were made.

That is, I believe, a very broad mandate, and I look forward to the recommendations from that review.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Just again to confirm with the minister, is the minister committing that those documents and correspondence that I’ve asked for will be released to the investigators?

Hon. T. Lake: I am not conducting the investigation. Ms. McNeil is conducting the investigation under the auspices of our Public Service Agency lead, Lynda Tarras. I will confirm that the review will look at all of the actions and events that took place from the time of the allegations through to the disciplinary action.

N. Macdonald: Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil will have an awful lot to do in the next three weeks. Can the minister confirm that Ms. McNeil will actually have the legal authority to compel individuals to answer her questions? Again, a yes or no.

Hon. T. Lake: The Public Service Agency is conducting the review using an independent expert in labour relations law and investigations.

Ms. McNeil will do three things. She will confirm all of the actions and events that occurred during our investigation at the Ministry of Health, from the point at which the allegations were received right through to when disciplinary decisions were made. She will assess the human resource and investigation procedures and practices utilized in responding to those allegations and make recommendations, where required, for improving those procedures to make sure that the actions that occurred, when they were heavy-handed or inappropriate, will not occur in the future.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: With all respect, the minister didn’t answer the question. It’s a really clear question, yes or no. Can the minister confirm that Ms. McNeil will actually have the legal authority to compel individuals to answer questions, and secondly, will Ms. McNeil have the legal authority to compel individuals to provide her with all relevant documents that they have in their possession? It’s a yes or no on those questions.

Hon. T. Lake: The Public Service Agency, headed by Lynda Tarras, has ordered this review. It is a third-party independent review. Ms. McNeil has a broad mandate. Should she encounter any difficulties with that mandate, I’m sure she will voice them.

I expect that this will be a broad review looking at all of the actions and sequences that I have mentioned in my former answers.

M. Farnworth: According to the minister’s press release, the information gathered from this review will be used to make recommendations to improve how the public service responds to allegations of employee misconduct in the future. I have read this very carefully. Unfortunately, there is no mention of findings, no mention of responsibility, no mention of accountability and no mention of possible consequences to anyone.

Can the Minister of Health point me to any single word, phrase or sentence in the terms of reference that tells Linda Kayfish, the researchers, their families and their colleagues that there may be consequences for anybody arising from this government’s abuse of power?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: This review, as I have mentioned, has a very broad mandate. It will look at all of the events that occurred, from the time of the allegations through to the disciplinary actions. We acknowledge the need for this investigation. We acknowledge that some of the actions that occurred were disproportionate, were heavy-handed. We have apologized. I have personally apologized for those actions.

We expect that this review will look at all of the details around those actions that occurred at that time and will assess the practices that were in place and make recommendations to make sure that those kinds of actions that are disproportionate, that are heavy-handed, do not occur in the future.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister says that they want to look at everything, that they want to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.

Well, unfortunately, in the terms of reference there are several topics that Ms. Tarras and Ms. McNeil are prohibited from investigating; namely, they’re not permitted to examine “decisions made following the terminations in the context of settlements of grievances and legal claims.”

Can the Minister of Health explain why he constructed the terms of reference so carefully as to exclude any examination of what happened in the 24 months after the government fired eight public servants, ruining their reputations and lives?

Hon. T. Lake: The response is that I did not craft the terms of reference for the investigation. Those were crafted by the professional public service, the Public Service Agency, which is mandated to govern the professional civil service of British Columbia. It was not appropriate for the Minister of Health to design the terms of reference looking into the actions of the professional public service. That is the role of Ms. Tarras, as the head of the Public Service Agency.

C. James: This House has seen this government’s so-called independent investigations before. It’s very important that the public have confidence that the ability to ask questions will be there.

I would like to ask the minister once again: could he commit today that Ms. McNeil will have the ability to compel any and all individuals — including the Premier, including any former ministers — to answer any and all questions necessary for this investigation?

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly have learned a lesson about rushing in and when governments are heavy-handed and what the roles of different people in government are — what their roles are.

I don’t think the member implies or means to imply that the Public Service Agency, which is responsible for the professional public service of British Columbia, would be anything but objective and thorough in their investigations. I’m sure she agrees that they will be that way, because they are responsible for our professional public service.

[ Page 4546 ]

As I mentioned, the terms of reference were created by the Public Service Agency, and I am confident that that investigation will be thorough and complete and that we will all learn a lot about how to conduct the professional public service when it comes to matters of potential disciplinary action so that we don’t have the same situation that some of the members of the Ministry of Health had to endure.

But remembering that there was a serious breach of confidential information that occurred, the government was compelled to take action. Some of the actions were inappropriate, and for that, we are all very sorry.

Madame Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: We’re not looking to rush to judgment. We are looking on behalf of the public, on behalf of the families, on behalf of the individuals who work for government. We are looking for the truth here.

[1430]

While I have heard the minister say that he has confidence in the process, I would ask the minister again…. We’re looking for more than simply the minister’s confidence. We are looking for a commitment that the individual doing this investigation, Ms. McNeil, will have complete authority to compel any and all individuals, including the Premier, including former ministers, to answer any and all questions necessary to get to the truth of this entire matter.

Hon. T. Lake: I do not feel it is the role of the Minister of Health to create the terms of reference for an investigation and a report that will include recommendations into the conduct of the Public Service Agency. That is the role of the professional public service. I have every confidence in our professional public service. I will not rush to judgment about what the recommendations, the findings, will be, but I look forward to those so that we can improve our processes to protect the public and to protect the great men and women who work for the government of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change , October 2014.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, how about we start with a little joy in what so far is a little bit of a dull day. About six to seven weeks ago No. 4 arrived. Grandchild No. 4, Riley Patrick Coleman, was born to one side of my family, my son and my daughter-in-law. Riley Patrick is No. 4, following Gabriel, Josephine and Owen into the world.

And on the 31st of August another great milestone was achieved in that my wife, who has tolerated me for a long time, and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

When I think of Riley Patrick, I think of a new

chapter for British Columbia. What’s the future going to look like for this little infant soul that was just brought into the world? What’s his future going to be? His educational opportunities? His opportunities to have a full and generous life?

Not long ago B.C. had a depleting conventional natural gas supply. We were actually sitting not long ago, less than two decades ago, looking at the fact that we were actually going to run out of natural gas in B.C. — until we changed how we did business. We incented the marketplace as a government in 2001, and we found what has proven to be one of the largest and most stable reserves of natural gas in the world.

While this was happening, our primary markets, the United States and our neighbours to the east in Canada, were actually seeing a whole new supply developed across North America and seeing gas coming from the United States into Canada, into eastern Canada, competing with us out of one field in the northern United States. The world was becoming more and more connected, and our markets were diminishing because the supply that we had was more than the market we could get it to. So you can imagine. Now you have a resource and nowhere to go.

You have a resource that is so large that you could supply the North American market for 200-plus years, all your customers, and still have gas left. While you’re doing that, your very customers south of you are finding more of the same product you want to ship, and some of your communities, particularly communities like Fort Nelson, are the furthest away from the market on the entire North American continent.

[1435]

Even though they have the Horn River and the Liard Basin up there, they’re a long ways to market. Where do you send the gas?

So a few years ago — actually, a little over 2½ years ago — the province announced an LNG strategy. Particularly, we announced it in February of 2012. When we announced that strategy in early ’12, there were three LNG proposals in British Columbia — three — and the con-

[ Page 4547 ]

cept of a new industry — you’re trying to pursue a new industry for British Columbia and a future for our province — was born.

Now, at the time, people were critical, saying: “It’s pie in the sky. Why are you dreaming? Why are you looking ahead?” My thought at the very beginning was: “Why not?” Why would we sit on our hands and not pursue an opportunity on behalf of our citizens? Or do we just sit here and wait for something to come to us? Why not pursue it?

Today, since February 2012, not three…. But now there are 18 LNG proposals in British Columbia at various stages of development involving over 30 international companies who are in British Columbia looking to invest. Five of those LNG projects alone — five of them alone — have come in 2014, just in the last seven or eight months.

So now you have this huge influx of interest and investment in British Columbia, and the proposals are at different stages. There are nine export permits already issued by the National Energy Board. There are a number of these that have already gone into the environmental assessment process, and we have an assessment of all the competitiveness worldwide — all our needs, all our labour, all the things that we need, and we have been working tirelessly to do that.

We have not missed a single deadline or commitment we have made to a company since we started to put this file together. Not one. But the important thing, I think, first of all, is to remind people what it is we’re talking about.

I always go back when I talk about this to September of 2013. Or maybe it was 2012.

I was in Prince Rupert speaking to the chamber of commerce in Prince Rupert. After the speech, giving what I thought was an incredibly articulate and motivational speech about the future of liquefied natural gas, a gentleman of about 40 years of age walked up to me and said: “Rich, you’re so right. We’ve got to pursue this opportunity. We need to get the product to Asia. I worked in the oil fields. I worked in the natural gas fields. I grew up in Dawson Creek. For 15 years I worked in the fields.” And he says: “But for the life of me, I don’t know where it comes out of the ground as a liquid.”

At that point I realized that we had to have people understand what it is. So now I explain to people when I speak to them that if you’ve got a natural gas fireplace in your house and you turn it on, that’s natural gas. If you have a natural gas furnace in your house and you use it for heat, that’s natural gas. It’s the same product.

The difference is that we move it to a specialized plant where we freeze it down to minus 161 degrees Celsius. At that point it becomes a liquid that can be loaded on to specialized ships and chilled. It reduces in size by over 600 times and is now a commodity you can ship anywhere in the world to help fire other homes for heat, run power plants — any number of things that natural gas can do here can be done anywhere else in the world. It’s that compact form of natural gas that can be safely stored and transported across the ocean that’s important to understand.

I was sitting with an elder from one of the First Nations in the north at our LNG conference this year, and she said to me: “Rich, I’m really concerned about LNG polluting the Skeena.” And I said: “Well, it’s not a liquid when it goes by the Skeena. It’s not a liquid until we turn it into a liquid at the LNG plant, and then we put it on a ship. If it warms up, if it actually were to rupture…. If the gas warms up, it evaporates just like any other natural gas. It cannot pollute the river.”

She says: “Well, that changes my whole attitude and opinion towards this product. I would like more information.” And today she’s one of the people up there that is encouraging people in her own First Nations community to support liquefied natural gas.

As you know, the LNG commitment started with the jobs plan in 2011. But it’s a challenging thing to take on something this massive in a short period of time and amass the resources of government and focus it in one direction.

I can tell you this today, Members on both sides of the House, that if you’ve ever questioned the capacity, the professionalism and the ability of B.C.’s public service, just look at this file.

[1440]

Every single ministry, every single deputy minister, every single ADM and other people right down through government cooperate without silos to try and be successful on behalf of British Columbians. Whether it’s First Nations, whether it’s this ministry or whether it’s the Ministry of Energy and Mines on the electricity side, whether it’s the Ministry of Environment, we’re all working together in a way I have never seen in my 18½ years in this House.

Today, with the number of plants that we have and the number of export approvals we have, we have to be in a place to build a competitive industry in British Columbia. While we do that, we will always have those who will be griping from the sidelines for a number of reasons. First, they really don’t want to see success in B.C. So they might be an international competitor. They might be somebody in government or on the opposition side of this Legislature, hoping not to have success for British Columbians, because that way, they can say: “I told you so. They couldn’t get it done.”

But the reality is this. It would be a much better use of your time to actually get on board on the opposite side of this House and quit — half of you saying you support LNG and half of you saying you don’t. Because the fact of the matter is that there are 100,000 jobs at stake here. There is $175 billion GDP to Canada. There is an opportunity to bring to British Columbia the largest single investment in capital in Canadian history — the largest single.

[ Page 4548 ]

When I say that, people go, “Oh, come on,” so let me give you an example. There’s an entire new aluminum smelter being built in Kitimat today by Rio Tinto Alcan, approximate cost between $3.3 billion and $3.7 billion; one LNG facility — total capital cost of the plant is between $15 billion and $18 billion; the pipeline to serve it, between $6 billion and $7 billion; and the drill-up program to have the gas to flow for a five-year period, $2 billion a year.

It doesn’t take long to figure out this is worth pursuing, and when you have this many proponents in British Columbia, you’re going to have a lot of work to do in order to work things out.

So what have we done? In this session, as the throne speech said, we will be explaining to you the tax stuff. I can tell you this. It is globally competitive. When you get a chance to look at it and debate it and see the people that are going to be validators behind it, you will say that they got it right. It will be the cleanest in the world, and you will see the levers that make that possible as we come through this session of the Legislature.

You’ll look at the fact that these people are here for a reason. They’re in British Columbia for a number of reasons: (1) they know this resource has a market worldwide, and (2) they look for stable places to invest. Where better to invest when there’s a jurisdiction with a triple-A credit rating, balancing their budget, that has a skilled workforce that’s prepared to work with industry to build a globally competitive industry on behalf of its citizens? That’s why they’re here. They like the fact there’s a reliable, stable place to do business, and international investors today increasingly are looking for more secure places to invest their money.

The other piece is that we’re pretty close to China, Korea, Japan and India from our west coast. As a matter of fact, our ports on the northwest side of our province are the closest ports on the entire west side of the continent of North America to those countries — those countries that are actually looking for the business. They need the natural gas to come and replace dirty coal in their power plants, reduce GHGs and reduce pollution in their countries. We can help.

Now, we know we won’t supply all of the natural gas these countries need, although we’re prepared to do that if they wanted to make the investment. Obviously, we’d be happy about that. But we do want a piece of the marketplace for the future of the citizens of British Columbia, and we plan to pursue that aggressively as we go forward.

[1445]

I can tell you this. As we’ve gone through this, we’ve actually seen an increased interest in British Columbia itself, and I can give you one quick example of that. We put together our first LNG conference two years ago. Our first LNG conference had about 500 people come through, exhibitors and participants. This year we were turning people away from the door — 1,400 delegates.

Down on the floor of the convention, on top of the huge trade show we had, we had an area where people could come and find their fit. Young people from all over British Columbia came to that conference. They were able to go in and touch and feel how they could do welding and pipefitting, learning these skills and what skills would be needed for the future. They came from all over B.C.

There were young people from First Nations communities who had never been on an airplane, who came to Vancouver to find their fit and get knowledge about the opportunities. We are connecting those people that came there to the opportunities for their future, which is an important aspect of this entire package, because it is going to allow us to develop the skill training that’s needed for the next generation. It is going to allow us to go forward and have ourselves, as British Columbia and as Canada, on a global map.

There’s something else we should note. This particular opportunity isn’t just about British Columbia. This is the most significant capital opportunity and job opportunity in Canadian history. We can change the GDP of our country. We can change the future of our country by pursuing liquefied natural gas and being successful. Some people would say: “If they come, they come. If they don’t, they don’t.” I say: “Let’s see if we can find a way to get them to come.”

Maybe we want them to make an investment in Campbell River. Maybe we want them to make an investment in Port Alberni. There are two proposals, one in each of those communities — including Squamish, Kitimat, north at Lax Kw’alaams, in Prince Rupert — the investment of pipelines across the northwest and the northeast, the jobs in Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek.

We also have to do this for another reason. The communities of Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek and Fort St. John support 13,000 jobs in British Columbia through the oil and gas sector, whether it’s construction of camps, whether it’s construction of roads, whether it’s a need for drilling equipment and people that can actually run the rigs and do all the servicing — all of that work that comes.

But if you get a diminishing market and you don’t pursue a new market, you leave those communities at risk. That would be a failure on behalf of any elected official in British Columbia — not to know that they should go and pursue the opportunities to give those communities long-term stability, which they deserve.

The northwest part of this province has suffered a tough time in forestry and other resources over the last decade and a half, two decades. Why shouldn’t we pursue an opportunity that could renew those communities, give them an opportunity to build back enthusiasm and excitement about their future for their children and their grandchildren? Why wouldn’t we pursue an opportunity where this could also take place on Vancouver Island in places like Port Alberni and Campbell River, where there

[ Page 4549 ]

have also been pressures and different industry changes?

At the same time, I know I’ll hear in the debates of this House all of the why nots and none of the whys, because you’re afraid of it. Don’t be. It’s a clean fossil fuel. It can be done safely. We’ll be the cleanest in the world, and the opportunity is there for your children and your grandchildren.

As you go forward, you’re going to have different debates around this, some interesting debates. Where does the skilled workforce come from? How many do we have? Where can we get them from? How do you build that so we can have a future, so these people will come and make the investment in British Columbia and Canada? Quite simply, jobs first for British Columbians, then Canadians, and then if we need, we may need skilled workforce from somewhere else.

The people that have that vision and share that vision are people like organized labour in British Columbia, who are at the table with government, working to do the analysis and the work to get the skilled labour and the training done. If you don’t believe that, let me read you this: “If they’re wise, governments, businesses and unions will continue to support the judicious use of skilled foreign workers to fill temporary skills gaps in the Canadian economy.” That’s Joseph Maloney, who is the vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, in the Province on February 26.

Now, why does Mr. Maloney say that? Because he’s seen the data. He knows how important it is. He knows there’s an ability to actually have jobs for his members that maybe aren’t in Canada after we use up the Canadian skilled labour force. But we do need to know this — that it’s important to have a skills blueprint that works for British Columbia, one that works for Canadians, and that we’re ready for those new jobs.

[1450]

Last spring we did a trip to Ottawa. With us we took labour, we took companies, we took members of the Legislative Assembly, and we met with the B.C. caucus and a number of cabinet ministers. We did a session led by the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m close — and Labour. When you get to my age, things sometimes disappear.

The fact of the matter is that we went to Ottawa with these companies. These companies and these organizations that have touched liquefied natural gas elsewhere in the world told us one thing that was very important — that when they tried to build in Australia, the biggest failure of the construction and the investment was the lack of skilled labour, and it took the closing of the mines of the country to recognize that that skilled labour was important to their long-term success. The construction is one thing, but the long-term success comes from the investment in the business itself.

After the meeting — and at the meeting, actually — two of the people from major companies from around the world said this to our federal ministers in the room: “If Australia had gone and worked together as a country with both its provincial and its federal governments the way these guys did, the experience in Australia would have been different, and we would not have had the challenges we faced in Australia.”

They also said: “That’s why we like British Columbia. They’re actually ready to do the work, do the heavy lifting and learn how this thing can be put together and make sure it works.”

As we come through this, we will have a long history of safety that we’ve had in the oil and gas sector, the responsible natural gas development in British Columbia to stand and put our hat on. We will have a strong regulatory environment that is actually reviewed by jurisdictions around the world, because we’re considered to be world leaders on that. The leadership will transcend the LNG growth, and we will actually move forward to where our natural gas activities become a model as to how to produce clean LNG for the world.

As we do that, we will do it with experts, with studies and with all the assessments we need to do in order to make sure it is acceptable to our citizens and also understood in a way that they know that we’re going to do it right.

Any key for development is finding a fiscal framework that works right. It’s British Columbia’s citizens’ resource. They deserve something for it, and they deserve a future out of it. At the same time, you need to negotiate a non-blindsiding arrangement and work to make sure that you’re in a competitive global environment and that you can compete. We have been confirmed that our approach is competitive. We know we’re finding the right balance between attracting investment and ensuring that British Columbians receive a fair share of benefits. That’s always been key to this file.

It’s not a file where somebody goes out and talks about a piece of it today and another piece over there in the media and another piece over there. When you’re actually trying to deal with tens of billions of dollars of investment and opportunity, you do it in a confidential way without, frankly, putting at risk the commercial information that should be kept confidential for shareholders and companies as they come through a deal like this. Why, maybe, you don’t see a whole bunch of things about LNG in the media is because, quite simply, we’re doing the job that needs to be done on behalf of British Columbians.

The fundamentals are in place. We made unbelievable progress in the last couple of years. We’ve actually taken our operation and moved it across the world to make sure we connect with people that understand this industry, people that can help us negotiate with industry and get to where we can hit what I would call the spot where

[ Page 4550 ]

we can attract the investment for the future of all British Columbians.

We are a big part of North America’s potential. Our liquefied natural gas industry is a significant opportunity for British Columbians. People can sit on the sidelines and say: “Let’s not bother.” Or you can sit there and decide you want to do something for kids like my grandson Riley. My grandson Riley and my other three grandchildren deserve a future in British Columbia where they can see those economic opportunities there for them. They need to know that somebody was thinking about them when we started to do things on behalf of British Columbians.

You can sit back and wait for the future to come, as I’ve said, and nine times out of ten you’ll just wait for failure. Or you can pursue opportunity, pursue challenges, pursue the ability to change your economy and build a future.

[1455]

Liquefied natural gas is worth pursuing. It is a lot of work. It’s worth every minute of it. I can tell you this: Owen, Josephine, Gabriel and Riley are my motivation for making sure that we do this right, that we do it for the future of British Columbians and that we change the British Columbia economy forever.

S. Fraser: It’s always a pleasure to take my spot in the debate in this amazing building.

The response to the throne speech is one of those events where we’re allowed to speak for 30 minutes. There is some irony there, I think. I timed the throne speech, and I believe it was 18 minutes. So speaking for 30 minutes on an 18-minute speech seems a little strange. I have not encountered that….

Deputy Speaker: I could change the clock to 18, if you’d like.

S. Fraser: That’s okay. No, I’ll run my 30 out.

Before I actually speak to the throne speech, I would like to acknowledge some people that help me with this job: Brenda McLean and Patty Edwards in my Port Alberni office. They are my managers in my constituency. They make the office tick. They’ve been with me for the whole 9½ years that I’ve been in this place, and I want to thank them so much for everything they do for the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim.

I’d also like to acknowledge Anne Paxton, here at the Legislature, my legislative assistant, who I wouldn’t be able to do anything without, and also Kenn McLaren in research and also Jennifer Jones in communications. They help me so much.

With that in mind, I’ll move on to speaking to the throne speech. I do not believe that the throne speech is just about LNG. I believe there are so many more issues that are of import to the people of this province and to the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim, certainly. This throne speech was a departure from previous throne speeches. I mentioned that it’s only 18 minutes — very, very short — but it seems to be throne speech–lite, if you will. It was not full of much substance.

I found that it was a totally different tone than the positions taken in the throne speech prior to the last provincial election. At that point, there were pretty lofty statements made about the role of LNG in this province.

Now, I just wanted to clarify: LNG is a part of our economy. It’s a commodity in this province. It has brought us benefit already, and hopefully, it will in the future. It is one commodity, though. It’s not the only commodity, and it is subject to all of the whims and variabilities of the global market. Putting all our eggs in one basket, it would be something that I do have some problems with.

When it comes to LNG in this particular throne speech, it seems to be that the reason for the throne speech was to lower expectations from the very graphic benefits that were touted before the election. I didn’t hear anything about a $100 billion prosperity fund. I didn’t see anything in the throne speech about 100,000 new jobs. These things just seemed to disappear.

As a matter of fact, the statement made in the throne speech was that…. As opposed to being one of the greatest economic opportunities, which the minister referred to just a few moments ago, the throne speech called it “a chance, not a windfall.” All the eggs in one basket for a chance. What happened to doing away with the provincial sales tax, paying off the debt? That irks me to no end.

Paying off the debt. This government has doubled, more than doubled the provincial debt — on-the-books provincial debt — since they took office. This Premier has increased that debt faster than any Premier in the history of the province of British Columbia. Talking about paying off debt, from a government and a Premier that are increasing the debt at astronomical proportions, is a problem. I’m finding when I talk to people that it’s very hard to take this Premier at her word any longer with statements like that.

[1500]

I was at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference this year. It was in Whistler. All the northwestern states and provinces attend those. It’s very industry-full. We get lots of information. The Premier spoke at that conference and spoke about the specific amount of emissions that would be reduced in China by them taking our LNG — if, indeed, they do take some of our LNG. She actually quantified how much reduction would happen, and I wondered where she got her figures.

Afterwards there was a symposium put on at the conference by an Asian economic expert. I attended that. What I learned was that…. As the expert spoke, it was as though he was referring to the Premier’s speech, although he didn’t refer to her by name. He did say that while, yes, China has an insatiable appetite for LNG, it is also true that China has an insatiable appetite for all types of oil

[ Page 4551 ]

and petroleum products, and China also has an insatiable appetite for coal — thermal and metallurgical.

So there is no quid pro quo that our LNG will reduce any greenhouse gas emissions in China. There’s no deal to that effect. There’s no deal to buy our product as of yet. But there is no information that shows that our LNG will have any effect on China’s greenhouse gas emissions, and I find that another part of the pattern, because the Premier cannot be taken at her word any longer.

What she said at the PNWER conference wasn’t based in fact, and the experts at that place called her on that. That does not help this industry.

There is a proposal, as the minister referred to, out of Port Alberni. It’s starting off just right. This is the Huu-ay-aht First Nations working closely with a company called Steelhead LNG. They’ve signed a memorandum of understanding right from the get-go. That is how things should be done in this province when it comes to consultation with First Nations, partnerships with First Nations. It’s part of our future that looks bright post–Tsilhqot’in decision.

But it has to be done right. It has to be providing a maximum amount of benefit for British Columbians and Canadians — jobs, certainly. The minister spoke of that — the problems with jobs, filling that job market.

The problem that the minister didn’t refer to was his government. They gutted the skills-training apprenticeship programs back in 2003, I believe it was. And despite even industry pleading that there’s a looming skills shortage, a trained worker shortage in this province, the government did nothing about that.

Here we are with the panacea, the LNG amazing opportunity that they’re talking about, and British Columbians are not trained up for that. The reason that we have a skilled worker shortage is largely resting with this government’s bad decisions when they re-engineered our training processes in this province.

Also, we may well need temporary foreign workers. There is a role for temporary foreign workers in this province, not just for LNG or other opportunities. But again, we’ve seen this government allowing temporary foreign workers to come in, seemingly without any regard for workers in British Columbia.

Then we’ve seen deals cut where companies can move in, mining companies can move into the province and bring their own labour with them. That doesn’t ring true with some of the government’s statements about having to benefit British Columbian workers first. The actions of this government do not live up to those words. Again, we’re seeing a Premier that is saying something and doing something that’s completely opposite.

[1505]

Now, I’m not going to dwell on LNG, as the previous speaker did — the minister. The minister is the minister of LNG, so I get that. But there are other parts of a throne speech. There are other things of interest and importance to British Columbians.

My critic role, if you will, is I am the spokesperson for the official opposition for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I have been honoured to have that role on and off for the last nine years.

I would note that in this throne speech, the Premier said…. Well, the Lieutenant-Governor said it, but I think it’s written by the Premier’s office:

“Leadership means developing a real partnership with First Nations and giving them the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a thriving economy. The Supreme Court ruling on aboriginal land title presents a new opportunity. It is an opportunity to finally resolve disputes and make decisions together that reflect our common interests and shared vision of a better future. It is an opportunity to move forward towards a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership.”

Those words again. The Premier says them, but she cannot be taken at them.

At the same time we were doing a throne speech, an hour before the throne speech began yesterday in this precinct, there was a large demonstration on the front lawn of the Legislature. Many First Nations and non–First Nations alike attended. Hundreds attended that demonstration, expressing outrage that a known First Nations burial site on Grace Islet was having a house built right on top of it — and the fact that we have a law on the books, the Heritage Conservation Act, that allows this to happen.

We have a cemetery act that prevents someone from building on a cemetery, but when it comes to First Nations, aboriginal peoples, and their sacred burial sites, the act does them a great injustice. It is a discriminatory act. I would note that our member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads has brought in, two or three times, a private member’s bill to try to address that: a two-tiered system where cemeteries are protected and First Nations grave sites are not.

As long as there are those sorts of inequities in this province, these words in the throne speech talking about an opportunity to move forward in a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership…. That’s not a fair partnership; that’s an unfair partnership.

That continues. I just came back from Bella Bella. I met with the Heiltsuk First Nations. I was taken on a lengthy boat trip to a part of the world which is beautiful, the Great Bear rainforest. There’s a site there. There’s a cannery that was shut down a couple of decades ago. It’s like a village. There were 1,000 people living and working there at one point.

Mostly on piles, this whole thing is rotting. It was shut down when it was no longer as profitable, when the fisheries were dying down. The company just left it. It’s full of rusting barrels full of old oil. It’s crumbling into the sea. There’s a ship that’s listing on a 40-degree angle. It’s going into the sea.

It’s right in front of the oldest-recorded continually inhabited village site in North America — a significant ar-

[ Page 4552 ]

chaeological site, a site of reclamation of the remains of First Nations from long ago that were taken from that site. The Heiltsuk First Nation, showing their respect for their elders and generations before and of the land itself, did ceremonies to reclaim their loved ones, their ancestors.

[1510]

Right in front of it is a mess. You have a government that talks about world-class cleanup. They are allowing this to sit and rot and fall into the sea. Now, if this government can’t see to having this environmental ticking time bomb cleaned up on the central coast, how can they be believed when they say whatever resource use, whether it’s mining, whether it’s bitumen, whether it’s LNG…? Can it be done safely? Will there be a cleanup if there’s a spill, if there’s a problem, if there’s an environmental problem, if there’s a First Nations problem?

If the government’s not willing to live up to those words now, why should anyone believe them that they will clean up something afterwards or they will ensure that those who are responsible will clean it up? They’re not doing it now. When this government talks about an opportunity to move forward in a more meaningful, inclusive and fair partnership with First Nations, it isn’t happening. It’s not happening now, so why should these words be believed?

The throne speech touched on forestry — sort of a side comment. It struck me as ironic that the government would actually talk about forestry as being a part of what built this economy when this government has abandoned forestry. In my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim, this government engineered the full privatization of massive amounts of valuable forest land that should never have been removed from the tree farm licence. They gave it to then-Weyerhaeuser for free.

I believe the Government House Leader and Finance Minister was the Minister of Forests at the time. His own staff, senior staff, advised him not to do that because it would be to the detriment of the people of my constituency, and it is. We’ve lost all control of that industry. The public input does not happen. The public values of the Alberni Valley, of the people of the Alberni Valley, are dismissed because of how this government set that up.

It’s all being exported. Every stick is being exported, and it’s putting at risk, potentially, our water systems, our water supply systems in Port Alberni. Critical ungulate winter ranges that this government’s own staff said should never be cut are being taken down as we speak. Established wildlife habitat areas — taken down as we speak. This government’s own scientists say it shouldn’t be happening.

I’ve raised it with the current minister and the previous minister and the minister before over and over again, and it’s still happening. It’s the people of Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley that are paying that price and may well pay a much bigger price in the future.

When this government raises forestry as a side comment in the throne speech, they should be ashamed of themselves. They’ve orchestrated the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs in this province with no value-added built into anything in this government’s policies on wood or fibre in this province.

The Auditor General said they don’t even have the staff left in the ministry to do proper inventory work, and they’re not doing proper inventory work. How do you manage a resource — like they’re saying they want to manage LNG — when you don’t have the ability to know what you have to start with? You cannot.

I would note that the throne speech gave some recognition to teachers. I must say I do appreciate that, but, again, this is a government that was going to be available 24-7 right through the summer, all the summer months, to ensure that a labour settlement would be reached with the teachers — a fair agreement, not one based on their practices identified by a previous judge that talked about the strategy of forcing a strike, of forcing confrontation, of trying to vilify teachers. That continued. That continued in this labour strife.

[1515]

This government did not make themselves available 24-7. They didn’t make themselves available at all in the summer. We had the largest strike in the history of this province that students and their families will pay the price for.

That tactic of trying to pick a fight is not in the public interest. While the throne speech says some words recognizing the teachers and the players at the negotiating table, they failed to mention in the throne speech the true nature of what happened there. Indeed, at one point the Premier’s only involvement in that strike was sending out tweets that were inflammatory — designed to, again, try to turn the public’s support away from the teachers, to try to vilify them.

I do applaud the teachers for standing their ground, for standing up for the Constitution of Canada, against a government that repeatedly tried to strip them of those rights.

I don’t care what the political stripe is. The role of any government, any Premier, must be to protect the rights that we have entrenched in the constitution of this country. Any government that tries repeatedly to strip those away from its citizens does not deserve to sit as government.

I was the mining critic for a while last year, prior to the Mount Polley disaster, which was referred to in this throne speech. The scale of this. I had a friend work it out for me. It’s 25 million cubic metres of contaminated water and sludge — 25 million cubic metres.

What my friend looked up was the flow of the Amazon. The Amazon is the largest river in the world — larger by a scale. The next five largest rivers are less than the flow of the Amazon. This would be two minutes of flow of the Amazon. That’s what’s worked its way down toward

[ Page 4553 ]

Quesnel Lake.

I don’t think we’ve got to the bottom of this. The role of the government, the much-reduced role of government oversight, which seems to be the mantra of the government. “Deregulation,” a key word. No one there to protect the public interest. Results-based. Oh yeah, something will happen if something goes wrong, but nothing to prevent it. That’s a model not just in mining but in all resource use.

Conservation officers. We’ve lost…. This government has just dismantled these services, so there are so few people on the ground, boots on the ground, that there is no one to protect the public interest.

While this disaster at Mount Polley unfolded, we have the minister responsible actually just making light of it, saying, “Ah, it’s akin to a natural disaster like an avalanche. It happens naturally” — making statements that are so far from the truth.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Again, how do you believe what’s being said when the statements are so far from the truth?

I met with some people dealing with the native courtworkers in this province today. Referring to relations with First Nations, going back a step, native courtworkers get paid $10,000, on average, less than those doing the comparable job outside of the native courtworkers’ role. They haven’t had a raise in five years, and their job description is six pages long. I could not believe the work they do. This government is not addressing that.

[1520]

If you’re a native courtworker, you get paid far less than a counterpart that’s not a native courtworker. That’s discrimination.

It’s 16 years since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples did their comprehensive report. It talked about that systemic racism and discrimination is still with us. It’s embedded in those institutions, in governments, and as long as you have these disparities, then it remains. If the government buries its head in the sand and allows them to happen, they’re part of that disparity. They’re part of that discrimination.

It’s very similar to the aboriginal friendship centres in this province, 25 centres that help a lot of aboriginal youth coming off reserve, moving into the cities and urban centres. They’re a lifeline. They are mentors.

The government’s own Finance Committee, which they have members sitting on, that is meeting now, at this time in history…. They’re meeting. They’re deliberating. They’re getting submissions from the public. Every year I’ve been here they’ve said unanimously that aboriginal friendship centres need some form of core funding, and $2.5 million was the recommendation from the Finance Committee — $2.5 million. And there is nothing.

There’s nothing in the throne speech about that. There were the words from the Premier talking about First Nations relations, with a firm commitment to be fair. Well, those people doing the work that government should be doing, the good work in the aboriginal friendship centres, are getting paid less than their counterparts elsewhere. They have no core funding from government so they can’t have any guarantees of keeping people working there, those people that are needed to build trust with youth.

It seems like it’s a two-tiered system. If it’s a cemetery, a non–First Nations cemetery, you can’t build on that, for all the right reasons. If it’s a First Nations cemetery, a burial site, you can.

If you are doing the good work in the aboriginal friendship centres and the work that those people do with youth and others…. If it’s in the aboriginal friendship centres, they get paid less. They get scooped by ministries because they can offer them a whole bunch more money. They can’t even keep the people they’ve got. So a two-tiered system there.

If you’re a native courtworker, you’re going to make $10,000 less than your counterparts. This is not a one-off. This is a pattern. This is the pattern that was described 16 years ago in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These discrepancies are discriminatory, and we should fix those. It shouldn’t be a political issue.

We should fix those — we in this House. We’re legislators. When our Whip, the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, puts in a private member’s bill to fix the Heritage Conservation Act so that it’s not discriminatory — so it protects burial sites, for instance — that should be embraced by the government. They won’t even bring it up for debate.

Maybe if we bring it back again, another private member’s bill in this session…. We can do that. We have a throne speech. We had a proroguing of parliament, so all of those previous private members’ bills have fallen off the order table. That allows us to reintroduce. Maybe this time this government will take it seriously and realize that a decades-old piece of legislation that is discriminatory in its very nature should maybe be changed.

[1525]

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Wouldn’t that be something we could all be proud of? Wouldn’t that make this province a better place? That’s what we should be doing here.

There are so many things that were missing in the throne speech. I don’t know where to begin. There are issues with children and families. We still have the worst child poverty rate in the country eight, nine years later — nothing. That’s not something that we can wait for LNG to fix.

J. Yap: As the previous speaker said at the beginning of his comments, it’s always a privilege to rise in this House to speak on behalf of our constituents. I’m delighted and

[ Page 4554 ]

honoured to take my place in this debate to speak in enthusiastic favour of the throne speech that was delivered by Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

I listen very carefully to members opposite when they make their remarks. The last speaker, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I know is a thoughtful member and had some interesting points. But I do want to start off, if I may, by providing some balance on a few of the points that he made during his 30 minutes.

First of all, it is true that we as a province need to continue to work with First Nations, who are an integral part of our communities throughout the province. No government, no Premier has done more in reaching out to First Nations than this government, this Premier. What the member didn’t mention was that for the first time in the history of our province, in the history of British Columbia, a government, led by a Premier with the cabinet, met with the leadership of First Nations — the first time it has happened, a historic moment. That wasn’t mentioned.

The member also had some somewhat critical comments about forestry. I do realize that some former forestry critics are in the chamber and will probably chime in. Forestry has had some challenging times, but I didn’t hear the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim talk about the great efforts that this government, working with industry, has undertaken to diversify our customer base.

We now sell more lumber to China than we ever have to help them grow, and they’re our biggest customer in lumber sales,

whereas previously we were somewhat dependent on our biggest customer, still a very important customer, the United States. That wasn’t mentioned by my good friend the member from Alberni.

He did talk about the opportunity of LNG and marketing LNG to the great economies of Asia, including China, and seemed to not be enthusiastic about this generational opportunity for our province, for Canadians, to develop a brand-new industry called liquefied natural gas. His somewhat reserved affirmation for liquefied natural gas — he said that it’s another fossil fuel and that there are no guarantees.

Yes, China is an incredible, growing economy, soon to be the biggest economy in the world. A fast-growing middle class is growing there, and they need energy. What the member did not mention — I’m sure he’s aware of it, because I know he’s interested in clean technology and so on — is that China has for a few years now had very aggressive clean energy targets that they’re pursuing, including moving away from coal-burning energy dependency. That is one of the great opportunities that we face as a province, as a nation.

[1530]

There is more. I just have one more which I really have to set the record…. The member talked about a debt. What was conveniently not included in his comments was the fact that we’ve had to invest, in a significant way, over the last 12 years in capital.

That is the fundamental reason that we have invested in infrastructure projects, whether it’s in bridges, in hospitals, in highways, in public infrastructure that British Columbia’s economy and our communities benefit and need. We embarked on this because in 2001, when we took over from that side, there was a capital investment deficit, and we’ve been steadily investing to make up for that deficit.

Before I leave this, the percentage of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP is the envy of the world — roughly 18 percent. That’s why under the leadership of this Premier and this government, we have, once again, a triple-A credit rating. That wasn’t in Alberni–Pacific Rim’s comments, and that’s fine. I’m here to provide some balance, and I will try to do that.

This triple-A credit rating reinforces the fact that British Columbia is a safe haven for investment. It’s a great place for international investors and capital managers, including those in the energy sector, to bring their capital and invest here in British Columbia to grow the economy and create jobs for the benefit of British Columbians and Canadians. I just wanted to highlight that.

Turning to the throne speech, I have to say that while the throne speech was not one of the longest on record, it touched on the future of our province. It looked forward to what British Columbians can aspire to and the great opportunities that face us when — not if, but when — we develop this great opportunity called liquefied natural gas that’s before us, one of the opportunities that British Columbia has.

We are, as has been pointed out by speakers on both sides of the House, a province that is blessed with natural resources. The key here is finding a way to develop them in a responsible way and a sustainable way, one that benefits all British Columbians. That’s the key, and I believe that our government is on the path to achieving this throughout the province.

Growing our economy is vital to the continued development of our province so that we can continue to enjoy the level of public services that British Columbians expect and deserve. Whether it’s in health care or education or public safety, any aspect requires a healthy economy, and I agree with the throne speech that we have to either continue to seek ways to grow our economy or be stagnant.

We must also continue to balance the budget, control our public spending and, importantly, foster ties with the emerging economies and our traditional economic partners around the world. This way, we can sustain our world-class, publicly funded services that British Columbians enjoy and provide a better future for our children and their children.

I’m proud to represent the great riding of Richmond-Steveston. I know that other members stand up in this

[ Page 4555 ]

House and proclaim that they have the best riding in the province. I know I feel the same way in representing the great people of Richmond-Steveston — part of a great community, the city of Richmond, that has truly been a part of the economic success that is British Columbia.

We have among our assets the most important regional transportation hub, the Vancouver International Airport. Because of the airport and all of the economy that’s grown around it in our culturally diverse community, Asia-Pacific trade — so important for the future of our province and of Canada — is very much a part of our local economy in Richmond.

[1535]

One of the target industries that our jobs plan will focus on is tourism. I also will make a few comments in regards to a very important sector, which I know our government supports, and that is the digital and film industry. These have provided great opportunities for the people of Richmond, of my riding, great examples of how we can continue to diversify our economy and grow our economy.

Let me, first of all, talk about YVR, the Vancouver International Airport, one of the largest economic generators in the province. Just to refresh ourselves, it’s 26,000 direct jobs and $1.9 billion annually in total economic impact. This is according to Tourism Richmond. YVR was named the No. 1 airport in North America for the fifth consecutive year. YVR serves as an emerging international hub, which attracts business, creates jobs and opportunities in Richmond, for the region and for our province.

Many companies and businesses choose to come to Richmond because of the proximity to YVR. YVR clearly benefits trade but also tourism and other businesses in my community. One-fifth of all hotel bookings in Richmond are made by airline employees. Just from that fact alone, that is part of the economic value of YVR to my community.

Richmond and YVR are well positioned as the gateway to the Far East. I’m grateful for the efforts of our Premier and the Minister of International Trade in continuing to focus on finding more customers for our industries in British Columbia. YVR is certainly part of that emerging success.

Ten years ago we used to think that China was a place that sold us goods. Now we’re increasingly looking at China, as well as other emerging economies like India, as a place where we need to go and to find our place to sell goods to.

Let me give you some examples. The cherry industry. The cherry industry in B.C. recently benefited from the critical role that YVR has in supplying products to the world. Cherries are picked in the Okanagan, sorted, trucked to the airport and can be to markets in Hong Kong or Beijing within 36 hours.

This year, thanks to the marketing efforts of the cherry sector and also the support of the Minister of Agriculture, the cherry export business reached $10 million and might double over the next year. Yes, we love cherries, and we know that there is a huge market for cherries and other products from British Columbia. Our agriproducts are in demand. Opportunities are there before us in the emerging economies, including China.

The province of Guangdong, which is the sister province of British Columbia, recently opened its very first trade office in Vancouver. This is historic because it’s the first of its kind in Canada. This office will promote bilateral trade between B.C., Canada, and Guangdong.

Guangdong chose to locate its first Canadian office in Vancouver because of a few key factors which are relevant to any discussion about the great opportunities for our province to grow and to prosper as a trading province.

First of all, our location as Canada’s gateway to Asia. I mentioned that British Columbia and Guangdong have strong two-way trade, and that continues to grow, as well as investment ties and similar economic interests. As well, the importance of the Guangdong-B.C. sister province relationship. And last but not least, Vancouver’s large and vibrant Chinese-Canadian community.

[1540]

The Premier will be leading a trade delegation of members of the business community on her sixth international trade mission to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

We talk about China. We also have to talk about India, which also has one of the fastest-growing middle classes in the world right now. We’ve got a fast-growing middle class in China and perhaps an even faster-growing middle class in India, which provide great opportunities for us to look at offering our services and products — whether it’s in education, natural gas, energy products, agrifoods, clean technology, life sciences, film and digital arts, financial services.

These are the types of products that an emerging economy, a growing economy with a growing middle class, requires. We have it here in British Columbia, in Canada. Currently our exports to India are about $468 million. You compare that to our trade with China, $5.7 billion. Just imagine if we can do with India what we have done with growing our trading relationship with China, and the impact that it would have on B.C.’s economy.

I mentioned tourism, one of the target industries that our jobs plan is focused on. Right now, according to Tourism Vancouver, 25,000 overnight visitors came from China this past June. That’s a 27 percent increase from 19,000 in 2013. In one year, we had a 27 percent increase. Destination B.C.’s website shows that B.C. hosted close to 42,000 overnight customs entries from China this past July, a 29 percent increase over 2013, which was 33,000.

Tourism offers continued great opportunities for our province and, certainly, for my community, Richmond. You can see why we are benefiting once again — talking

[ Page 4556 ]

about YVR. Our great regional asset, the transportation hub YVR, offers a total of 75 flights to China each week, more than any other North American airport. Growing connections with the world’s most popular country is a major, major plank for YVR.

Tourism employs over 7,500 people in my community, representing 7 percent of total employment in Richmond. Tourism is responsible for about $350 million in direct GDP impact locally. On a broader scale, looking at our province, we’re looking at potentially 100,000 new job openings expected in tourism by 2020. Two-thirds of these jobs will be in the Lower Mainland — great opportunities for the region, including Richmond.

I mentioned briefly earlier about film production. It’s a sector that has undergone great growth in the last while. We see this in Richmond, where a number of productions happen right in Steveston village in my riding. We see Once Upon a Time , which is a very popular TV show that has been renewed for a fourth season, I believe.

People in Richmond are very proud of the fact that our jewel of a place, Steveston village, has attracted this level of activity — which generates economic activity and which, perhaps not surprisingly, has become a tourist draw. People want to come to Steveston because they want to visit Storybrooke, which is the name of the fictitious fishing village in this TV series — Storybrooke. I have been told that local merchants have seen an increase in the number of tourists who are coming there to visit the sites that they see in Once Upon a Time ’s Storybrooke.

[1545]

It’s a wonderful opportunity for our community, as well as for greater Richmond and for our province — the continued development and growth of the film industry, also one of the target industries as part of our jobs plan.

Let me turn now to the great generational opportunity that liquefied natural gas provides us. The minister responsible for natural gas outlined very clearly the great opportunity and how we need to get this right so that we develop an industry that would be the cleanest liquefied natural gas industry in the world so that we can secure opportunities for liquefied natural gas customers in the burgeoning economies of Asia — whether it’s in China, in India, in Korea, in Japan. This is the great opportunity that we have here in British Columbia.

The throne speech devoted some time to talking about this great opportunity that liquefied natural gas offers British Columbia.

Global trade in LNG doubled between 2000 and 2010, and it’s expected to increase by another 50 percent by 2020. The economic prospects are substantial. It’s estimated that between $130 billion and $260 billion over the next 30 years is what this market represents.

When we talk about the generational opportunities, when we talk about how LNG can really help increase the prosperity for British Columbians, we should be clear here. It’s not just about where the projects are immediately located, the energy companies that are directly involved and the thousands of jobs that would be directly created as a result of the LNG projects moving forward but also the benefits that will accrue to small and medium-sized businesses around the province that will have an opportunity to bid on business opportunities that relate to the increase in activity because of LNG.

I’m grateful to my colleague the member for Peace River South, who is also the parliamentary secretary for LNG opportunities, and the work that he’s done and is doing, travelling the province, working with the Minister for Jobs and Tourism and Minister Responsible for Labour in creating the opportunities that will be there for small business and for medium-sized business around the province to benefit from the LNG economy that is coming.

LNG companies, proponents, who are seeking to develop projects here in British Columbia have so far invested over $7 billion to acquire natural gas assets which will support LNG development. An additional $2 billion has been spent preparing for construction of LNG infrastructure. As we heard from the minister, there are 18 possible projects. We’d love all 18, but even if three or four of these 18 come to fruition, just imagine the economic benefits that will flow to our great province.

We will spend time this session looking at the legislative framework that will govern liquefied natural gas as a brand-new industry. It’s so important that we get this right. We have heard some previous speakers from the other side make somewhat critical comments about: “Why is it taking so long? Why didn’t we have this done quickly?” The fact is this is a brand-new industry. It’s so important that we do this right once.

[1550]

The time was invested over the last several months. I know that the minister has been extremely busy on this file, as well as many members of the public service, in ensuring that we find best practices around the world, that we study the industry of LNG in other jurisdictions to make sure that B.C.’s LNG industry will be the cleanest and also provide the fairest taxation regime that will provide benefits to the owners of the resource, the people of British Columbia. That’s what we will do this session, as we move forward in developing this great opportunity, a liquefied natural gas industry for British Columbia.

We have a great opportunity to lead our province, to lead our country. We have already made great strides in terms of B.C. being competitive — a great place to invest, to create jobs, to move to, to raise a family, to recreate — and we will continue to do that. Liquefied natural gas will be one more important part of an already diversified economy that we can all be and should be proud of.

As I conclude my comments, I want to take the opportunity to thank a few people who have been very supportive to me as a member of the Legislature. I want to thank my constituency assistants, Paige Robertson and

[ Page 4557 ]

Po Wah Ng, and my new part-time assistant in the office, Laura Chen, as well as the staff here in the Legislature: my legislative assistant, Janta Quigley, and communications officer, Olivia Cheung. All of us, I know, don’t operate in isolation. We all are proud of the work that our assistants, our staff, provide us. But I am especially grateful to them.

Let me just close with this. We have an opportunity to create something new, something that will generate prosperity for our province in a sustainable way into the future. I know that there will be a difference of opinions as we debate, not just in the throne speech but in the coming debates over the legislation on creating this new LNG industry for British Columbia.

But I do look forward to us coming together to ensure that this great opportunity, which all of us want for our great province, is seized upon so that we can one day look back, all of us, whichever side of the House that you sit on, and say: “I was there for the debate and that special time when we created a brand-new industry that is now, in the future, as we look back now, creating all this great prosperity for our province.”

With that, I take my place.

Notice of Motion

AMENDMENT TO

THRONE SPEECH MOTION

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I am just standing to give notice of motion, via you through the Clerk, that I will bring a motion forward to amend the throne speech two days from now.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the throne speech yesterday.

I have been here over five years now, and although I’ve responded to a lot of throne speeches, I’ve never taken the opportunity to thank my constituency assistants who have been here with me for five years.

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: It’s about time, right? Is that what the Minister of Natural Gas Development said? Yes, it’s about time. Julie Maitland, full-time in Hazelton, and Shelley Worthington and Michelle Larstone, each half-time in Smithers.

The reason it comes to mind is that it’s been four months that we’ve been out of this Legislature, and Stikine presents a number of unique challenges.

It’s the largest constituency in the province — 20 million hectares, the size of Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands combined. It’s very difficult to get around — 20 hours straight driving if you didn’t stop for refreshment breaks. And that doesn’t include a side trip to Telegraph Creek, which would be six hours return.

Lots of the areas don’t have Internet service and cell phone service, and public transit is a challenge as well. Demographics are a very, very high percentage of First Nations. Especially in the lower age groups, it’s a majority.

[1555]

The constituency assistants I have handle a lot of people who don’t have the ability to have regular contact with government services. So I really salute them. They really hold down the fort when I am down here.

Stikine also…. And I outlined this in my response to the throne speech in February. There’s a healthy deal of skepticism amongst the people in Stikine — skepticism when the government says we have the next best big thing coming for you. Maybe it’s part of being in the north. In Stikine the history goes back a long ways on that.

In the late 1870s there was the Skeena River rebellion by the Gitxsan around mining incursions. We’ve had the Collins overland telegraph line promised that never came through. The Yukon telegraph line. This was before the 1900s. We’ve had brochures by Grand Trunk Pacific Railway about this being the next big thing in Stikine for development. Of course, more recently we’ve had the forest industry being the next big thing. So there’s a healthy deal of skepticism about promises from government about the next big thing.

The throne speech is supposed to be a vision laid out by the government, and hopefully, it leads to some policy and legislative changes. My colleagues have pointed out that it was an 18-minute throne speech. It took me about five minutes to read it to the end. It was a mixture of rehashing of old announcements, of retreating on LNG promises and of missed opportunities, I think, to make important commitments on LNG.

It ignored many other areas that I think are important, many other economic and social areas. I’m going to address those.

I must say that I’m happy that I was able to hear some of the comments from the Minister of Natural Gas Development, because I am going to deal with some of the whys. He challenged us to deal with some of the whys around LNG, and I hope he’s able to stick around for the next half-hour. If not, perhaps he can request a Hansard transcript, because I will outline some of the whys that might help him out in his LNG approach.

There’s a major trust issue with this government. I intend to give some examples connected to the throne speech. This trust issue stems from the Premier saying what she figures people want to hear. She’s good at that, but then she doesn’t deliver. It makes it hard to take the Premier at her word anymore.

However, the first thing I’d like to do is compliment and say I agree with some of the language in the throne speech. Here is a sentence that I fully agree with that was spoken yesterday by the Lieutenant-Governor, who was

[ Page 4558 ]

speaking the words of the Premier and this government. “For thousands of years in British Columbia, through countless other changes, one thing has remained constant: the land sustains us. If we continue to cherish it, if we continue to invest wisely, it will sustain our children and their children.”

This couldn’t be any more appropriate for the people of Stikine. The land definitely sustains the people of Stikine — spiritually and culturally but also economically and for sustenance. This is First Nations and non–First Nations. If it wasn’t for the moose meat in the freezer or the jarred salmon in the pantry, people really would go hungry. So the land does sustain.

But what the Premier says in the throne speech — “the land sustains us” — and her actions and this government’s actions are very different. We’ve got the most recent example of the Mount Polley tailings pond breach: 25 million cubic metres of tailings waste flushed down Hazeltine Creek into Quesnel Lake. That is not a great example of oversight by the government when it comes to the land sustaining us.

We’ve had almost 30 percent of staff cuts under this government in front-line dirt ministries — so boots on the ground, people who do things like having a look at tailings pond dams or look at sufficiently restocked areas in the forests.

We’ve had an Auditor General’s report just a few years ago saying that when the environmental assessment office, under this government, puts in place mitigative measures — in other words, conditions on the approval of a project — there’s very little or no follow-up on whether those mitigative measures are working or not. Again, a trust issue.

Then we know that this government in 2002 gutted the environmental assessment legislation. They took out many oversights as well as wording around cumulative effects, which is a big issue when it comes to LNG development.

[1600]

I think — and here’s my first suggestion about a why — the Premier in her throne speech and this government could have taken a pro-active stance on “the land sustains us” by endorsing what the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre and what the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research suggested on August 1, 2013, in a letter to the Minister of Environment: to request that the minister order a strategic environmental and economic assessment of liquid natural gas development in British Columbia, pursuant to

section 49 of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Section 49 empowers the minister to order a strategic environmental assessment in the form of “an assessment of any policy, enactment, plan, practice or procedure of the government.” It was suggested that this strategic assessment could determine whether LNG developments are in the public interest and, if so, identify ways to optimize benefits and minimize negative impacts.

That was 2013, a long time ago. That was rejected by the minister and by this government. So there are my first five. Why reject something that could have built the trust that is sadly lacking in this government’s environmental approach?

The Union of B.C. Municipalities recently held their annual convention, and there was a resolution that came forward from the regional district of the Queen Charlottes. It was endorsed by the UBCM delegates. Again, it was along the same lines. I’ll read it.

“Whereas liquid natural gas development in northeastern B.C. and proposed pipelines, terminal facilities and tanker transportation from the north coast will have large, cumulative environmental, social and economic impacts; and

whereas this development is happening across B.C. — impacting the land and communities of northern B.C., both civic and First Nation — without the means of meaningful consultation and involvement; and

whereas comprehensive planning and cumulative impact assessment have been lacking to date, therefore

be it resolved that UBCM request that the province of B.C. and First Nations convene and co-chair a strategic economic and environmental impact assessment of LNG development in British Columbia and be it further resolved that UBCM request that the province and First Nations invite the federal government to participate in this joint planning process.”

That was not only endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipality delegates but also, previous to that, the North Central Local Government Association that represents all municipalities in the north.

Again, why reject that approach when this government knows it needs social licence and needs to build trust? Again, it’s saying one thing, “the land sustains us,” but not taking actions to back up those words.

There’s another why for the minister. Last May on the last day of the legislative sitting, which happened to be May 29, I filed a notice of questions for the Premier to answer in connection with natural gas production in the northeast — some very important