2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Monday, July 13, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Phare and firefighters

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Simons

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Mount Polley mine reopening

D. Barnett

Canada Day events in Burnaby

K. Corrigan

Donations by Abbotsford residents and service organizations

D. Plecas

Children and car seat safety

L. Krog

B.C. paramedic team medals at medical rescue competition

J. Yap

Paddle for Wellness program and Prince Rupert Friendship House

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Health Ministry investigation

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

L. Krog

Hon. S. Anton

K. Corrigan

A. Dix

Drinking water quality at Johnsons Landing

M. Mungall

Hon. C. Oakes

Coroner’s inquest into Burns Lake mill explosion

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and Office of the provincial health officer , Growing Up in B.C. — 2015

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2014

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., annual report, 2014-15

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2014-15

Office of the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2014-2015

Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2014-15

Office of the Auditor General, financial statements, 2014-15

Office of the Auditor General, Budget Process Examination, Phase 1: Revenue

Office of the Auditor General, Monitoring Fiscal Sustainability

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — government response to climate change

A. Weaver

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future:

Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act

Hon. C. Clark

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

G. Kyllo

S. Simpson

J. Martin

S. Chandra Herbert

Personal Statement

Clarification of comments made in the House

A. Weaver

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act (continued)

M. Morris

J. Rice

Hon. B. Bennett

Standing Order 35

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — government response to climate change

Page 8887

MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to introduce a friend of mine, Mary Tasi, in the legislative chamber today. Through eight years of research and conversation with First Nations elders and museum research, Mary, along with her husband, Wade Baker, uncovered a different view of Captain Vancouver than the man described in mainstream history. In fact, it is said that what we readily accept as fact, upon further exploration, is often revealed as myth perpetuated through our lasting trust of the written word.

Are we being easily influenced and led to adopt a particular perspective of convenience, or are we prepared to examine multiple viewpoints to rediscover the truth? I encourage everyone to welcome Mary and to check out her book The Hidden Journals .

A. Weaver: I’m very pleased to welcome nine guests from Squamish who came to the Legislature today to have their voices heard on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project development agreement and on other LNG facilities, including Woodfibre LNG and the Fraser Valley facility, that want to join as part of the generational sellout that the government is introducing today.

[1335]

These guests are Auli Parviainen, Chris Pettingill, Mike Quesnel, Eoin Finn, Donald Wilson, Melyssa Hudson, Glen Campbell, Ashley Hooper and Angela Muellers. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

JOHN PHARE AND FIREFIGHTERS

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to just take this moment, I know on behalf of all members of the House, to express our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of John Phare, who was the firefighter who passed away fighting the wildfire near Sechelt. I know we were deeply saddened to hear of his passing. It serves as a reminder to us of the very real dangers that firefighters face every day.

He was a very, very active member of the Sechelt community, an active member in the contractor community. He will be sorely, sorely missed by all his family and friends.

I also want to take this moment, on behalf of all British Columbians, to thank the brave men and women who are currently fighting wildfires across the province. We’re very grateful for the dedication, for the hard work that they do every day across the province in these very, very challenging circumstances.

I’d like the House to pass on our condolences to the family and friends of John Phare and to thank, on behalf of all of us, our firefighters for the great work they are doing across the province.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his words. I’d like the House to join me in paying tribute to John Phare of the Sunshine Coast, who died on July 5 assisting in battling the Old Sechelt Mine forest fire.

Born and raised on the Sunshine Coast, John attended Roberts Creek Elementary School and then Elphinstone Secondary. He was a faller, a well-known and well-loved member of the community, whose loss has been felt by all but none more than his children and family and his love — his fiancée, Kimiko.

Known for his generosity, his willingness to help others and his sense of humour, he’ll be missed. In the words of Kimiko: “Johnny was a good, good man.” His brother Lonnie has expressed thanks for the generosity of the community, and donations to support Kimiko can be made at any branch of the Sunshine Coast Credit Union.

The public is invited to a celebration of life which will be held on Saturday, July 18, at Gibsons and Area Community Centre, beginning at one o’clock.

Madame Speaker, I would ask that this House express condolences to the family of John Phare on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I have a number of introductions to make today, one of which I’ve never made before. I’m very excited about that. It has to do with two constituents of mine, Jack and Audrey Howe, who were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary this weekend. Of course, that assembles a collection of the Howe clan in southern Vancouver Island from disparate parts of the world.

Joining Jack and Audrey in celebrating this weekend were Michael and David, two of their sons from Victoria, as well as their eldest grandson, Thomas, from Edmonton. They’re joined by cousins Beth Bisson, from Prince George, and Tivola Howe from Kamloops, who is 75 over this weekend.

Happy birthday, Tivola.

Lastly, I want to introduce Alwyn Blanshard from Tylertown, Mississippi. I have never said “Mississippi” in the Legislature, so thank you very much, Alwyn, for coming and joining us here today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Tony and Barbara Miniaci are visiting today from Mission. The member for Abbotsford-Mission and I would like to welcome them. They have two connections to this place of note. Barbara’s uncle was a long-serving and much-respected member of the assembly, Mark Rose.

Page 8888

Their son Mario has worked with the government in various ministerial offices for these past years, doing great work for British Columbians. I hope the House will welcome Tony and Barbara Miniaci.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to welcome representatives from the Industry Training Authority here today. We were delighted to have in the Legislature a group of apprentices, including a young man who actually won a gold medal at the Skills Competition in Saskatoon. Delighted to have them.

[1340]

We’re pleased to have Kyle Preston with us this afternoon. He’s the industry training apprenticeship adviser for Victoria and south Vancouver Island, doing a great job making sure that young people have an opportunity to look at choices to become apprentices right here on the Island. Please join me in making Kyle very welcome this afternoon.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MOUNT POLLEY MINE REOPENING

D. Barnett: Last week brought some wonderful welcome news to communities in my constituency and to all of the Cariboo: the decision to reopen the Mount Polley mine in Likely. For those in the Cariboo, we all know it has been a tough few months. We faced challenges, but we came through it together, anticipating that this day would come and the mine would reopen, providing jobs for the expected 220 people in our communities over the next year.

It took a lot of work to come to where we are today. I’d like to acknowledge the strength, hard work and due diligence of Imperial Metals, the United Steelworkers staff, ministry experts, the Ministry of Environment staff, Ministry of Energy and staff, Ministry of Health, the First Nations and the public consultations that took place that have provided the confidence that the permit could be issued to have a resource economy and respect the environment.

We still have a long way to go to get the mine fully reopened and everyone back to work. But it is wonderful to see the resilience and joint effort of the Cariboo community, along with the government staff, our ministry, Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce, Cariboo Chilcotin Tourism Association, the Likely Chamber of Commerce and many others.

This decision is welcome news for families. They can now pay their mortgages. They can now get up in the morning and smile. There’s a lot of work to do yet, but we know we will get there.

CANADA DAY EVENTS IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: Canada Day is celebrated all across this great country. The city of Burnaby hosted three celebrations attended by thousands of people. Burnaby is a community that has more than 100 languages spoken, with people from Afghanistan to Zanzibar — and I did check that. It’s a citizenry that I think truly appreciates and prizes our democracy and freedoms.

About 3,000 people attended the 24th annual neighbourhood-based Canada Day festivities at Edmonds Community Centre, which featured a flag-marching ceremony, some great entertainment, interactive and creative community displays, a fabulous children’s festival featuring Charlotte Diamond and, of course, birthday cake.

Many thousands more attended the Canada Day celebrations at Burnaby Village Museum and carousel, with a parade, entertainment, games, contests, demonstrations and more cake.

Later in the day, at Swangard Stadium, people of all ages enjoyed an evening of music featuring the bands Mostly Marley, a reggae fusion band; Jon and Roy; and 54-40. A stunning fireworks display capped the evening. These were the official city events. But there were community and private events all over Burnaby as well, including a very popular annual event at Brentwood Alliance Church and a celebration at Seton Villa.

It was a wonderful day, a chance to recognize and honour the men and women in uniform who have helped protect our freedoms and democracy. I also really appreciated that so many families brought their young children, who not only enjoyed the fun and entertainment but were learning about our diversity, how important our country is to us and how, perhaps, uniquely successful Canada is in bringing together people from all backgrounds and heritages to live together in peace.

DONATIONS BY ABBOTSFORD RESIDENTS

AND SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

D. Plecas: Generosity is one of the tenets that guides a successful community. Nowhere in Canada is generosity so great as it is in Abbotsford. For some ten years in a row now Abbotsford has led the nation as the country’s most giving community. Yes, it’s individuals donating millions upon millions every year to causes both local and global — and through many organizations.

[1345]

Mennonite Central Committee, for example, with its B.C. headquarters in Abbotsford, is renowned for providing food and financial relief to the needy across the globe.

Every March farmers from Abbotsford and throughout the Fraser Valley hold a Canadian Foodgrains charity livestock auction in Abbotsford, an auction which last year helped see Canadian-grown food grains delivered to Syrian refugees. This year that auction raised $165,000.

Then, too, there are many business leaders and their families who have turned their successes into successes for people around the world. Harry Schmidt and his

Page 8889

Schmidt Family Foundation is just one example, now building schools in Rwanda. The Holmberg family is yet another example, generously donating well over $1 million to establish Abbotsford’s first adult hospice. And we have the incredible generosity that built Matthew’s House on the Abbotsford campus of care. That will soon see the opening of a second Canuck Place for children.

Then there is the Crystal Gala Foundation, which over the last 16 years has raised over $1 million through its annual balls to aid the fight against breast cancer. Rotary clubs, other service organizations and our many places of worship tirelessly raise funds for charitable causes locally and globally. They give Abbotsford reason to be proud.

CHILDREN AND CAR SEAT SAFETY

L. Krog: Children and safety, a top priority for parents and caregivers. We know that seat belts save lives. We know that research shows they prevent injury and death. We know that car seats and booster seats save lives and prevent injury. We also now know that changing too early to forward-facing car seats is dangerous for children.

The leading cause of death and serious injury of children between the ages of one and 14 is car crashes. A recent study by Parachute Canada, a national safety organization, lauded by the federal government, has shown significant gaps in our protection regime here in British Columbia and across this country. For every dollar we invest in a booster seat, you save $71 in health care benefits. For every dollar invested in a car seat, you save $42.

It is good economics, but most importantly what we know now is that children are getting seriously injured because they’re in inappropriate seating. There should be, if we really care about child safety, a two-year minimum to turn a child to a forward-facing seat. That is supported by major medical organizations, Transport Canada, BCAA, ICBC and car seat manufacturers.

We should also definitely be instituting for five-year-old children and a 40-pound minimum to switch from a car seat to a booster. Again, if we really care about protecting our children, it is the practice we should be engaging in.

Finally, we should have a 12-year-age minimum and a 4-foot-9 height minimum before we switch children from boosters to regular seating. All of this is supported by good evidence. The other reality is that there shouldn’t be an exemption for taxis and limousines.

We can change the law in this chamber, but the law of physics applies everywhere. What we do know is that if we don’t protect our children in vehicles, serious injury and death results — our job.

B.C. PARAMEDIC TEAM MEDALS AT

MEDICAL RESCUE COMPETITION

J. Yap: It’s a great honour to rise and inform the House that on May 29 a B.C. Ambulance Service critical care paramedic team won gold medals on the world stage at a Rallye Rejviz International Medical Rescue Competition in the Czech Republic. The team members consisted of paramedics Kevin Lambert, Chris Naples and Rico Ruffy and trainers advanced care paramedic John Richmond and retired advanced care paramedic Clarke McGuire.

The team competed with over 30 other countries and completed a dozen complex medical tasks in a 24-hour period with multiple judges scrutinizing every decision and treatment plan. This team works from the B.C. Ambulance Service station YVR airport. Their duties include responding to all areas of the province via fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, providing the highest level of pre-hospital care in Canada. Preparing for this event, all of these men put in countless hours of volunteer study and practice in mock events.

[1350]

Both John Richmond and Clarke McGuire are well respected as team managers and international paramedic judges. Clarke McGuire also assists with training and acts as Canada’s liaison with the European organizing committee.

Nancy Painter, the editor of the B.C. emergency health services weekly bulletin, called the team captain, Kevin Lambert, to say: “We print dozens of stories in our weekly bulletin but generate very few responses. But in this case many of our readers have written in with great adulation for the team.”

The team’s trip was funded by public-private partnerships and allowed them to represent their profession, service, province and country. Madame Speaker and all members of the House, I know you will join me in offering congratulations to these skilled and dedicated paramedics on making British Columbia proud.

PADDLE FOR WELLNESS PROGRAM

AND PRINCE RUPERT FRIENDSHIP HOUSE

J. Rice: This spring, preschoolers to elders from the North Coast area participated in a creative cultural community–building project called Paddle for Wellness. Hundreds of paddles were personalized as part of a cultural program led by the Prince Rupert Friendship House and our local canoe guru and community leader Peter Loy.

Paddle for Wellness was an educational, hands-on program engaging the Prince Rupert Friendship House staff, their clients and community members in a number of culturally-based programs. As part of the 2015 Friendship House Paddle for Wellness, North Coast residents got to experience painting their own canoe paddles and then had them blessed by First Nations elders in a historic ceremony.

After showcasing them during the Prince Rupert annual Seafest parade, many were used in the first-ever canoe tug-of-war games held in the Prince Rupert Harbour. Many

Page 8890

people painted their First Nations family crests and other creative designs.

For weeks the Friendship House opened its doors to anyone who wanted to drop in and work on a paddle. It did not matter if you were First Nations or not. The program was open to everyone. We saw people from all backgrounds and ages participating. It was truly a cross-cultural, community-building activity.

Brody Edgars, who is in the Friendship House youth program, started working on his paddle in May, and said that although he’s always enjoyed doing art, he never worked on a project like this before. He says: “Projects like this are important because they help you learn about your culture.”

This project also helped us learn about each other’s culture. We had Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga’a and First Nations people up and down the coast and up the Skeena River participating. There were many non-aboriginal children, youth and adults also painting paddles and participating in the blessing ceremony.

I was surprised and honoured to know that a paddle had been painted for me and was presented to me at the blessing ceremony. I’d like to thank the Prince Rupert Friendship House and Peter Loy for initiating the Paddle for Wellness program. It is these types of programs that will indeed lead us to wellness.

M. Dalton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the galleries today we have Peter and Ruth Froese. Peter is the executive director of FISA, the Federation of Independent Schools Association, with 80,000 students. I’ve gotten to know him quite well in my years when I was a parliamentary secretary. He serves the students very well and the organization also. Would the House please make them both feel welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

J. Horgan: Last October, October 7, I asked the Premier a simple question. I asked her if she had contacted the RCMP and advised them that there was no longer a requirement to investigate the eight health researchers who were summarily fired, besmirched and smeared by the government in September of 2012. The Premier didn’t answer. The Minister of Health got to his feet, and he said as follows: “An investigation was launched. The RCMP was made aware of our investigation.”

We now know why the Premier didn’t answer the question and why the Minister of Health avoided the question. Upon reviewing Hansard and upon reviewing the media, the RCMP discovered that they were supposedly involved in an investigation that they knew nothing about.

I asked, and my colleagues asked, the Premier on 18 separate occasions over two days in October last year whether she would advise the RCMP that the investigation was no longer required, and she refused to do so.

[1355]

Can the Premier tell this House why it is that there was never an investigation by the RCMP, yet her government continued to perpetuate that myth?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m delighted that we’re all back together again in this legislative chamber, particularly for the historic debate that is about to unfold in the next couple of weeks.

With respect to the member’s question, the Finance Committee, as he knows, has requested that the Ombudsperson investigate the issues that he has raised here. I trust that they’ll be able to do that work, and I’m very hopeful that the Ombudsman will take it on as he said he’d be quite willing to do. We’ll look forward to the results of that discussion and the results of that work.

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

J. Horgan: I’ll just bring the Premier up to speed on what actually has been going on. The Finance Committee did not ask the Ombudsperson to investigate; the Minister of Health did, and that issue is still very much at play. The Ombudsperson did not say he would be happy to do that. In fact, he wrote a 16-page letter advising why it would be extremely difficult for him to do so.

Perhaps the Attorney General, who responded to that letter, could send the information to the Premier before question period is done today. She was very quick to get it to the media. It’s a shame she didn’t put you on the distribution list, Madam Premier.

However, I didn’t ask any of those questions. I asked the Premier why it is that she misled the Legislature and the people of British Columbia by not answering directly the question that was put to her and her government.

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader, you need to withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You going to spring to action there? Or are we going to proceed?

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader, kindly withdraw that remark.

J. Horgan: Pardon me?

Madame Speaker: Kindly withdraw the remark.

Page 8891

J. Horgan: I withdraw the remark, Madame Speaker, and I’ll continue. This might illuminate the House and those present.

At the time, the RCMP reviewed Hansard , they reviewed the media, and they sent internal e-mails in October saying: “The RCMP has not received information from the Health Ministry which would support a criminal investigation.” They went further: “To continue implying we are in contact with and potentially assessing the matter from a criminal perspective would be less than accurate.” So rather than “mislead,” I will say “less than accurate statements.”

Can the Premier advise this House why she and her government were less than accurate with respect to the RCMP investigating the actions of eight individuals who were fired and then reinstated, one of whom tragically took his own life?

Hon. C. Clark: As I have no doubt he will amply demonstrate over the two weeks, the member is often and frequently wrong in his assumptions, and he’s wrong in his assumptions here as well. The committee is deliberating at the moment, and they will, we hope, ask the Ombuds office to take this on. There will be a full investigation if and when that happens.

The committee needs to continue to do its work. As they do that work, and as the Ombudsperson, hopefully — if he’s asked to do so — will tell us, there will be answers to the questions that the member has raised about these decisions that were made within the civil service.

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

J. Horgan: Well, that question is different from the answer. Rather, it’s different from the one I got previously but nonetheless, still inaccurate, in my opinion. We’ll see how we go from here.

The Premier said that the actions of public servants…. And I recall the Minister of Health, not a public servant but a member of the Premier’s executive council, standing before a bank of cameras and microphones, firing people and saying that there was an RCMP investigation.

[1400]

That myth began on the 6th of September, 2012, led to the death of one individual and continued on until June 5th of this year — six days after I spent one hour sitting here directing questions on this very subject to the Premier, and she said: “The issue is closed. We’ve resolved everything. We got to the bottom of it.” Six days after that she stood before cameras and said: “I apologize for misleading the public about an RCMP investigation.”

My question to her is: why didn’t you say that in the Legislature six days before?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we are all, sadly, intimately familiar with the member opposite and his willingness to drag reputations through the mud, to cast aspersions on public servants and on other members of this House, as he regularly does, and his habit of speculating on matters about which he almost always is proven to be wrong.

We will find out what happened. We will get the answers to his questions, in addition to the answers that we already have from Ms. McNeil’s report. That will happen as a further investigation unfolds, which we fully support. The Finance Committee is doing their work now. If and when they ultimately request the Ombudsperson to look into this, we will get many of the answers that he asks about. In the meantime, unlike him, I am not prepared to speculate about what those answers will be.

J. Darcy: It boggles the mind that the Premier of this province can stand here and accuse this side of the House of ruining the reputations of public servants in this province after the outrageous firing scandal of health researchers in this province.

On October 8 of last year I asked the Premier if she would “finally do the right thing, call the RCMP and tell them the government was wrong to suggest that they needed to investigate these dedicated public servants.” The Minister of Health responded in her place and said: “It’s up to the RCMP to decide whether or not to take that up with a criminal investigation.” Now we know that three months before he said that in this House the Health Minister was, in fact, informed that the RCMP had not and would not be conducting an investigation.

Can the Health Minister today tell this House why he maintained the fiction of an RCMP investigation after he knew it simply wasn’t true?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to remind the members opposite that there was a real concern that people’s private, confidential health data was being inappropriately accessed. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner did an investigation and found that to be true. There was also real concern, as the members opposite know, about the contracting and procurement practices within the ministry.

The RCMP were made aware of these concerns as the ministry did its work. Also, as part of the work, as part of the action of the public civil servants, the office of the comptroller general examined procurement and contracting practices. The RCMP were interested in the work of the office of the comptroller general, and I understand that work was completed in April of this year and that report was given to the RCMP. So the RCMP had an ongoing interest in the work around this.

We made it….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Page 8892

Hon. T. Lake: We have made it very clear. The Ministry of Health and the public servants within the Ministry of Health sought to speak to the people involved, to work out agreements with those upon whom the actions, the ministry felt, had gone too far.

[1405]

Then the office of the comptroller general was looking at specific contracting practices. That is where the RCMP maintained an interest.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health knew there was no RCMP investigation, and he did not say so in this House. It’s time to stop ducking responsibility.

It was the Minister of Health’s predecessor who held a press conference on September 6, 2012, in which she announced the firing of the health researchers. She said at that time that the actions of these staff were so grievous that they needed to be investigated by the RCMP. To be clear, that announcement was made by a politician, a minister of the Crown, not a civil servant.

My question to the Minister of Health is this. When the RCMP informed his staff on July 16, 2014, that they had closed the file on this matter, why didn’t he hold a press conference and tell the truth?

Hon. T. Lake: It is abundantly clear that decisions made in terms of personnel are made by the professional public service, not by politicians. That much is very, very clear. The members opposite know that to be true.

The Ministry of Health investigator, along with officials from the office of the comptroller general, met on a number of occasions with the RCMP in 2012 and 2013 and made information available to them. Additional communication between government officials and the RCMP about the status of the comptroller general’s investigation took place between 2014 and 2015. While the Ministry of Health determined that the ministry would no longer be pursuing action, the comptroller general’s office had an ongoing investigation.

I have said that in the media at the time, that there was ongoing work by the office of the comptroller general for which the RCMP still had an interest. I understand from the RCMP now that they are taking no further action once they received that report from the comptroller general in April of 2015.

L. Krog: Last week the Attorney General wrote a fascinating letter to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and said that “the conduct of lawyers is not at issue in this case.” While I’m pleased that the Attorney General is standing up for lawyers, can she tell the House when and how she decided that the proposed investigation into the health firings should not concern itself with the conduct of staff in her own ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: A committee of this Legislature is looking at the question of a referral to the Ombudsperson of the issue of the health firings. That is a very good place for this inquiry to be made. It is the job of the Ombudsperson to investigate issues involving government and involving citizens. That is exactly the question in this case. What happened? How did it happen? What led to it? And so on. The Ombudsperson is the right person to make that….

The Ombudsperson wrote a letter to the committee suggesting that there were some issues that the committee might want to consider. I, on behalf of government, replied to that letter, observing that most of those issues would be similar to issues faced in the public inquiry or they’re issues that the committee could consider and think about in considering its terms of reference to the Ombudsperson.

This is a very good process. It’s a process for which the Ombudsperson was put in place in 1977, I believe it was. We should let that process unfold. It is the right place to make this inquiry. We should all have confidence in that inquiry. The Ombudsperson, if it proceeds to that person, will be a very good place to settle some of these issues.

L. Krog: Well, it’s pretty clear the Ombudsperson put a lot more thought into his letter than the Attorney General did into hers.

[1410]

The Attorney General also purported to outline what the scope of the investigation should be. With respect to confidentiality agreements, she said: “The majority of agreements containing confidentiality clauses would likely relate to a time period subsequent to the matters the Ombudsperson is being asked to investigate.”

My question to the Attorney General is: how could she possibly know what time frame the Ombudsperson may or may not want to investigate? Why is she seeking to limit the scope of an independent review?

Hon. S. Anton: The terms of reference in this matter should be determined by the committee, probably working with the Ombudsperson to determine what those terms of reference should say.

It is very clear from comments that the Premier has made and that the Minister of Health has made that it is the goal of government that the Ombudsperson be given utmost freedom to determine what happened in this case.

That is the letter that he wrote, expressing some concerns. My letter in reply on behalf of government was to assure the committee that those concerns can all be met. The goal of government is that we get to find out what happened in this issue and resolve it once and for all. The public has concern with that — so does government. That is why the request to the Ombudsperson has gone forward.

Page 8893

K. Corrigan: The Attorney General says that this is something for the committee to decide. But even before they held their first meeting, she said that, according to the B.C. Liberals, the Ombudsperson should not investigate the conduct of her staff and should confine himself to a specific time period. Can the Attorney General please tell this House why she is determined to tell the Ombudsperson what he can and cannot do?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, it is the goal of government that the Ombudsperson investigate this matter and determine what happened with the issue in the Ministry of Health and find out the answers and report on those answers. It is not the goal that he be encumbered but that he be given utmost freedom to do that.

The concerns addressed in his letter, the concerns replied to by my letter on behalf of government, were to assure the Ombudsperson that these issues can be resolved, that he may have the ability that he needs to find out what happened, to make a determination what happened.

A. Dix: In 2012 the Liberal government did more than wrongfully dismiss and intentionally smear researchers in the Ministry of Health as a result of what is now acknowledged to be a botched investigation. They also suspended data access, smeared researchers and froze funding for UBC’s therapeutics initiative for 14 months. The minister has never explained this, and he never explained it when the data access was restored in October of 2013.

We know, as a result, they damaged drug safety. We know they damaged the therapeutics initiative, leading to the departure of renowned researchers such as Barbara Mintzes, who had her data access suspended.

Does the minister have any explanation today for this conduct other than that provided by the Premier in April 2013 — namely, that undermining the TI was a policy goal for friends of the government?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure where to start. The member continues this insane conspiracy theory about access to data.

I’ll tell you who will tell this House that there was a problem with access to data. That’s the Privacy Commissioner. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner did an extensive review. In her review she determined that data was being accessed inappropriately, against ministry policy, downloaded onto unencrypted flash drives. That was an untenable situation, so the ministry took action.

[1415]

We today have questioned some of that action. That is why we have asked, through the Finance Committee, for the Ombudsperson to take on this review. There is no question that there were problems with the inappropriate use of people’s private, confidential medical information. That is why we took the action we did.

The Ministry of Health still supports the therapeutics initiative. In fact, they receive over $700,000 in contracts from this ministry to make sure that the drugs that we use are used appropriately. So they do some very great work. But there is no question that there was considerable concern about data access, and it needed to be fixed. We fixed it to make sure that from here on forward people’s private, confidential information can be kept private.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: What the Liberal government did was use these wrongful dismissals to go after a renowned agency they didn’t like. That’s what they did. They suspended their data access for 14 months and froze their funding. This is the way people get treated when, apparently, the government likes them. No explanation was provided for it then; no explanation is being provided for it now.

Government staff, the Ministry of Health staff, went to UBC to continue the attack. They sent the deputy minister to do that — to smear the therapeutics initiative. The minister seems to believe that he and his government can use their power to smear whoever they like without consequence or explanation. Will the minister tell us why they attacked so reprehensibly the therapeutics initiative?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m sure the member, if he took the time to read the Privacy Commissioner’s report, would agree that there was inappropriate access of confidential patient information — that in fact there was the downloading of data onto unencrypted flash drives. There were concerns expressed about the procurement and the awarding of contracts. That is why the office of the comptroller general got involved — to look at that aspect.

The member opposite is wrong, absolutely wrong, when he talks about this government and the therapeutics initiative. We have worked very closely with the TI and continue….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: I met with them just recently. They have had all of their contracts restored. They are doing additional work for the Ministry of Health now that we have different processes in place to ensure that people’s private information is kept private.

DRINKING WATER QUALITY

AT JOHNSONS LANDING

M. Mungall: Three years ago today residents of Johnsons Landing woke up to face the sad reality that their lives would never be the same, after a mudslide tore through their community, leaving four dead and many homes destroyed.

Page 8894

They’ve been rebuilding ever since, but they still don’t have access to a permanent source of drinking water. They’ve asked the Minister of Community to help, and she said no. However, she hasn’t said no to the fake town of Jumbo, with no people and now no purpose. They get $300,000 per year, and it sits in a bank account doing nothing. The mayor and council even tried to give that money back, but the minister insisted that they keep it.

Three years ago the Premier said to Johnsons Landing residents: “I pledge government’s ongoing support as your community heals.” More hollow words, and the Minister of Community makes excuses as she turns her back on Johnsons Landing. Does the minister not see that drinking water is more important than a fake town doing nothing?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We look forward to supporting communities across the province with infrastructure funding. That’s why we’ve just recently, with Build Canada, announced extensive programs throughout the province of British Columbia when it comes to clean drinking water.

[1420]

There are standards that need to be met with communities to meet the proper analysis that need to be moved forward. We are prepared to work with communities to look at how they can fall into the programs that we do have in place to support communities across British Columbia.

I know that members across the House, on both sides of the House, have been enjoying the Build Canada small community grant infrastructure funds that have been happening across communities across British Columbia, supporting communities with very much needed water and wastewater treatment.

We’ll work with the community, but they have to meet certain specific standards to order to move these projects forward.

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO

BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

S. Simpson: Today in Burns Lake the Babine coroner’s inquest is commencing into the Babine explosion. As we know, a similar inquest happened recently in Prince George around the Lakeland explosion. There, while the jury presented some good recommendations about some changes around the sector, this inquest did not address the family’s key questions. It did not talk about who was responsible. It did not look at that. It did not look at the conduct of WorkSafe.

We know that the coroner’s process is part of the reason that that doesn’t occur. We know also that the families did not have dedicated counsel to ask the questions that they wanted. As a result, today the families of the victims in Babine are expecting the same disappointment in a result.

The Premier said, when she went to Babine: “We are going to be there. We are going to step up.” My question to the Premier is: what does she say today to the Babine families who are expecting the same disappointment that the Lakeland families experienced because the coroner’s inquest can’t get there and this Premier said no to legal counsel for these families?

Hon. S. Bond: We know that today will be another very difficult day for families and for the Burns Lake community. I know that all members of this House feel concerned for those families and the process that is underway today.

As the member opposite knows, we’ve canvassed this topic numerous times in this House in estimates. There was a great deal of work done to look at how to, first of all, deal with the issues that occurred at WorkSafe. No one was happy about what happened there, least of all us. In fact, as we speak, Gord Macatee remains in place to ensure that the WorkSafe that emerges is not the WorkSafe that we encountered during the course of the investigations.

I know that the coroner is very aware of the concerns that have been expressed by families. We asked one of the top lawyers in Canada whether or not having a public inquiry would make a difference in terms of the outcomes, and the answer provided to us and shared with this House was that it would not.

As we work our way through the inquest, we will continue to support the recommendations that are presented by the jury.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following.

Follow-up report, Representative for Children and Youth and the provincial health officer, Growing Up in B.C. — 2015 .

Annual Report , Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia, 2014.

Annual Report , Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, 2014-15.

Annual Report , Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, 2014-2015.

Annual Report , Office of the Ombudsperson, 2014-2015.

Annual Report , Office of the Auditor General, 2014-15; Office of the Auditor General, Financial Statements 2014-15 ; Office of the Auditor General, Budget Process Examination, Phase 1: Revenue ; and Office of the Auditor General, Monitoring Fiscal Sustainability .

Thank you for your attention.

[1425]

Page 8895

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO CLIMATE CHANGE

A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the Chair advance notice, and I’ve provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the Clerk.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, that in light of this year’s record temperatures, drought, lack of snowpack and forest fires and with a 90 percent probability that El Niño will persist into the winter, exacerbating present conditions, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

To be clear, I’m not calling for a debate on the impact of climate change. Standing Order 35 obviously excludes debating a matter of ongoing nature, and there is no doubt that climate change will challenge every aspect of our life in our province for decades to come. However, as laid out in my motion, the matter of urgent public importance concerns whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

I submit to you, Madame Speaker, and to the House, that this session offers us no other adequate opportunity to have this debate, a debate that is urgent and in the public interest, given the upcoming United Nations framework convention on climate change discussions that will take place at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris this December, a conference where our Premier will be speaking about B.C.’s supposed climate leadership.

This debate is particularly urgent as the government plans to use carbon offsets through the protection of forests to help produce our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets. Yet under UNFCC rules, government cannot adopt this risky path unless it also includes emissions from forest fires in annual reporting.

As legislators, it’s critical that we have the opportunity to have this debate prior to any representations being made on a global stage regarding B.C.’s planned response to climate change.

There will be no other opportunity to have this debate during this session. With uncertainty as to whether we will have another legislative sitting in advance of this conference, it’s critically important that this chamber turn its attention to our role as legislators in addressing climate change, providing the people of British Columbia an opportunity to hear where its government stands on whether it is acting appropriately and urgently enough in the face of extreme weather–related events happening all around us.

There are few debates, hon. Speaker, that are more urgent or are of greater public importance. I urge you and this House to support this motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. I’m relatively certain of two things. One is we have certainly experienced some extreme conditions in the province these past number of weeks that have contributed to some challenging circumstances. We heard about that earlier from the minister. Nor do I doubt the member’s interest and commitment to addressing some of the underlying issues that may or may not be contributing to that.

Having said that, we are also bound and obliged to conduct proceedings in this chamber pursuant to the standing orders. The member has risen pursuant to Standing Order 35. It is very much the urgency of debate that the Chair in past rulings focusing on these matters addressed. Though I can appreciate that the member would prefer the dedicated time that Standing Order 35 would provide for addressing this matter, there are other opportunities during the time that the House is sitting to raise these matters and have them considered by members.

In my respectful submission to the House and to the member, the motion…. I listened carefully to the motion. I haven’t seen it yet, but I listened as the member read it into the record. I would suggest the motion falls short of the historic threshold for adopting and moving to a Standing Order 35 debate, but as always, I will anxiously await the Chair’s ruling on the matter.

Madame Speaker: I thank you for the submission.

M. Farnworth: I, too, have listened to the hon. member’s motion. There is much in the motion that I believe has merit.

[1430]

I would also, I think, point out that at this particular time, given what the member has said about the Premier going to this conference in December, that a fall session, which we are all expecting, would be an appropriate time, with advance notice, for all members to be able to participate in such a discussion around an important issue such as this. I think it would be something that members of the House would want to do.

I would suggest at this particular time that the Speaker might want to think about appropriate time in a fall session for this very important debate to take place, before the Premier heads off to a major international conference. But of course, hon. Speaker, we will abide by your ruling.

Madame Speaker: I thank all members for their submissions, and I will come back to the House later today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Rustad: I rise today to submit the

summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Page 8896

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to the comments I made earlier this morning and with the leave of the House, I propose to call second reading of Bill 30.

Leave granted.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

Hon. C. Clark: Pursuant to the leave just granted, I am pleased to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 30, and I move second reading of Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act.

I stand today noting that it is not every day in this House that we get the chance to really make our mark on history. Today we are building the stage for the project which would create 4,500 jobs, and that’s the first step toward building a new industry that would employ 100,000 people.

[Interruption.]

Madame Speaker: This House stands recessed until the disturbance has been cleared.

The House recessed from 2:32 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. C. Clark: Now I move second reading of Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. As I said, we don’t have many opportunities in this Legislature to truly make history, and this is one of them — 4,500 jobs from this project alone; 100,000 new jobs in the province over 30 years from all of the projects, should they get started. Today we are really doing nothing less than building the future.

[Interruption.]

Madame Speaker: Madam Premier, please proceed.

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate that there are people on both sides of the debate, which is why we’ve made the point and the purpose of bringing this to this Legislature so that this discussion can happen in detail.

In a civic society, change, discussion and dialogue happens in a civil way. This is what this Legislature has always been about, and it’s what parliaments around the world have been modelled on — the opportunity for people with differences of opinion to have a civil debate amongst one another on issues about which they may passionately disagree.

[1435]

This debate will be one where we look at an agreement in every stark detail, where we get an opportunity to represent British Columbians on all sides of the debate. At the end of the day, each of us will get the chance to stand up and be counted — to be counted in the pages of history, to be able to say what side of the debate we stood on.

The agreement that we are about to debate is founded on three principles: the first, ensuring that British Columbians get a fair share of the benefits of a resource that belongs to them and that that fair share of that resource will also be included in revenues to government. That will go and help us continue to build the fair society to which we all aspire, by delivering services like health care and education that make a very real difference in people’s lives, that alleviate poverty, that give people the chance all across this province and all across this country to be able to achieve and to fulfil their destiny.

Second, we’re protecting the environment. This agreement spells it out, and members of this Legislature will get a chance to look at that. In British Columbia we are determined to ensure that we have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, with the highest benchmarks. This will be a model for proving that economic growth and environmental protection can indeed go hand in hand.

Third, fairness — making sure that investors have certainty, making sure that the business community, in a competitive global environment, knows that British Columbia is a place that they can make their investment and create jobs and know that they will be treated fairly.

By accomplishing those three things, we will do this. We will enable the creation of tens of thousands of jobs for working people all across British Columbia. We will ensure that we have the revenues that government needs to be able to create that fair society that I spoke of by delivering those benefits through social services that people depend on. It will give us the means to be able to begin paying off our debt so that our children are better off than we were.

And it will give us the chance to right many historical wrongs by making sure that we are growing, and helping grow, First Nations economies — so that if you are a First Nations child anywhere in this province, you have the same shot at success that any other child does, no matter where you live.

It has been remarkable to note how people are coming together across the province to support seeing these principles being upheld. First and foremost, labour unions sitting down with government and industry to hammer out a plan to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs. First Nations sitting down, again with government and industry, to make sure that they draw up benefit agreements that are going to ensure employment and revenue for those communities so that they can build the future they want for themselves and the people that they represent.

Small business making sure that they have the opportunity to grasp the benefits of liquefied natural gas through the LNG–Buy B.C. program.

Page 8897

British Columbians are coming together. They are telling us that they want a stronger economy, that they want the means to be able to support a fairer and more equal society. They are telling us that it is time for vision and for leadership.

So today we make these choices. We choose between deciding to reach out into the future or clinging to the past. We choose between creating jobs for this generation and the next or letting those jobs slowly diminish and those opportunities disappear. Today we choose between hope for the future and fear of change. Today we choose to put politics aside, to be on the right side of history, to unite behind an idea that could leave this province and this country much better off than we found it.

[1440]

Make no mistake. We will, each of us, be remembered for how we voted on this bill. And as we do that, let us also remember this: that British Columbia was not built by politicians and bureaucrats, and it wasn’t built by lawmakers. It was built by ordinary people.

British Columbia was built by truck drivers who get our goods to market every single day. It was built by the men and the women who pour concrete for dams and roads and bridges. British Columbia was built by entrepreneurs who bet everything in their lives on an idea. British Columbia was built by farmers, who toil in the early hours of the morning to make sure that we put food on our tables.

Those are the people in this province that we should remember as we have this debate, because those are the people to whom we owe our highest duty. They are the people who built British Columbia, and they are watching us. They are watching this debate. And they did not send us here so that they can support us. They sent us here so that we can support them as they go on every day to do all that they do to build this remarkable province.

Labour, First Nations, communities, small business. They are coming together, and they are uniting behind an idea that has the potential to make this province and this country so much wealthier, so much better and so much fairer.

People are coming together across this province, uniting behind an idea, one that’s going to matter for the future. And I say to all members of this House: let’s not be the ones that stand in their way.

J. Horgan: Well, I thought that would be a bit longer.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah. But we do have a number of days ahead of us here in the summer, when the farmers that the Premier referred to are out working on the land and not listening to this debate. We have an opportunity over the summer, when those people who pour the concrete and those people who work with their hands and those people that are entrepreneurs and those people that build British Columbia are doing just that. I think we could have had a discussion later in the fall, when the farmers are not in the fields building British Columbia but could have been by their televisions to listen to the words of….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: In the fall, in November. Yeah, I don’t know. I don’t know about that. But I know that the Premier only had heckles from the gallery, and I’m grateful that I’m going to have the opportunity to listen to the member from Langley throughout.

Interjections.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. If the members could allow the member to be heard.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

The proposal that we have before us will affect British Columbians for decades ahead — in fact, 2½ decades. My regards to the member for Westside-Kelowna. I’m sure she’ll review the Blues when she has an opportunity, maybe when she’s flying out of town on Wednesday and not sitting here with the rest of us in this chamber. And a good smirk from my friend from Capilano. Bless him very much for that.

The consequences of this decision that we are making throughout the course of the next number of days will have profound influences and impacts on our children and on our grandchildren. British Columbia, as we all know…. Every one of us in this place, from 85 disparate communities, understands and appreciates the value and splendour of our natural resources, the integrity of our people, the perseverance and ingenuity of entrepreneurs, the resources of labour that are at our disposal, the people who did, indeed, build British Columbia.

[1445]

I think that as they look at the merits of this debate, they’re going to be looking at the calendar, and it will say 2015. They’re going to be looking at the pace of technological change, not only in their own lives but in their workplaces and, in fact, all around them. And they’re going to be saying, unlike the Premier: “Perhaps we should be planning for our future rather than looking to our past.” It is not postwar British Columbia. It is not 1946. It is not 1956. It’s 2015.

I believe British Columbians understand that our resources belong not to the government of the day, not to foreign multinationals but to people in Fort St. John and Prince Rupert and Kamloops and Langley and Victoria and Comox. In fact, they belong to British Columbians. It’s our responsibility, as legislators and as those of us on

Page 8898

the side of the official opposition, to hold the government accountable and to check against delivery, as they say in the business — what the government promises and then review it beside what they deliver.

I think that over the course of the next number of days, although the Premier was only able to join us for a brief period of time in this debate, all of us, all members of this place, will have an opportunity to review what was said in 2012 and in 2013 and then to check against what we have delivered here in the Legislature today. Three years have gone by, and we need to take a look at how the deal turned out.

Of course, when the Premier was trying to get elected, she made a commitment to 100,000 jobs. So 100,000 jobs would flow to British Columbia as a result of the possibility of liquefied natural gas. Now, how many jobs are guaranteed to British Columbians in the project development agreement that we’re about to debate here in this chamber, the first deal signed by the Premier in her three-year quest to find yet another photo opportunity? Zero. Not a single job was committed to in the project development agreement. Not 100,000 jobs. Zero jobs.

The Premier did say that there will be up to 4,500 jobs at the peak of construction with respect to the Petronas proposal for Lelu Island, not yet approved by the environmental assessment office and not yet approved by the Lax Kw’alaams people, whose traditional territory Lelu Island is in. And certainly, I would argue that if you had a chance to talk to the chinook and the coho in the Skeena River, they haven’t been consulted on this, and it’s important that somebody speak for them as well.

Now, I made reference, earlier today outside of this place in a press gathering, to the information that was presented by Petronas to the environmental assessment process with respect to temporary foreign workers. The Premier suggested that I was just making it up. If that were only true. Sadly, I am restricted to reading the information that Petronas provided to the decision-makers in British Columbia.

In reviewing that information, it comes to the front that, in fact, there aren’t going to be 100,000 jobs. There aren’t going to be any jobs unless there is a final investment decision, unless there is an environmental permit produced by the federal government and unless the Lax Kw’alaams agree to it.

When I look at the project development agreement with, again, the hindsight of looking back at the Premier’s commitment to 100,000 jobs, there’s not one paragraph, not one sentence, not one syllable committing an offshore company, a product of a national government, the Malaysian government. There’s not one syllable committing that company to providing jobs for British Columbians. Their own documents suggest quite the contrary — that they will be using numerous temporary foreign workers.

Now, I was criticized by one of the Liberals that hang around outside these gatherings, who said: “Oh, you’re against immigration.” I am not against immigration. My father came to this country, as did many mothers and fathers of people in this room, people in the galleries and people across this province. After the First Nations arrived…. Immigrants built this country, my father among them. I would not be standing here were it not for a vigorous and strong immigration program to build this great country.

Temporary foreign workers are not a path to citizenship. It’s a return ticket home if the boss doesn’t like you. It’s sub-average wages and working conditions that have been exposed in this place over the past decade. Again, I commend that to the Premier’s reading when she flies across the country to her next gig somewhere else. So here we’ve got it: zero jobs, not the 100,000 that were promised.

[1450]

There was also a commitment to revenue, hon. Speaker. You might remember this in the Speech from the Throne in 2012. This was in the pre-election Speech from the Throne. There was going to be a $100 billion prosperity fund. We were going to eradicate the debt. There would be no more debt in British Columbia. In fact, they put it on the side of the bus in the biggest font they could find: “Debt-free B.C.” I didn’t see the asterisk, but apparently, there was one there. “Read the fine print. We’re just making this up,” is what it should have said, but it didn’t. The prosperity fund doesn’t exist. The $100 billion — not in the funds because it doesn’t exist.

Debt. Debt-free? We are $20 billion further in debt today than we were when the Premier emblazoned her campaign bus with the “Debt-free” slogan — $20 billion. That’s a bit of change in a three-year period. I think you need to commend the Premier. I know my colleagues will. That is the most aggressive debt creation program British Columbia has ever seen. Thumbs up to the Premier for that.

The revenue issue is a direct result of taxation and royalties. That’s what we do in a province with natural resources in abundance. We take these resources, and we offer them to those who have the ingenuity and the capital to harvest them and to develop them. We offer in exchange, from our side, the labour and toil and the ingenuity of the good people of British Columbia.

One would assume that if the province of British Columbia was in the hands of someone who was genuinely interested in the public interest and not in partisan games, we would have had commitments in the project development agreement to job creation, revenue streams, protection of our environment and, most importantly for me at this point in time, after the Tsilhqot’in decision last year, a genuine partnership with First Nations. None of those things exist.

Last fall, when we were debating the tax framework for liquefied natural gas, it came in at half what was advertised. The government campaigned at 7 percent, and they introduced a tax at 3.5 percent. And we supported

Page 8899

that. We were unhappy that it had been cut in half without any explanation. There wasn’t any documentation provided beyond the spin from the Minister of Finance about: “Well, it’s as good as we could get.” But we said, “We’ll support that,” because the investment community needs to have certainty. They need to understand what the terms of reference are coming in.

We did not know at that time that the expectation from Petronas and others was a 25-year, no-cut contract. You don’t see that in the NHL these days — very rarely. In fact, we’ve just gone through the free-agent season, and everybody is signing for a one-year contract. When I renew my mortgage, I don’t go to the bank and say: “Tell you what. I’m going to just lock in for 25 years, because I’m sure that interest rates are going to stay about the same over that period of time.”

That’s what the government did. They said to the investors: “We will set the rates down here with respect to taxation. We will set the rates down here with respect to royalties. Over the course of 25 years if we change our taxation policies, we’ll reimburse you. We’ll just call it square. If we raise the taxation with respect to liquefied natural gas, we’ll just roll it back into your pockets after we deal with the cost recovery that you’re going to have from your capital programs. After we deal with the sweetheart deal on royalties, we’re also going to look at our greenhouse gas emission profile.

We’re going to look at our climate action plans. If we change anything over 25 years that may affect your industry, don’t worry about it. We’ve got it covered.”

The greenest LNG in the world. That was the Premier’s commitment. [Applause.]

We’ve got some tepid clapping over there from the other side. There you go. A vigorous tepid clap from the member for Langley. There you have it.

Well, interesting that the member would do that. When we debated the greenhouse gas emissions profile bill last fall, it did not take into consideration 70 percent of the emissions upstream. The commitment was — and I remember it well, because it was alliterative — from wellhead to waterline. Most people assume that means from where you get it out of the ground to where you send it offshore to someone else. Everything was going to be covered. We were going to make sure that we had the greenest LNG in the world.

Well, it turns out 70 percent of that is not covered. The Minister of Environment is prepared to go to the wall on that. I just ask her to phone up Matt Horne from the Pembina Institute.

You’ve got him on speed dial. You just appointed him to your Climate Action Team.

He sees it differently. Pembina sees it quite differently. But I’m sure that advice will be coming direct to the minister. I don’t have to paraphrase for him.

[1455]

A 25-year deal. I know I’ve been talking to people in my constituency. We on the opposition side move freely in our communities, talking to people without fear of consequence. They’re saying to me: “How is it that you can get a 25-year deal on taxation? I mean, can I just phone the Premier? Can I just phone up the Premier and say, ‘I’d like to do a deal for my taxes over the next quarter of a century? I’m having a bit of a bad patch right now. International prices for what I do are low, so I’d like to do a deal, if that’s okay.’”

Well, I can’t do that. My colleagues can’t do that. My constituents can’t do that. The forest sector apparently hasn’t been able to do that, nor has the mining sector, the high-tech sector, the creative sector, the agriculture sector. We’ve not guaranteed a price for cherries, as far as I know, for the next 25 years. I’m looking to my colleague from Saanich South. I’ve just had that confirmed. So the agriculture sector can’t cut a deal for themselves, but Petronas can.

The First Nations component that I touched on just briefly. I know that my colleagues, many of them, here from the north will be talking about the consequences in their communities of this divide-and-conquer approach by the B.C. government. But I just want to go back to two things that the Premier has done since February of this year.

One, she said, after general agreement from First Nations, from the Treaty Commission, from the federal government, that George Abbott, a former member of this place, someone regarded highly by both sides of the House, would not be appointed chief treaty commissioner. She did this without consultation with First Nations, without consultation with our partners here in Canada. Now, consultations apparently can go on at some detail with foreign nationals at Petronas but not so much with First Nations here.

It wasn’t just the indignity of not appointing your former cabinet colleague to be the chief treaty commissioner. It was also saying at the same time: “I don’t think this thing is really working out anyway.” Twenty-three years of commitment from communities, from First Nations, from two levels of government of various political stripes. Is it working as effectively as we want it to? Of course not. But do you just throw it out on a whim without consultation with the people who have been on the road with you for that quarter of a century? Apparently you can.

Apparently you can say about the Treaty Commission: “Twenty-five years is enough. We’re done with you.” But at the other end of 25-year deals, the government can say to a foreign investor: “What do you need? How can we write the rules for you for the next 25 years?”

There’s one section, if you get through. You’ve got to flip through the bulk of the document till you get to the part at the end where it says “First Nations.” What do they get out of this deal? What they get is a slap in the face. If there are any changes with respect to treaty or other agreements between the government of British Columbia,

Page 8900

the people of British Columbia and First Nations, we have to be sure to advise Petronas as quickly as possible — not the other way around. I think that’s wrong, and I know that many on this side…. Well, in fact, all of us on this side of the House feel the same way.

You go past the definition of taxes. You go past the description of a discriminatory carbon tax, and you go past the confidentiality clauses, and there it is. Right at the back it says “Other Matters.” That’s what First Nations have been relegated to in this project development agreement. I think that’s wrong. My colleagues think that’s wrong. And that is why we will be voting against this legislation.

I want to just wrap up because I know there are many members who are anxious to participate in this July debate on a project development agreement that falls way short of what the Liberals promised us during the last election campaign. Let’s just review, then.

We were promised that there would be an LNG facility operating in 2015. Now, I know it’s July because it’s very hot in here, and that’s, by my reckoning, about the seventh month of the year. We’re halfway through 2015. We do not have a liquefied natural gas facility up and running in British Columbia. Promise made; promise broken.

She promised, as I said earlier, the $100 billion prosperity fund. There is no fund. There is no revenue for the fund. Instead, there’s an agreement that gives money to the company, that gives tax breaks to the company and gives royalty concessions to the company. Good deal for Petronas, not such a good deal for the people of British Columbia. Promise made; promise broken.

[1500]

She promised LNG would wipe out the provincial debt. I’ve gone into that at some length. Of course, I said earlier that under this Premier $20 billion in new debt has been added. We’re up to about $165 billion when you count contractual obligations and direct debt. I know the Minister of Finance will want to explain how that happened, how we went from what it was in 2001 to what it is today. Maybe he’s got some good answers for that. We’ll have to see.

She also promised, as I said, the world’s cleanest LNG and created a 900-kilometre loophole. So from the wellhead to the waterline, emission profile…. “Hey, that’s not my problem. That is not included in our assessment of the impact of liquefied natural gas on our greenhouse gas profiles.” A 900-kilometre loophole. Hon. Speaker, 70 percent of the emissions flowing from natural gas production and eventual liquefaction will not be covered. I don’t think that’s the greenest LNG in the world. I think that’s a promise made and a promise broken.

Then most importantly, I think, this was in tandem with the jobs plan. Remember the jobs plan? We don’t hear about that so much anymore. I guess we may well hear a bit of it from the members on that side of the House.

We didn’t hear about the closure of coal mines in Tumbler Ridge last spring. We didn’t hear about 900 jobs gone missing in that community. We didn’t hear about people dropping the keys to their homes in the mailbox, because they knew they couldn’t sell them, as they drove out of town. And we didn’t hear anything about the Elk Valley, where Teck has suspended operations for the summer. Let’s hope it’s just the summer.

The jobs plan doesn’t seem to be going as advertised. Of course, the 100,000 jobs that were promised in the liquefied natural gas fantasy have not materialized either. Promise made and promise broken.

If Western Australia can sign a project development agreement with one of the largest companies in the world that maintains a requirement for local hire, that maintains a requirement for local procurement, that allows for greenhouse gas targets to be met…. If another jurisdiction can do that, why can’t British Columbia?

What we’ve got now before this House is a “well, it’s better than nothing.” It’s better than nothing — a far cry from doing away with the sales tax, a far cry from paving the streets of British Columbia with fool’s gold, as we were promised in the last election campaign. A far cry, indeed. More promises made; more promises broken.

I believe very strongly in the ingenuity, the integrity and the perseverance and tenacity of the people of this spectacular province. I see it every single day in my own community, and I know colleagues on both sides of the House, regardless of our partisan position on this debate or other debates, truly enjoy representing the good people of this province in this spectacular Legislature, doing the people’s business, putting at all times the people ahead of our partisan interests. But I do not see that in this legislation, and I did not hear that in the words of the Premier this afternoon. Instead, I heard promises made and promises broken.

We have an opportunity in British Columbia with respect to natural gas. We have it in abundance. We should make sure, as legislators, that we maximize the benefits to the people who own those resources by ensuring, first and foremost, that if we invite someone to take that product from the ground, they hire British Columbians and Canadians to do that.

If we are short the skills to continue to build British Columbia, we should not do it with temporary foreign workers. We should be appealing to the federal government to revise immigration policies to ensure that we can continue to build this great country with people from around the world who come here with hope, ingenuity and pride, and a direct line to citizenship, if they choose to do that.

This government has not been doing that. They, instead, have been working with companies that want to bring workers from elsewhere when it suits their interests — not to build B.C., not to build Canada, but to build their bottom line.

Page 8901

That’s not the job of the Premier of British Columbia. The job of the Premier of British Columbia is to protect B.C. citizens, protect B.C. resources and build B.C. to be the great place it can and should be. We can do better. We on this side of the House believe we can do better. This deal does not do that. That’s why we will not be supporting it.

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that it’s fair to say that this is one of those defining moments, when what we say and how we cast our vote is destined to have a life that extends beyond the moment and will be reflected upon in history.

I will say this to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I generally enjoy hearing his presentations. I more often than not disagree with some of the conclusions he comes to or the approaches he draws. This is most certainly one of those occasions, though I should say, as well, that I was and am disappointed by the nature of the analysis that he has brought to this particular matter. The magnitude of the decision before us in terms of the benefits that can accrue to British Columbia — to British Columbians, communities, families — are such that I believe that it warrants far more than the rather superficial analysis that was offered. We may yet see that from other members, and I will wait.

I will say two things, parenthetically, and then I intend to delve into a little more detail with the actual contents of the legislation as it relates to the project development agreement. And then, yes, I will have some observations to share with the House about a struggle, a challenge, that I see emerging from the opposition benches.

Although it has been some years now, there are a few of us left on this side of the House who remember our time in opposition and are able to recognize circumstances in which an opposition is lurching from position to position, really incapable of presenting a coherent and consistent argument, and this is one of those times. The myriad of commentary….

By the way, to that extent, the Leader of the Opposition has my sympathy. He is endeavouring to present to the House an argument that captures a range of views that exist amongst his colleagues and on his benches, from those who are adamantly opposed to the development of a liquefied natural gas industry to those who are perhaps more accommodating and have views on the nature in which that should proceed. But I think that over the last number of weeks….

I expect that over the course of the next days I am going to continue to see the political equivalent of Twister. You remember that game. There is no other way to explain the bizarre inconsistency that has characterized commentary from the opposition benches, beginning with something we heard from the Leader of the Opposition.

I have been in this House. I have engaged in debate with the member for Surrey-Whalley and other members, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, and been chastised for how long this is taking. “Oh, the government is taking too long. Oh, my goodness. The development of a whole new taxation framework is taking so long. Oh, my goodness. Others are getting ahead of us. Oh, my goodness. Why is the government…?”

The first thing we hear from the opposition when we call the House back in an extraordinary summer sitting is, “What’s the hurry? Surely, this can wait until the fall. Surely, there is no great urgency” — dismissing out of hand the magnitude of the benefits that will accrue to British Columbia and British Columbians if these projects, and this project in particular, are able to proceed, ignoring absolutely their own comments of just a few weeks or months ago.

[1510]

Now, I will say this about the timing. Notwithstanding the inconsistency of what we hear from the opposition, it does bear some commentary.

We have been, as a government, as a province, engaged in the work — work with communities, work with proponents, work within the bureaucracy — of developing the public policy underpinnings for a liquefied natural gas sector for the better part of three, 3½ years.

I say this, though, because we’re all impatient. Communities are impatient. People are impatient. Folks who know they will derive a living for members of their family from the development of this economic activity are impatient. But when you consider, for example, that we took the better part of a decade to settle all of the issues to secure, and then settle all of the issues and prepare for those magical weeks in February of 2010 — the Olympic and Paralympic Games…. If you put it in that perspective, to have come this far as quickly as we have, through the development of environmental regulations and regime, a taxation regime….

To have started, essentially, from ground zero, from a time when proponents came to this province and this country and said, for all of the reasons that we have talked about in this chamber: “This is something we want to advance. The advantages associated with doing business and developing the resource here in British Columbia, in Canada, are such that we want to make these sizeable investments.” But we had a lot of work to do, and in the course of three, 3½ years, here we stand on the threshold of seeing it become a reality.

And the response, from the very people who only months ago were chastising the government for how long it took, is to say: “What’s your hurry? We can get to this some other day.” That is the kind of response you get from an opposition that is challenged internally to develop a coherent position. We see that evidence.

One last thing I should say parenthetically, or I wish to say parenthetically. I also sat in this House and listened to and was admonished by members of the opposition, both within the chamber and outside through some

Page 8902

of the commentary that developed through the media, withering allegations that the government was going to sneak these agreements through, that the government was signing backroom deals and that British Columbians wouldn’t know what was being committed to.

In every single instance I said to members of the opposition that they will see these agreements, they will have a chance to comment on these agreements and British Columbians will have an opportunity to critique these agreements. And here we stand, in the most public venue imaginable, to do just that.

It is a commitment that we made, that we have taken, and it is because what’s at stake here — in the view of the government and every single member of the government side of the House — is a decision, the magnitude of which deserves to have the scrutiny that only this chamber can provide.

I am very proud to be a member of a team, a government, a group of elected officials, who have that confidence in the work that we have done and that confidence in the reasonableness of British Columbians that we are able to say: “Here it is, the result of our work, and you are now able to pass judgment.” And I have no doubt that upon reflection of the work that we have done, they are going to give two thumbs up to what the government has achieved through these development agreements.

[1515]

In the legislation that we have before us, we are providing the mechanism by which the government can sign project agreements. Now, what are they, and why is that necessary? There’s no question that the development and establishment of this industry requires the investment of vast sums of money — billions. In fact, in the case of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, upwards of $36 billion — and a reminder that is in U.S. dollars, more if measured in Canadian dollars

And that’s but one agreement — unprecedented — the single largest private sector investment in our history. I say that as a reminder because occasionally people will ask about the risk. Is this worth the financial risk? And it’s worth emphasizing and pointing out that, in this case, that financial risk accrues to those proponents, those agencies, who are seeking to make this investment with their money, not the money of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Though the Leader of the Opposition focused on one partner, a state-owned energy company from Malaysia called Petronas, he does, I believe, do a disservice to the magnitude of the international investment, international dimension, of the interest being shown in British Columbia by ignoring the fact that the partners come from China, from Japan, from India. Within the context of this agreement with Pacific NorthWest LNG includes the single largest investment by an Indian company in the history of Canada.

All of the talk and protestations we hear from opposition members, who purport to be interested in advancing the cause of investment in British Columbia…. They claim that they see the value in attracting foreign investment to British Columbia to create opportunities and to create work, but when confronted, in the case of India, by the single largest investment in our history, we don’t hear a single word. We don’t hear a single world to even acknowledge the magnitude of that investment, the magnitude of that development and the magnitude of the choice we are confronted by.

I will not presume that everyone should have the same view. Surely, that is the essence of what this chamber represents. But surely, there is also a responsibility to analyze in a coherent way the magnitude of that choice.

It is true that through the work that has been undertaken, these agencies…. We are dealing with the Pacific NorthWest group. That’s the agreement that has been signed that we are seeking specific ratification for, though the legislation seeks to create a mechanism by which there will be approval to agree to future deals. I’ll talk about that in a moment.

It is true that proponents have sought a measure of certainty. They consider their obligations with respect to provincial taxes and greenhouse gas regulations. They have requested from the province some assurance that certain elements of the tax and regulatory playing field, upon which they base that unprecedented level of investment, will not change substantially or significantly over a specified period of time and that their industry, the liquefied natural gas industry, will not be singled out for new specific or discriminatory taxes.

In large measure, that trade-off lies at the heart of the project agreements, which, actually, for the purposes of the legislation, includes the project development agreement and the adherence agreements signed by others who are involved in the LNG project. I mentioned in this case Indian Oil, Sinopec and other agencies.

[1520]

I do say this again. Not only are we having this discussion in this chamber. Not only has the government tabled these agreements here in the chamber. We provided those agreements publicly — released them in their entirety about a week ago, I believe — so that they could be distributed, so that people would have access to them.

I know at least one member of the opposition, who has been intimately involved in the debates, in coordinating the votes from the opposition side that have gone for and against and are difficult to predict with any certainty…. He has expressed a concern that there be an opportunity to explore the details of the project development agreement that has been signed previously.

The answer is yes, and to the extent that the member or his colleagues wish to pose questions about that agreement, I’m going to suggest that the appropriate

section to do that in, when we get to committee stage, is

section 2. I’m happy to hear from the member if he — or she, his colleague — has different views on that.

Page 8903

I hope I won’t continue to hear concerns expressed about the opportunity to delve into detail into the agreement. I welcome that. I want that. There is a mechanism for doing that, and I have been saying that for months and months.

To the extent that members of the opposition may wonder why people increasingly don’t take them seriously on matters such as this, I would suggest that in

part it is because of their ever-changing positions and difficult-to-discern arguments, but secondly, because they have cried wolf far too often, particularly with respect to the government’s desire to have these documents receive detailed and comprehensive scrutiny.

Why? One, because it’s the right thing to do, and two, because we’re proud of them. We’re proud of what we have negotiated, of what we have been able to achieve on behalf of British Columbians, and we want people to know why we’re proud.

Again, the bill itself, Bill 30, provides the specific authority for the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to enter into LNG project agreements on behalf of the government. Included in those agreements are specific provisions that allow for an indemnity to exist for those covered by the agreements, and I’m going to talk about that in a moment.

It also allows that the agreement that has already been signed be ratified. I’ve talked about the opportunity to discuss that agreement in detail.

Now, I have heard the opposition focus on, to the extent that I can actually discern what the areas of concern are…. It’s difficult to, because they rarely go beyond vague generalities, perhaps. But I have heard some commentary around these particular provisions.

The bill describes the four areas of change for which government may give an indemnity under an LNG project agreement. These are the only areas. These are the only areas of change for which an indemnity is provided.

[1525]

I’ll go through them, because at the end of the day, though these aren’t the only provisions of the project agreements and not the only provisions of the legislation, these are clearly central to the trade-off that is taking place in exchange for the commitment to invest the billions and billions of dollars in British Columbia and Canada.

The first relates to changes to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. Now, the members of the House and the members opposite will remember that because when we first introduced that legislation — after an exhaustive discussion, debate, as I recall — the opposition supported that bill. They supported the bill; they supported the rates. We had a detailed conversation about how those rates were arrived at.

By the way, in case anyone has forgotten, that’s a new tax. That is a new tax that focuses specifically on the LNG sector. It is a taxation instrument that applies specifically to the LNG sector.

We have indicated what the rates will be, and we have said that in the event that a future government were to come along and decide to change those rates, the incentive for doing so would virtually disappear because any incremental additional revenues would return to the companies.

Now, I haven’t heard the members say this specifically — maybe the member who speaks next will say that — but I presume their opposition rests in the fact that they believe the government should not commit, with respect to that new specific taxation instrument that only applies to the LNG sector, to a period of time during which it won’t change.

I don’t think it’s a huge leap of logic to say that the biggest reason I can think of that a group of politicians would be reluctant to give that assurance is if in the backs of their minds they harbour a desire to increase the tax. And you don’t really have to stretch or go out on a limb to contemplate the possibility of an NDP government raising taxes.

As improbable, as inconceivable, as illogical as that might seem, there’s a little bit of history on the side of the proposition that given the opportunity, the NDP would raise taxes. You don’t have to believe me. Ask anyone in the mining sector. These aren’t theories anymore. This is not Mike’s economic theory. We’ve had two experiences, and twice the mining sector has been chased from British Columbia by NDP regimes who have decided they are easy fodder and they will raise taxes.

These are choices that governments make. Though I disagree profoundly with the manner in which those levers of the state have been utilized in the past by NDP governments, what we have said pursuant to this agreement, what we are asking British Columbians to accept is that in creating a new, additional tax that applies solely and specifically to the LNG sector, we would commit to that sector for a period of time to hold that new tax at specified rates.

The opposition says that is unacceptable. I presume they will make that clear, and people will draw their own conclusions about why it is that the NDP would want the option of increasing taxes without any fear of consequence. So that’s number one.

[1530]

Closely aligned to that, of course, is the commitment we propose to make pursuant to these agreements to changes to the natural gas tax credit. The members will remember from our conversations in earlier debates that we developed this notion as a way to, amongst other things, create an incentive for the establishment of the present filing of income taxes in British Columbia. We have set a mechanism in place by which the cost of natural gas can be utilized to bring down the provincial general income tax rate to as low as 8 percent, not below that.

That’s the second area, and this is a specific…. You may call it an incentive. It is the second specific area where we

Page 8904

have said to the LNG sector, propose to say to the LNG sector and those with whom we sign these agreements, that we will undertake for a specified period to disincent changes.

I should say this and want to say this. Some people have mistakenly advanced the argument that we are binding the hands of future parliaments, future governments. We are not. Most pointedly we are not. Parliamentary sovereignty remains one of the underpinning principles of our parliamentary democracy.

What we are clearly doing, in the two instances I’ve now referred to, is removing much of the incentive for changing the rules by virtue of the indemnification. But the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains, and future governments, future parliaments, are entitled to make their choices.

The third of the four areas that we have provided, and purport to provide, some assurance to the LNG sector is with respect to the carbon tax. Now, this is not a particularly complex assurance, measure of certainty. We are proposing to say this: that if a future government decides….

By the way, I must confess, I do…. I don’t frequently get up and become engaged in detailed debates that touch on the carbon tax. It’s always a bit ironic when I do, because when it comes to examples of political flip-flopping, this one in this chamber, vis-à-vis the official opposition, really takes the cake.

I and some other members of the House were around and fought an election where the folks opposite, purporting to be the bastion of environmental progressivism, based an entire campaign against the carbon tax. I know they don’t like to hear about that. Even as I say it, I see people getting their backs up.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, only a member of the NDP would be bored about a $36 billion investment.

We’re going to talk about the carbon tax, but I will understand if members of the NDP don’t want to engage in that conversation. It hasn’t been a happy experience for them in the past, and I don’t expect it will be in the future.

What we have said is this — or proposed to say by these agreements. A future government, a future parliament, may make whatever decisions it wishes to make with respect to taxation and the carbon tax and the general rates that apply. What they are obliged to be cognizant of, however, is that if they choose to create a new carbon tax or a discriminatory carbon tax that applies only to the LNG sector, then the incremental revenues would be returned to that sector. They cannot single out one industry.

Now, again, I hope that at some point during this debate, in addition to the wildly general platitudes and political statements that I expect to hear from members opposite, some member of the opposition stands up and makes clear why it is they are opposed to that, if in fact they are.

[1535]

If they believe future governments should have the option of singling out a single industry to apply a higher carbon tax rate, then they should say so. I wonder if they will.

The magnitude of the choice before us is such that I believe members of the opposition have an obligation to say so. Again, in the absence of an explanation from the opposition, I would say this. The only reason I can think of for their opposition to this provision is because they would like the option, if they are ever given the opportunity, of developing a discriminatory carbon tax that only applied to the LNG sector.

I disagree with that. It’s certainly not the recipe for attracting $36 billion in investment. But if that’s what they believe, I hope one of them will have the courage to stand up and in clear, unambiguous terms say that’s what they believe in. We’ll see.

Then fourthly, we purport to commit, through these agreements, that changes to the greenhouse gas regulatory framework that will be set out under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and in the liquefied natural gas environmental incentive program — that the indemnity would apply were there to be changes that accrue negatively to the investor, to the proponent. I have, for the information of members, tabled the document relating to the environmental incentive program as well.

I’m going to say this again, because it is worth noting that the changes that are captured by the indemnification provisions are limited to those changes that single out the LNG industry. The agreements that are before the House do not — I will say this again; do not — grant an indemnity for tax changes that apply generally — changes to provincial sales tax, provincial corporate income taxes.

I have seen some of the material that the opposition is now presenting to the public for consideration as it relates to Australian agreements. Now, I will say this.

The members opposite…. I think the two critics who have been engaged in the debate thus far are generally pretty thorough in terms of the work they undertake. I hope that when it comes time to debate the provisions of the bill, they will be prepared — to the extent that their party, at least, has chosen to make reference to those agreements — to defend that comparison, because in the case of the taxation provisions, I’ve noticed some pretty crucial information missing from the material that the opposition is disseminating to the public.

We did conduct a review. The folks that were involved with us and that worked on the province’s behalf, the minister of liquefied natural gas and his team and the team in Finance and in Environment and First Nations….

I haven’t seen any reference in the material being disseminated by the opposition to the fact that Australian states and territories don’t actually levy an income tax. Income tax apparently falls within the exclusive domain of the federal government in Australia. They do, however, levy stamp duty, what’s referred to as stamp duty, including in relation to transactions relating to land.

[1540]

Page 8905

I haven’t heard or seen the opposition refer to the fact that the Australian precedents tend to provide project proponents with a general exemption from the obligation to pay those taxes. I haven’t seen that referred to in the material that the opposition has been presenting.

Those precedents, the ones that we are aware of — not all of them are public, by the way — also provide project proponents with a blanket general protection against discriminatory taxes, rates or charges. Our agreements don’t do that. The protection, if that’s the word you want to use, extends, in a limited way, to the four areas that I have referred to. I hope that when it comes time to analyze those provisions, the members of the opposition will candidly and accurately refer in a holistic way in comparing the agreement that we have with those that have been negotiated elsewhere and are in the public domain.

The bill before the House today describes the key elements of an LNG project agreement, and it sets out the matters that must be contained in an agreement. An agreement, for example, must contain a threshold amount to determine if the impact of a change is material. What do I mean by that? Well, it is possible, for example, that there may be minor changes in taxation policy that have an impact on a proponent, but that impact falls below, in this case, a $25 million impact. That doesn’t trigger any entitlement.

There’s a threshold within which, in the four areas that I’ve described, future governments can continue to operate. If they cross that threshold, then other obligations are triggered. If the impact of a change is below the threshold, there is no indemnity. That ensures that the province isn’t obliged to indemnify for minor changes that really don’t have any impact whatsoever, or any significant impact, on proponents in those four areas.

The bill and the LNG project agreements will only be relevant, take effect, if LNG facilities are built in B.C. In fact, the bill requires an LNG project agreement to include a condition that the indemnification will only apply if the Minister of Finance of the day is satisfied that the LNG project will proceed.

The bill sets out the maximum term, the maximum term of agreement being 25 years from the later of the date that commercial operations begin at an LNG facility or the effective date of the agreement. The objective is to try and balance the proponent’s need for stability with the province’s need to contain and measure that obligation under the indemnification.

I touched on this a few moments ago, but the government and I believe profoundly in the fact that British Columbians should be able to know and understand the long-term commitments that the government makes on their behalf. Therefore, the bill, the legislation, requires the minister and the government to publish LNG project agreements.

I’m not holding my breath, but I hope that at some point, at some stage of these proceedings, a member of the opposition will, at a minimum, acknowledge and endorse the statutory requirement that these agreements will receive that treatment, because they haven’t in many other jurisdictions. They have not in many other jurisdictions.

[1545]

Now, I thought I might take a moment to observe the following. We’re going to hear a lot from members opposite about the shortcomings to these agreements. Look, any contractual arrangement is the product of negotiation, and it’s always possible to say: “You should have got more. You could have got more.” That’s a pretty easy statement to make.

We got a notion from the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago of what he believes a reasonable term for an agreement like this is. He thinks it’s a year. He thinks that because you can sign a hockey player for 6 million bucks for a one-year contract, someone is going to invest $36 billion on the strength of a one-year assurance.

God knows I’m a hockey fan, but I don’t know if I can point to a single better example of how misguided or naive or perhaps just blindly partisan members of the opposition are than that they would compare the creation of an industry in Canada and draw a parallel between that kind of agreement and the signing of a hockey player by a hockey team for one year. Yet that’s what we heard.

I don’t understand why the Leader of the Opposition would draw that kind of parallel when the stakes are clearly so much higher and so much more important for British Columbians and warrant such deeper thought than that kind of comment reveals.

What I’m hoping…. I know we’ll hear it in this chamber. Members on the government side — admittedly in defence of the position that we are taking, advancing our position in support of this agreement — will point to the benefits that will accrue to British Columbians should this be ratified and then the remaining piece, the federal environmental certificate, be achieved and then the project proceed.

Reasonable, prudent, careful analysis in forecasting tells us that in the first decade and a bit of operation, just over a decade, the revenue that will accrue to the Crown in British Columbia from a single plant…. We’re not talking abstract here. It’s appropriate for opposition members to challenge the government with respect to this deal for which we are now presenting a contract, and I hope they do. I hope they say to us: “What are the benefits that will…? This is no longer abstract. This is no longer theoretical. You are bringing — you, the government….”

We are bringing to this House an example of an actually negotiated deal for which there are actual obligations and actual benefits. What are those benefits? Well, $9 billion. By today’s measure, and we heard the commentary, if we had $9 billion today, we could retire the provincial debt by just about 25 percent — taxpayer-supported debt. So 25 percent. And that’s one plant. Jobs measured in the

Page 8906

thousands: 4,500. Members opposite dismiss that. I want to talk about that for a moment.

Again, I think that in a desperate search to find some kind of hook to hang their political hat on, the opposition is lurching around, trying to find something they believe they can sell to the government as justification for the position they are apparently going to take on this. One of the things I see and hear relates to the employment opportunities that will flow from this industry and from this particular agreement.

[1550]

The suggestion is being made that there is nary a reference included in the agreement, ignoring the fact that in the appendix there is a specific reference made to skills and training. And I’ve heard already that members are dismissing this as somehow insignificant, except it’s not insignificant when the proponents come to you and say: “You know what our biggest concern is? Our biggest concern is that we have the means to hire people in British Columbia and Canada, and what we are doing is imposing upon you as the duly elected government of that jurisdiction to make sure they’re available.

That’s our first preference. Our first preference is to give first choice to British Columbians and to Canadians.”

That’s why those provisions exist within the agreement, because proponents have said to us: “In other examples, in other experiences, it was the inability to source domestic labour that led to all kinds of difficulty. So we want to work with you. We want to lock arms with you.”

It’s why the Minister of Jobs and other branches of the government are revamping the apprenticeship programs and are securing and ensuring that there are training facilities and opportunities available to British Columbians in the regions of the province where this work is going to take place and why agreements are being signed with First Nations that don’t just provide monetary advantages but employment opportunities to communities that for too long have been left behind.

It is perhaps that dimension to these agreements and what is taking place that gives me the most cause for hope and leaves me most disappointed by commentary I am hearing from the opposition. Has there been an example in our history that matches this one of business, government and First Nations working together as effectively and as cooperatively for everyone’s good?

To hear that ignored or dismissed by members of the opposition, who in another time, in another way, in another role would have been the first to tout the benefits of what is taking place…. To hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and dismiss it as an insult — I think the phrase he used was “slap in the face” — reveals a level of desperation that is unbecoming of a person in that office, in the office he holds.

There is more work to be done. The Lax have identified concerns that are very much at the heart of discussions that are occurring with federal officials that we are endeavouring in any way we can to foster and facilitate. We are cautiously optimistic that solutions can be found to the issues that have been raised there as well. There is a positive track record of success of engagement and of agreement that is unprecedented.

It’s an important choice. It is one that in the government’s view warranted recalling the chamber at a time of the year when we generally aren’t sitting, when we have undoubtedly — and I mean this sincerely — inconvenienced members and families. I’ve not heard anyone complain, to be sure. But it is extraordinary for us to be here. Nowhere else in this country, nowhere else in any other province or in any other territory, are Canadians confronted by the opportunity that we have staring us in the face.

[1555]

This is our opportunity to stand up and breathe legislative life into that opportunity on behalf of the people we are elected to serve and to say: “Yes, I believe in this. I believe there is an environmentally responsible and sustainable way to harness our resources, to make them available to customers around the world, to do so in a way that is respectful of the fact that British Columbians own that resource and deserve a fair share of the benefits that accrue from developing that resource and to do it in a way that provides certainty, stability and fairness to the agencies that are coming from around the world and signal their desire to invest in British Columbia and Canada.”

Now, if that’s not a reason to get elected to public office at any level, I don’t know what is. And I’ll say this. Here, in the heat of the summer, in 2015, to have the opportunity to be part of that discussion, to have the opportunity to be part of that debate and to be able to stand and make clear my support for this partnership, for this opportunity, for the benefits that will accrue to generations of British Columbians, I’m very proud. I’m very excited. I commend to all members of the House the legislation that will accomplish those things.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us here today for a special summer session is my delightful wife, Ellie. Joining her are two of my nieces from Edmonton, Rachel Notley supporters, as you can well imagine — Heidi Mast and Tannas Mast. Also joining us is my son Evan’s girlfriend, Veronica, who is also in the precinct today. We’re just about to go and look at the library and then rejoin the debate as quickly as possible.

Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

C. James: I am pleased the Leader of the Opposition came in to be able to make that introduction so that I

Page 8907

could take a breath. I have to say, after the speech from the Finance Minister, it’s tempting to spend my 30 minutes responding to all of the comments made by the Finance Minister. I think he was, obviously, not listening to his Premier, who talked about the need to make sure that this wasn’t going to be a political debate or a political discussion.

The Finance Minister seems to think the only reasonable debate to have in the Legislature is to agree with the bill. Well, I just want to remind the Finance Minister that putting a bill forward means debate, which means agreement and disagreement. Certainly, there is lots in this bill to talk about.

The one area I will agree with the Finance Minister on is that there’s more work to be done. I couldn’t agree more with that important point. The Finance Minister also said that he believes that it’s important to take a look at the benefits that are there. I agree. I think it is important to take a look at the benefits that are there. But I think the Finance Minister should excuse all of us and the public for not trusting this government’s promises and commitments when we take a look at the long list they have given to the public that have not happened, that have not come forward and that have not been realized. I think it’s important to remember that as we go through this.

I want to take my time to talk a little bit about what this bill does, to talk a little bit about the impact that it’s going to have on the people and our province and then also to talk about what principles I believe should and could be in place for responsible development in British Columbia.

This bill, as has been said, approves a project development agreement between the province and the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. It is, in essence, if people are taking a look at this and as the Finance Minister has said, a contract between the company and the province of British Columbia.

I just want everyone to keep in mind, as we go through this debate over the next few days, that the province of British Columbia is all of the people of British Columbia. The Premier mentioned that it was the people of British Columbia, the people who built this province. I think that’s important to keep in mind when you take a look at this bill and when you take a look at the discussion on this bill.

How did we get here? How did we get here to be debating Bill 30? I want to start off with the history around LNG and the Premier’s promises.

[1600]

As I go through, you’ll see why I believe that we’re at this place, why we’re seeing a bill come in that certainly benefits the company — no question about that — but doesn’t benefit British Columbians.

If we think back to the Premier’s first promises that she made around LNG, the Premier called LNG her central preoccupation and her laser focus, with her ever-changing promises and commitments. That’s how she started out. She started out by introducing this in this House — that she would have laser focus on LNG for the next year to be able to get an LNG plant up and running and to be able to solve all of the problems of British Columbia.

If you look at the Premier’s jobs plan, which is when she started putting her specific commitments down around LNG, the promise in the Premier’s jobs plan said at least one LNG terminal on line by 2015 in Kitimat and at least three in operation by 2020. That was in the jobs plan.

Again, the Premier had just been elected Premier. She’d been elected leader of the B.C. Liberals. She brought in her jobs plan as her signature piece, her first piece as a Premier, which she felt was going to show and make her mark in British Columbia. That commitment, as I said, talked about having a plant up and running in Kitimat by 2015 and three in operation. She also talked about jobs and jobs that would be available. She promised 1,500 person-years of work and 120 to 140 permanent positions once the plant was up and running.

We then move to the throne speech in February 2013. I know it’s hard to keep track as we look at all these promises, because they continued to change as the months went on. In February 2013 the Premier said in her throne speech that we would have five new LNG plants in British Columbia before the end of the decade. So now we’re up to five. Remember, it was one LNG plant in Kitimat. Now, by the time we got to the throne speech….

I recognize that people often say that sometimes the throne speech is flowery in its descriptors and that it sometimes presents large goals that are there. But the Premier, in fact, was specific. She then talked about 39,000 annual direct and indirect full-time jobs during the nine years of construction. She also said at this point — the promise is growing as we are going along — that there could be as many as 75,000 full-time jobs required once the LNG plants were up and running.

I think we’ve gone from 1,500 person-years, 124 permanent. Now we’re up to 75,000 full-time jobs. Again, I come back to the Finance minister saying we’ve put the numbers out around jobs. Well, forgive the public if they don’t trust this government when it comes to putting the numbers out. Certainly, none of the numbers that have been outlined thus far have had any base in reality.

The Premier also talked about triggering $1 trillion in cumulative GDP through LNG — $1 trillion. She also — and this is the first time it surfaced — mentioned the prosperity fund here. The Premier said the prosperity fund, where she was going to put all of this money that was going to be flowing in from LNG…. Its priority would be to eliminate the provincial debt, to enhance government services, to reduce taxes and to eliminate the sales tax. Wow.

I’m sure the fact that the election was just a few months away from that throne speech has absolutely nothing to

Page 8908

do with the growth and the promises. I’m sure it’s just simply a coincidence that we continue to see the job numbers and the economic growth numbers go off the scale in that short period of time.

Then we went into an election. What did the Premier promise around LNG during the election? Here’s the actual quote: “It’s no fantasy.” She says the projects mean 39,000 jobs to British Columbia, 75,000 full-time jobs once in operation, $1 trillion in economic activity and $100 billion that will flow to the prosperity fund. “Our goal is a debt-free B.C., and we intend to reach our goal 15 years from today.”

[1605]

It’s extraordinary. What’s the reality for the provincial debt? Well, in fact, since the Premier came to office, the provincial debt has actually increased by $20.8 billion. It’s now at $65.9 billion, the highest in British Columbia’s history. According to the government’s own figures — they do a three-year budgeting cycle — that’s going to reach $70 billion by 2017-2018.

Again, I think the public can be forgiven for saying that this government is bringing forward a bill and saying: “Trust us; the jobs are there. Trust us; there’ll be money and resources for British Columbia. Trust us; we’ll build partnerships with First Nations. Trust us; we’ll look after the environment.” I’m sorry, that has not been the track record of this government. That has not been their track record since 2001, and it certainly hasn’t been their track record on this very specific agenda of the Premier of British Columbia.

The Premier made this her signature piece. The Premier came forward with LNG as her signature piece. Yet what have we seen? We’ve seen ever-changing promises, ever-changing commitments, ever-changing numbers.

What about after the election? What happened to all those promises, to the jobs, to the numbers being thrown around before the election? The Premier promised that we’d see the LNG tax regime tabled after the election. A year later it still hadn’t happened. Instead, the Premier’s next throne speech described LNG as simply a chance, not a windfall, not solving all our