2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 24, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

PAT QUINN

Hon. M. de Jong: Members will know that Canada and the hockey world lost a giant yesterday with the passing of Pat Quinn.

He was here in Victoria just a few months ago, and he stopped in at my office. I’m not sure he could detect how excited I was to meet a hockey legend. But there were two things that were readily apparent at the time I met him: one, that time and challenges with health had shortened his stride and taken a little bit off his shot, but the second thing that was obvious was that he wasn’t going to allow those challenges to diminish his love for the game of hockey or his enthusiastic approach to life generally — and what a life.

What a life in hockey. Born in ’43 in Hamilton, where he played minor hockey and junior hockey. He came to Edmonton. Won a Memorial Cup. Played his first game with the Leafs in 1968 and had an immediate impact.

We got to know him here in British Columbia in 1970, when he joined the expansion Vancouver Canucks. He ended his playing career in Hamilton with the team there, with the Flames.

But it’s probably as a coach that he may have left the most indelible mark. He took two teams to the Stanley Cup finals — the Flyers in the ’80s and, of course, the Canucks on that memorable 1994 playoff run.

[1335]

If the Stanley Cup eluded him, every other prize in hockey did not — world championships; world junior championships; and, of course, the 2002 Winter Olympics, when he ended a 50-year drought for Canada and coached our team to gold.

The other thing about Pat Quinn that this House, I think, knows and will appreciate is that, as important as hockey was, he always described education as the toolbox which young people needed to avail themselves of first and foremost. It was a creed he lived by. He acquired a law degree himself a number of years ago.

Most recently he was the part owner of the Vancouver Giants, and today his hockey family grieves. He may not patrol the blue lines or the boardrooms or the sports bars of Canada any longer, but all of us in this House, I’m sure, will want to send to his hockey family and, perhaps more importantly today, to his immediate family our condolences, our thoughts and prayers on the loss of a great Canadian.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like to join with the Government House Leader and lament the passing of a giant of an Irishman, Pat Quinn.

I first became aware of Pat Quinn as a young man, when he was, in fact, patrolling the blue line for my favourite at that time, the Toronto Maple Leafs. It was years later, when he came to Vancouver, that I adopted a new favourite team.

The thing that I want to add to the House Leader’s comments: there are very few Canadians who can say that they’ve had a profound impact in British Columbia and in Toronto — which is, of course, the centre of the known universe. Pat Quinn was able to do that. Beloved in two places in this country — a rarity among athletes, a rarity among managers and, certainly, a rarity among politicians.

The memories that I will have of that great run in 1994 and the time that Pat Quinn spent cultivating excellence, whether it be in purchasing and joining with others in establishing the Vancouver Giants or what he did for Trevor Linden…. My thinking of Trevor Linden, the greatest of all Vancouver Canucks, is how he was mentored by Pat Quinn.

Pat saw — even though he was, at his passing, 71 — the power of youth, the power of ensuring that you mentor those who are coming after you. He did that as a player. He did that as a coach. He did that as a manager, and more importantly, he did that as a person.

British Columbia and Canada have lost a great person today in Pat Quinn. I want to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in extending our sincerest condolences to the Quinn family and to all of those who love Canada and love hockey.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today from Maple Ridge are Julie Upton-Raymond and her daughter Danielle Raymond. Julie is the mother and Danielle is the sister of Shannon Raymond, who tragically died in 2008 following incidents on a party bus.

Since that time, they have both worked tirelessly in their community, talking to elected officials, and throughout the province to bring greater responsibility to this industry, as well as greater regulation. Danielle, in addition to that, having worked on this for six years, is pursuing her master’s degree in psychology. Joining them as well, from Saanich, are Shannon’s uncle and aunt, Laurie and Kathy Upton.

I’d ask the members of the House to make them very, very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: As many members know, November is lung month in Canada. Today the B.C. Lung Association and the national lung association are both in the precinct to help us to learn about lung health and preventing lung disease.

The B.C. Lung Association has great partnerships with
[ Page 5518 ]
the province, including QuitNow B.C., to help people stop smoking; the woodstove exchange program, which is important to maintain air quality; and also the radon awareness program, which is certainly an emerging concern.

In the gallery this afternoon are representatives from the association, including Scott McDonald, the president and CEO of the B.C. Lung Association; Dr. Peter Paré, the chair of the B.C. Lung Association’s board of directors; and Mike Ellis, who is the director of the national lung association. I would ask that all members please make them very welcome here today.

[1340]

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is one of my constituents, an active member of my executive, a strong supporter of the New Democratic Party. Yes, she’s skipping out of school today, but that’s only because she’s such a bright and able student that she can afford to take a little time off to come down and watch us here today. Would the House welcome Avery Valerio.

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, on your behalf and the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism, I’d like to welcome to the House four gentlemen from Richmond, from all of our ridings, who are here on behalf of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce.

With us today are Rob Akimow, vice-chair; Howard Harowitz, policy chair; Michal Yeung, a director; and Matt Pitcairn, who’s the communications and policy manager for the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. They’re here for meetings with MLAs and ministers and are here in the gallery for question period. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

J. Kwan: I have a very special guest visiting here today in the Legislature. It’s her first time visiting us in this building as an official individual — someone who actually moves mountains on behalf of my constituents and is not a stranger, I would venture to say, to the staff of the Minister for Housing and the staff of the Minister of Social Development responsible for CLBC.

She is Lisa Macleod, and I live in fear every single day that she might leave my office. She really does wonders for the constituents and representing the people, especially when I’m not there. Thank you very much, Lisa.

Would the House please make her welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today is my personal angel and my wife of 29 years, Marlene. Next to her is Gail Payeur, a good friend of ours. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

C. Trevena: I think all members take great pleasure in introducing guests in the gallery from their home communities, and today I have that pleasure. Doug Peters has long been talking about coming down here. He’s a self-confessed political junkie, but as a person who says that he’s going to retire and then keeps running his very well-known small business on Quadra Island, it’s hard enough to get him off the island.

But grandparent duties have brought Doug and his wife, Gretchen, down to Victoria. Gretchen is actually carrying them out at the moment, while Doug is here. He joined me for lunch. He’s going to observe question period and then going to take a bit of a tour of these buildings. I hope the House will make Doug Peters very welcome.

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce a constituent from Merritt, Richie Gage. Richie works tirelessly in his community and also in the province, and it’s such a pleasure to welcome him to the House today.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two former members of this chamber. On the floor today we are graced with the presence of Sheila Orr and Brian Smith, who both served this chamber with distinction and served British Columbians with pride and have gone on to very successful careers in both the public and private sectors. I would ask that the House please make Sheila and Brian welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to join with that to welcome my predecessor, Brian Smith, of course joined by Sheila Orr. I did have to question them as to why they were here. They said they’re here on their annual checkup of the Legislature. May we pass muster.

As well, I’d like to welcome three persons who joined us today with the announcement of the extension of the liquor primary licences for golf courses and ski hills. That is David Lynn, president and CEO of Canada West Ski Areas Association, who is in the gallery. He was joined by Kris Jonasson, the executive director of the B.C. Golf Association, and Jim Lee, the director of business development of the B.C. Golf Association. Will the House please make them all very welcome.

[1345]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The precinct is pleased to receive today members from the organization known as DigiBC, which represents the digital media industry in British Columbia — which, as we all know, is very successful, including right here on Vancouver Island — and its president, Howard Donaldson. Could we please make them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 – SAFEGUARDING YOUNG
PEOPLE’S FUTURE ACT, 2014

G. Heyman presented a bill intituled Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, 2014.
[ Page 5519 ]

G. Heyman: I rise to table a bill intituled the Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, and I move that it be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Heyman: The party bus industry has grown across North America as well as here in B.C. It has been increasingly obvious for several years that a significant number of operators ignore or abet flagrant and dangerous use of alcohol and controlled substances. Unsafe as well as illegal practices abound in these circumstances. Fights are routine, young passengers have fallen from unsecured doors, and others have been left in unsafe and isolated locations following assaults and when they are clearly in need of medical attention.

Worse, two 16-year-olds, Shannon Raymond and Ernest Azoadam, lost their lives as a result of party bus excursions. In the five years between their deaths only ineffective warnings were issued to the industry, as dozens of other dangerous and illegal incidents have occurred and been reported.

Alcohol consumption in vehicles is illegal in B.C., but it is still advertised by many party bus companies as part of the experience. Alcohol is often the principal reason for the party bus excursion.

The industry has been warned at least three times by the Ministry of Transportation to remove references to alcohol from their websites. Most have not complied.

Our neighbours have taken action. California implemented Bill 45 to address the common practice of under-age drinking on party buses after the death of a 19-year-old, and Washington state is poised to introduce legislation in January to protect children from the risks associated with this industry, after conducting research that included B.C. statistics.

This bill seeks to enact protections for young passengers contracting trips on party buses and to ensure that the industry is subject to the same level of licensing and oversight as other sectors of the passenger transportation industry through the Passenger Transportation Board.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M212, Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

J. Yap: I’m honoured to rise today and recognize the significant contributions that the Richmond Chamber of Commerce — RCC — has made in the past 89 years. The RCC’s motto is to ensure the success of its member businesses. It helps its members start up business, increase effectiveness and, ultimately, reach profitability by providing professional advice and expert assistance.

It also supports its members with discount programs for office supplies, recruitment advertising and shipping services. Members have access to a network of more than 2,000 businesses and government agencies for information and promotion.

RCC, in partnership with the city of Richmond, has paid tribute to the business community through its Business Excellence Awards since 1977. These awards recognize some 60 companies in six different categories every year.

Moreover, RCC has been representing the voice of business in Richmond by addressing important issues in the community, in the province and across the country. In October representatives of the RCC went to Prince Edward Island and Ottawa to promote and highlight the landmark economic importance of the Lower Fraser report. The RCC received a silver medal in the 2014 Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Voice of Business competition in recognition of this Fraser River report, which brought unprecedented collaboration from 14 chambers of commerce and boards of trade adjacent to the banks of the Lower Fraser River.

RCC also successfully passed a policy that calls for all levels of government to immediately address the management requirements on the river at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce AGM in Charlottetown.

I’m very proud and thankful for the wonderful and meaningful work of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and would like to thank its many leaders — including current chair, Gerard Edwards; Vice-Chair Rob Akimow, Communications Policy Manager Matt Pitcairn; and the executive director, Craig Jones — for their commitment, passion and diligence in making Richmond a more business-friendly and prosperous place to live.

[1350]

JIM SINCLAIR

J. Horgan: The B.C. Federation of Labour is holding its convention this week in Vancouver, and for the first time in 15 years, Jim Sinclair will not be seeking re-election. During that time, B.C. families have had a passionate champion at their side. Jim Sinclair has led the B.C. Federation of Labour to be a voice for all workers, not just those with a union card.

With roots in journalism and the fishing industry, Jim has been an eloquent spokesperson for both public and private sector unions. In his tireless pursuit of justice for farmworkers in the Fraser Valley, his campaign for a higher minimum wage, or his work for better health and safety standards, Jim Sinclair has fought to make working families safer and better off, at the end of the day, here in British Columbia.
[ Page 5520 ]

Jim also leaves behind a stronger and more united labour movement than he inherited. During the recent teachers dispute, we saw a union movement that stood together for public education. Teachers took a stand, and they knew that they weren’t alone. That solidarity is testament to Jim’s vision for a united labour movement that is a strong voice speaking up on behalf of all working people and their families.

He’s a tireless British Columbian who has put himself out there for working people time and time and time again. I’m going to miss him as a friend, and I know that working people in British Columbia will miss a great champion. I’m sure his voice will continue to be heard speaking up for working families.

I will ask this House to join me in giving Jim Sinclair a warm, warm round of applause for 15 years of service to the people of British Columbia.

LUNG DISEASE AWARENESS AND
ROLE OF LUNG ASSOCIATIONS

G. Hogg: Our lung associations are non-profit, volunteer, health-based charities with the mission of improving lung health and the vision of a world free of lung disease. It is one of the oldest volunteer organizations in Canada. November is national lung month, and today we both recognize and celebrate the work of the Canadian and B.C. lung associations. Together they have helped to lead British Columbia to amongst the lowest smoking rates in North America.

Yet one in five of our residents has a lung disease, and lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are among the leading causes of death in Canada. COPD is the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions. After smoking, radon is our leading cause of lung cancer. The lung association is urging all homeowners to test their home for radon. It is a simple, inexpensive and important test.

The lung associations provide research resources, prevention services and support for patients. They focus on the full scope of respiratory diseases — on asthma, sleep apnea, tuberculosis, lung cancer, occupational lung diseases and air quality. Nationally, they’re bringing patients, researchers and donors together to breathe as one to breathe new life into research initiatives.

I ask the members of this House to take a deep breath and to show our support and gratitude to the lung associations for their partnership, their guidance and their leadership in making B.C. a better place to live and to breathe. Please breathe.

HUU-AY-AHT FIRST NATION
LIVING-WAGE POLICY

S. Fraser: The Huu-ay-aht First Nation achieved nationhood through the Maa-nulth treaty. Talk about leadership. Huu-ay-aht is the first First Nation community in Canada to adopt a living-wage policy for all of its employees. Out of respect for all Huu-ay-aht employees, the executive council voted in favour of implementing a living-wage policy on October 24. That’s just a couple Fridays ago.

The decision was made based on the belief that B.C.’s current minimum wage is not high enough to meet the needs of families to promote health and well-being. Huu-ay-aht believe that people should not have to decide between paying rent and feeding their family. With today’s high cost of living, this is a reality for far too many people. Many are forced to rely on food banks in order to get by.

British Columbia has been amongst the highest child poverty rates in Canada for a decade now, and low wages are a key contributor. Huu-ay-aht believe that work should lift families out of poverty, not keep them there. “Too many of our people are living on minimum wage or below the poverty line,” explained elected Chief Councillor Jeff Cook. “It is our hope that this will offer our employees a choice other than just surviving and living paycheque to paycheque.”

[1355]

“The treaty has given us the ability to make decisions based on our values and goals and implement those decisions in accordance with our own laws. The living-wage policy shows us how the treaty gives us the ability to chart our own future.” That’s from Councillor Tom Mexsis Happynook. He went on to say: “We have a long way to go to meet or exceed the living standards of Canadians, but this is a great step in the right direction.”

I would like to thank the Huu-ay-aht for demonstrating what true leadership is all about. True leadership involves supporting your citizens to reach their full potential, and we can all learn from that.

BRITANNIA MINE MUSEUM

J. Sturdy: The Britannia Mine Museum presents not only a glimpse at British Columbia’s past but also speaks to the opportunities and the responsibilities of B.C.’s future. You will likely have seen the museum. You can’t help but notice its 20-storey concentrator building towering above the highway in Britannia Beach.

Britannia mine opened 110 years ago and, in various iterations, operated until 1974. Whether it be the 130 miles of tunnels traversing from high in the mountains to thousands of feet below sea level, the 50 million tonnes of ore extracted or the 60 thousand people that passed through Britannia Beach over the working life of the mine, Britannia Mining and Smelting Company and its successors had both a local and a global impact.

When the mine finally closed, the community thought it had seen its best days. A dilapidated facility left with an acid rock drainage legacy. But today Britannia mine is a designated national historic site, where acid rock drainage is managed and treated, and where the museum and community around it has become a Sea to Sky must-see.
[ Page 5521 ]

The museum’s mission is to inspire visitors to explore British Columbia’s past, present and future by gaining a better understanding of the mining industry and the important role that minerals and metals play in our everyday lives.

In 2010 a $14.7 million renovation was concluded, which completely transformed the museum. Of the more than 70,000 people who visit each year, I couldn’t guess what each takes away as a highlight: the train ride through the old tunnels or the massive wooden concentrator building or panning for gold.

If I may offer advice on a visit, it’s to give yourself more time than you think that you need. There’s much to see. The Britannia Mine Museum not only entertains but also educates, and you will leave with much more than you came for.

NEWTON BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

H. Bains: A number of people from businesses in Newton have been working very hard for the past few years to form Newton Business Improvement Association. Philip Aguirre, of the Old Surrey Restaurant; Linda McCabe, from Value Properties Group; Jaspal Brar, from JSB Co-operators insurance; Gabrielle Steed, from the John Volken Foundation; and Santosh Nahal, senior property manager for King’s Cross Shopping Centre have vested interest in Newton community, and all were instrumental in forming the Newton BIA.

Although they were given approval by the city just this past month, these people have been working tirelessly to improve the Newton community all along. Their hard work is already paying off. They were successful in getting the paid parking meters removed from 137th Street, on my suggestion, in front of my office, between 74th Avenue and 72nd Avenue. Small business owners were constantly losing business because people did not want to pay to park to run in for coffee, their dry cleaning, their mail or a photocopy or even their dinner.

These businesses now have a voice at the city to discuss issues affecting them. The vision of the new executive director, Philip Aguirre, is promising. He’s committed to turning Newton into a thriving community that businesses and residents can be proud of. His aspirations include a four-pillar plan focusing on safety; area enhancement; lobbying government — believe it or not; as well as marketing and events.

Mr. Aguirre has his sights set on adding events like a farmers market, movie nights and a food truck program and is considering a drive-in movie night at King’s Cross Shopping Centre. He would like people to be able to work, play and live right in the community of Newton.

I would like to welcome Newton BIA to Surrey-Newton and congratulate Mr. Aguirre on his appointment as executive director. I can’t wait for the movie night.

[1400]

Oral Questions

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY
ADVANCED EDUCATION MINISTER TO
KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY INVESTIGATION

B. Ralston: Members of this House will recall that the Minister of Finance directed Rob Mingay to conduct an investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The opposition now has reason to believe that the Minister of Advanced Education withheld material information from Mr. Mingay.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, will he take this opportunity here to acknowledge that he did not account fully to the investigator?

Hon. A. Virk: There’s certainly been a great deal of interest from the members opposite on my previous role as a board member of that university. Indeed, out of an abundance of caution…. There are ongoing civil matters that I can’t speak about between former employees of that university and the university. I have actually volunteered to recuse myself with any involvement with that university. In fact, I’ve asked my deputy minister to oversee any day-to-day matters as they arise.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: A key finding of the Mingay report was that the Minister of Advanced Education and the board had no involvement in what became known as the Lavack contracts. The Minister of Finance used that conclusion in this House as recently as November 6 to defend the Minister of Advanced Education.

Does the Minister of Advanced Education agree with Mr. Mingay’s conclusion that neither he nor the board of governors at Kwantlen had any knowledge of the Lavack contracts?

Hon. A. Virk: I can assure the House that as to the investigation done by the assistant deputy minister, the fullest of information available to myself was provided for Mr. Mingay.

D. Eby: We have obtained a series of e-mails sent to and from the minister’s former RCMP e-mail account in which the minister and his colleagues on the Kwantlen board discussed their plan to break government compensation rules in the Lavack contracts.

The initiating e-mail sent from the former university president to the minister and others proposes paying Ms. Lavack a salary “at the ceiling.” The president then proposes making an additional $100,000 payment to Ms. Lavack to cover moving expenses and “a signing bonus.” In short, this e-mail directly contradicts the investigation findings. It is relevant, and it was never disclosed.
[ Page 5522 ]

To the Minister of Advanced Education: this e-mail was addressed to you. You received it. You didn’t disclose it. How do you explain yourself?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. A. Virk: The report done by the assistant deputy minister asked a number of questions of a number of individuals, and any responses that Mr. Mingay asked of myself and my office were provided to Mr. Mingay in the compilation of his report.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Well, the investigation conclusions make it clear that when a Ministry of Finance investigator interviewed the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Advanced Education did not tell the investigator that the Kwantlen board were directly involved in the Lavack contracts. It is also clear that the minister did not disclose these e-mails to the investigator.

Why did the Minister of Advanced Education hide this information from the investigator?

Hon. A. Virk: As I’ve said to the member opposite, any information that was requested by the assistant deputy minister in his review of compensation as it relates to contracts in my role as a board member of that university — my office and myself were open completely in providing answers to those questions that were asked.

[1405]

K. Corrigan: In his e-mail to the Minister of Advanced Education the former Kwantlen president outlined how they could avoid provincial government reporting requirements. He said: “I suggest that I draft a letter which Anne will sign indicating her agreement. We will then draft a contract that outlines, in general terms, the conditions of the contract. This would be sent to PSEC for its records. There would be a separate letter outlining in detail the housing allowance, professional allowance. This is what occurred in my own case.”

To the now Minister of Advanced Education, this e-mail from the president set out a plan to hide payments in the Lavack contract from the provincial regulator. Why did the minister not disclose it to Mr. Mingay?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the assistant deputy minister did, indeed, conduct a review of compensation as it related to the president and to other staff at that university. The fullest of information has been provided, as asked by Mr. Mingay. Mr. Mingay did come to a number of different conclusions, and that report was, indeed, made public for all to see.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: On April 10, 2011, the Minister of Advanced Education responded, in an e-mail, to this scheme, as set out by the former president. It turns out he did support this plan. The minister wrote: “All looks well and is in line with our collective thoughts.”

To the minister: why didn’t you tell the investigator that you personally signed off on Kwantlen’s detailed plan to violate provincial compensation rules?

Hon. A. Virk: The assistant deputy minister indeed interviewed a number of individuals within that university, as well, and did complete a report after having a fulsome analysis of interviews within that institution. The interviews were in terms of those individuals that were responsible for the vice-presidential level, for the oversight of those contracts, for signing those contracts. That assistant deputy minister made that public, open. It was all for all to see.

H. Bains: The minister was so involved in the Lavack contract negotiations that he wrote to the other board members to defend their scheme when they raised questions. For example, the minister defended a generous research leave allowance as follows: “If I may offer another angle on this, given the low pay level of a VP at Kwantlen and the difficulty in drawing candidates within the current pay scale, the research leave is one way to top off the pay level. This is a common practice that I learned of.”

To the minister: why didn’t you report your detailed involvement in the Lavack contract to the investigators?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

Hon. A. Virk: There are a number of recommendations that arose from the ADM’s report, as to compensation across the post-secondary sector. It made a number of recommendations that required boards to report, to understand, to be able to take a better understanding. I look at it that, as a previous board member, I ought to have known more about the reporting requirements. I have apologized for that. As a board member at the time, I ought to have known better in terms of reporting requirements.

[1410]

We are fully committed, in terms of taxpayer accountability, to implement each and every one of those recommendations. Some of those recommendations help to ensure that boards understand their responsibilities and their obligations better.

CALL FOR AUDITOR GENERAL
INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

J. Horgan: The Minister of Finance told the media, following the Mingay report’s release, that he had gotten
[ Page 5523 ]
to the bottom of the Kwantlen compensation fiasco. We now know, based on the evidence that’s been presented to the House today, that that clearly is not the case. It would have been the case had it not been for a whistle-blower who obtained these documents from archived academic search binders and provided them to the official opposition.

In light of the assertions that are made in these e-mails — that the Minister of Advanced Education was not only fully apprised of the scheme but in fact offered suggestions to improve it — wouldn’t the Minister of Finance agree with me…? Rather than continue the facade that the Mingay report actually did get to the bottom of this, wouldn’t it be past time for the Auditor General to have a look at this so that we can compel evidence and ensure that all documents are released — as they should have been the first time around?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is undoubtedly convenient for the member of the opposition and his colleagues to refer to documents that no one on this side of the House has seen.

He has material that he is referring to, but let me go further and say this. An examination of what took place occurred, and there was no ambiguity in the findings that although disclosure of the matters that members opposite have referred to in these various discussions did take place pursuant to certain processes, they did not in all circumstances take place pursuant to the employment disclosure requirements. No one has denied that. No one has tried to hide from responsibility for that.

The minister responsible, to his credit, has acknowledged that there was a more robust reporting requirement that should have been met. He has apologized for that. He has gotten on with doing a great job representing the interests of advanced education in British Columbia for students right across the province.

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

J. Horgan: I suppose if you’re trying to deceive someone…. To his credit, he kept information from the government twice — once as a board member and then again as a cabinet minister. If that’s an applaudable offence, I suppose that we could all rejoice in that. But I think the public has a higher standard than the government does on these matters.

Back on November 6 the Minister of Finance, in responding to a privilege motion in this House, said the following: “From a review of documentation and through interviews, it appears that neither KPU’s board of governors nor its administrative staff were aware of the terms of Lavack’s offer letter and agreement or the pre-employment contract.”

Well, we now know that that’s not a supportable position. We know that although the minister said at the time that the findings were troubling and disturbing, now it’s applaudable that they were troubling and disturbing. Again I go to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of anyone else of authority that I could ask this question: don’t you think it’s past time that we had someone who could compel the Minister of Advanced Education to tell the public what really went on? Have the Auditor General look at this.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition would — as I think he’s doing — try to impugn the motives or the intents of a member of this chamber.

[1415]

The minister, in conveying information to Mr. Mingay, in no way tried to disassociate himself from the role that he played as a volunteer member of that board and acknowledged that there were requirements for disclosure that were met and other requirements for disclosure that weren’t met. As a result of that, recommendations have been made by Mr. Mingay. The government has endorsed those recommendations and is moving to implement them.

In the meantime, the good work that is taking place under the auspices of the Minister of Advanced Education is taking place. Students across British Columbia are receiving the support, the training opportunities and the educational opportunities that they require and deserve, and that’s good news.

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

J. Horgan: The Premier, on the 18th of June…. That wasn’t a sitting day, so this was made somewhere else. She said the following: “He is committed to making sure that the rules and the intent of the rules are followed. I have spoken to him and have absolute confidence in him and his ability to serve as Minister of Advanced Education.”

That was the Premier’s view in June. That was prior to the Mingay report. That was prior to the troubling and disturbing findings that the Minister of Finance talked about. Now we have a representation in an e-mail from an RCMP e-mail account advising how to deal with getting around the rules that the minister — at that time a board member — was responsible for upholding.

Absent the chair of executive council, again to the Minister of Finance: surely to goodness, there’s a higher standard in your operation than the one that’s being demonstrated by the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. M. de Jong: For a group that has taken some time this session pointing out the hazards of rushing to judgment, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues seem quite content to proceed precisely on that basis.

There has been absolutely no attempt to shield what
[ Page 5524 ]
took place here. There has been no attempt to withhold from the public what occurred. There has been no attempt to deny that there was a lapse with respect to the disclosure in conformity with the PSAC employment requirements, although the information that lies at the root of the concerns expressed by the members of the opposition was in fact disclosed and was in the public domain.

I’m sure it suits the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues to stand and make these assertions and castigate the good character of the Minister of Advanced Education, but I can tell you this: the Minister of Advanced Education is committed to the interests of students in British Columbia and is going to remain committed to the interests of students in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: What I hope is that the Minister of Advanced Education would be committed to the integrity of this House and chamber.

On page 11 of the Mingay report, Mr. Mingay finds: “My review did not reveal information to suggest that the then board of governors was aware of the Lavack offer letter of employment or pre-employment contract.” These e-mails, which we will happily table after question period, say otherwise.

This is no longer about the minister’s role or conduct as the board chair of Kwantlen but rather his role as a minister to supply all the relevant information to an investigation that was undertaken by this government after issues were raised by the opposition.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. He was disturbed about these issues enough to order an investigation when the minister was chair of the board. Well, how about now that he’s a minister of the Crown? It’s a bit more than disturbing, and it requires the Auditor General to come in and sort out this mess. Will he at least do that?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member is an experienced member of this chamber and knows — at least I expect he knows — that the Auditor General does not take direction from anyone on this side of the House. The Auditor General will make her own decisions about matters, and thank goodness for that. The Auditor General will make her own decisions about the matters that she wishes to investigate, to examine, to review. That has been the case. It has served the interests of this chamber of the Legislative Assembly and British Columbians well in the past and will continue to serve them well in the future.

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

M. Farnworth: I have a very straightforward question for the Minister of Finance. Does he have enough concern about the issues being raised to write to the Auditor General and say that the government is concerned and would appreciate if the Auditor General would examine this particular issue so that we can get to the bottom of the mess?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve also been around long enough to know that it might actually be wise to read the documents that the members are referring to before taking at face value the assertions being made by members of the opposition.

He’s indicated that he intends to table this documentation. As always, I will read with interest what members of the opposition have to offer. But none of that alters in any way my perception and my absolute belief in the commitment that the Minister of Advanced Education has to the interests of advanced education and the students of British Columbia. He has been working diligently since assuming that office to advance those interests.

REGULATION OF PARTY BUS INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: In 2008 16-year-old Shannon Raymond died. Like many B.C. teens, she and her friends had been using a party bus as a place to consume alcohol and Ecstasy. The driver even helped them conceal their alcohol.

In 2013 16-year-old Ernest Azoadam also died following a trip on a party bus, and 17-year-old MacKenzie Gortva was left lying in a parking lot following an assault.

Last month, as Emmannuel Dario was convicted of aggravated assault, the Crown prosecutor said: “The bloody and senseless violence in this case screams for greater regulation and monitoring of party bus operators.”

The Raymonds are in the gallery today. To the Minister of Justice, will she admit that existing laws are inadequate to control party buses, and will she commit to act now before another young person dies?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as the father of three girls myself, I can only imagine what the loss that the Raymonds have suffered must be like. My heart, and I know those of all of us in this chamber, certainly goes to the Raymond family.

I met with the Raymond family not that long ago to talk about this situation and their thoughts on possible improvements. I know that the Attorney General did the same.

At the end of the day, and as the holiday season fast approaches, we know that there will be lots of British Columbians, many of whom will be young, who will be out enjoying the festive atmosphere and will use limousine services and other similar services. It’s very important, I think, for all British Columbians to be reminded of the fact that it actually is illegal to consume alcohol in any type of vehicle in British Columbia.

[1425]

In addition to that, I would like to reassure the members opposite and British Columbians generally that we meet on a regular basis with the operators, that the passenger transportation branch does. They are reminded of their obligations of which, first and foremost, is the safe
[ Page 5525 ]
transport of their passengers.

I have also asked the passenger transportation branch to look at how we could possibly strengthen the fitness requirements that are attached to the licensing to see if there may be an opportunity to strengthen the safety here. I await the information back from the passenger transportation branch on that request.

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

G. Heyman: I heard the Minister of Transportation make a fairly similar speech earlier this year, just shortly before he shunted the Raymonds over to the Justice minister. Those are sympathetic words, but sympathy without effective action is meaningless.

Shannon Raymond’s mother and sister have met with both the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Justice and shown evidence of party bus drinking, fights, fights with other motorists, assaults with weapons, medical distress calls, passengers falling out of unsecured doors, passengers being ejected and left on the side of the road, passengers being assaulted and left unconscious at unsafe locations. What does it take for either of these ministers to have more than a conversation with the passenger transportation board?

Will the Justice Minister commit today that she will take concrete action to stop the dangerous behaviour that’s a staple diet on party buses?

Hon. T. Stone: It is the law in British Columbia that…. There is no tolerance whatsoever for the consumption of alcohol in any type of vehicle — no vehicle whatsoever.

We meet through the passenger transportation branch. We meet on a regular basis with operators to ensure that they are aware of their obligations. We will continue to do that.

In my previous response I indicated, I thought quite clearly, to the member opposite that we have asked the passenger transportation branch to take another look at the fitness testing requirements that are associated with the licences at play here to determine whether or not there are opportunities there to strengthen those fitness requirements, all in the name of safety.

In addition, our ministry is going to continue to work very closely with staff in the Attorney General’s office, with ICBC and with law enforcement to ensure heightened awareness, education and enforcement. At the end of the day, we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the safe transport of British Columbians.

WHEELCHAIR-ACCESSIBLE
CABIN RATES ON FERRIES

J. Rice: The Inside Passage and Haida-Gwaii-to-Prince-Rupert ferry routes are often overnight trips. For sleeping quarters it’s $90, but if you use a wheelchair, it’s $120. The Minister of Transportation has claimed he is trying to do what he can to “ensure that the fares are as affordable as they can possibly be.”

To the Minister of Transportation: why are people who use wheelchairs being discriminated against with this unfair extra fee?

Hon. T. Stone: Let me say that in our efforts as government to position British Columbia as being one of the most accessible jurisdictions in North America and, certainly, in Canada, there is a huge role for transportation, obviously, to play in that. This is why, on a regular basis — whether it’s involving transit buses, whether it involves B.C. ferries and other facets of transportation — we have, as a matter of requirement, to ensure that when new assets are replaced and retrofits are done, to the maximum extent possible we take into account accessibility requirements.

Now, if the member has some specific information about a specific route, I would be more than happy to look into that further. Our goal is to be the most accessible jurisdiction in North America.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Merit Commissioner’s Merit Performance Audit 2013-14, Upholding Fair Hiring in the British Columbia Public Service.

M. Farnworth: I seek leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill M203, the Terry Fox Day Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL M203 — TERRY FOX DAY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill M203; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

L. Reimer: I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the House for honouring our great
[ Page 5526 ]
hero, Terry, and for sharing their stories and memories of Terry and how he impacted and also others in the world.

I do want to make one clarification. That is I just want to clarify the date of the Terry Fox Run. It was the family’s wishes that we hold that day on the day of the run. That date is the second Sunday after Labour Day in September, not the second Sunday of September. I wanted to make that one clarification. I’d be happy to take any questions if any of the members have them.

Deputy Speaker: Actually, we completed the bill, Member, so if you could move that the committee rise, report the bill complete and seek to adjourn without amendment.

L. Reimer: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL M203 — TERRY FOX DAY ACT

Bill M203, Terry Fox Day Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 6.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
INCOME TAX ACT

(continued)

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand at this moment and speak on Bill 6. While we are supportive on this side of the House, very supportive of the LNG industry, we are very concerned about the environmental impact.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, it’s come to my attention that you’ve actually already spoken on this bill.

K. Corrigan: I have, have I? Well, I apologize.

V. Huntington: I will say this has been a very, very difficult bill for me to come to terms with. I have struggled with whether or not to support this bill. I have been in my riding, briefing people and have had people briefing people and have asked my constituents and my riding association to consider it. Almost to a person they have said it’s not worth supporting, which has added to my conflict about the bill.

I do believe in the issue of climate change. I believe in the seriousness of climate change and the fact that this world is facing dire circumstances and a dire future. I have a lot of sympathy for those who feel that we should be taking the great leap and saying: “No, we will not add to the emissions of this world.”

In struggling with the desire to say that, I have had to admit I feel that, ultimately, the struggle to reduce our emissions is going to require a transitional period, and that liquefied natural gas is, in fact, to be that transitional fuel. I would far rather have liquefied natural gas than coal burning.

I think it’s going to take upwards of ten years or more before China begins to wean itself quickly and more thoroughly from coal. I think that, in the meantime, we have to recognize there will be a transition. I would like to think this province could stand up and say: “We will not contribute. We will do the right and moral thing. We will move unilaterally to reducing our emissions.” But we’re not going to do that.

I think that until public pressure is such that governments and business are forced to realize that something must be done, and done now, I guess I would say that I would rather LNG than coal.

I am extremely disappointed with the tax structure of this bill. I feel that the damage that is going to be caused to our environment is not being recompensed by this taxation that we will be receiving. It is not enough. It does not offset the damages that I think we’ll see over time. I suspect that the Ministry of Finance is equally as disturbed with the amount of tax that we will be receiving over a period of time.

Saying that, the fact is that we will at least be getting something, which I suppose during a transitional period is better than nothing. I have come to the conclusion that it is supportable on that basis, even though reluctantly.

[1440]

Also, the numbers of jobs that have been touted by the government, I think, have been highly exaggerated — I think unfairly exaggerated during an electoral period, improperly exaggerated during an electoral period. We now know that most of the construction of the facilities will take place overseas and be towed in to the facilities in Canada, so the construction benefits will occur offshore. I have absolutely no doubt that this government has made agreements for temporary foreign workers to come in.

I think Petronas’s release, which indicated there were very real concerns they had with our benchmark costs for labour and construction, has probably spurred the
[ Page 5527 ]
government into making agreements that we do not yet know about. I think that B.C. and its labour market are going to be the worse for this agreement.

However, I think that the infrastructure presently in the north would become meaningless in a very short space of time, given oil prices, if we did not pursue this last opportunity in the fossil fuel industry. I believe that we cannot pull the rug out from the job market in the north at this point.

So with a great deal of reluctance, I will support this bill. I don’t think it is the right way to go in terms of our climate change. I don’t think it’s providing British Columbia with the benefits that have been touted. I think we’re all disappointed with that aspect of it. But I think the fact is and the reality is that LNG is with us, and we may as well participate in it in order to keep the north alive at this point.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise in support of Bill 6. I’ve listened with interest to all of the debate around liquefied natural gas, greenhouse emissions. It has been my experience that every person in this House is concerned about the future of our environment, that we recognize the importance of setting in the protocols and the steps that are necessary to ensure that we have the cleanest LNG industry in the world.

As members in this House know, the bill that was previously introduced that sets the benchmarks was done to clearly ensure that we set the standard for the cleanest LNG industry of any jurisdiction on this globe. That is important.

While the benefits of LNG are obvious, what is also obvious is that we have a significant responsibility to future generations to ensure that the environmental protection that we put in place is there. So while I appreciate the concerns and the passion which some of them have expressed, I also clearly recognize that the government has, through the initiatives and the legislation that we have brought forward, done everything we can to ensure that we protect the environment and the beautiful province that we are so blessed to be able to live in.

It’s important that there are two balances — in my view and, I believe, the view of our government — when it comes to opening opportunities for the private sector to realize benefits of an industry, no matter what it is. We well know that this government has a track record of ensuring the safety of industries across the sectors, whether it be mining, whether it be forestry, and now with the potential of LNG, liquefied natural gas, as an opportunity for us.

We also recognize that in order for us to ensure that we protect the province and our natural resources, we equally have a responsibility to the proponents to ensure that we have a tax regime that ensures that they are able to do that successfully, because we are looking at literally billions upon billions of dollars of investment by them to create an industry that is not only going to provide revenue but the jobs that this province needs for the future.

[1445]

When you look at this bill and what it does, it ensures that we give proponents the opportunity to make those investments, to see that they have a responsibility through our protections but also that they are able to thrive and create the jobs that we all need.

I know that the Minister of Natural Gas, the Minister of Finance and the Premier have spent literally months and months consulting with all of the stakeholders and with the industry to make sure that we find that balance between the protection and the ability for the industry to thrive and to grow. I know that that consultation has required give-and-take on the part of both the government of British Columbia and the proponents.

The bill that was introduced reflects that understanding — that government has significant responsibilities. But we also can look at the industry to take their responsibility seriously when it comes to how this is going to move ahead in the province of British Columbia.

Right now we have 18 — 18 — potential LNG projects in the province. Now, the question keeps being asked: is that a pipedream? I will pardon the pun. But the reality is that those 18 are serious proponents that are looking at what potential there is for them.

What we’ve done with each and every one of them is to ensure they clearly understand the regulatory framework that they need to operate in, the environmental protections that we are expecting of them, but also to look at how we can ensure that they can be successful. I am very clear in my own mind that we will not immediately see all 18, but what we will do is see two or three that will come on line and begin a road to prosperity for the province of British Columbia that is unparalleled in our past.

That also speaks to the fact that those proponents are going to make their decisions based on the components that I talked about — their ability, through the tax regime, to make money and their responsibility to protect the environment and to do it in the best interests of all British Columbians, including future generations’ ability to get jobs in that industry.

Our tax system, in addition to creating a platform that is appropriate for the industry, also does a number of other things, as we looked at rival jurisdictions around the world.

When I look at those rival jurisdictions, some of them are equally as concerned and have regulatory regimes in place to deal with the environmental impact, but I believe there are some that do not have those same standards. Our standards will now set the new benchmark for protecting the environment, for ensuring that we lay the groundwork for a safe and an appropriate industry when it comes to the environment.

British Columbia is blessed with large reserves of natural gas that are in close proximity to the proposed facili-
[ Page 5528 ]
ties that these proponents are looking at. We have, and continue to train, a skilled workforce that is going to meet the needs of those proponents.

We have infrastructure that supports it throughout the province, and this is one of the things that I think is exciting about this new opportunity for this province. Every community in the province of British Columbia has the potential benefit — not just from the benefits that we get through the taxes and the revenue that we’ll receive through royalties, but it also creates jobs in those communities by providing the infrastructure and the support that the industry is going to need.

[1450]

We also know that if we have some of the largest reserves, the best quality of natural gas, the ability to get it to the facilities in a timely fashion and the ability to put it on the seas to deliver it to the markets around the world…. Our transport times and rates that we have to ensure the delivery of that product to the markets that need it are significant.

I mentioned the quality of our natural gas. The extraction temperature of the natural gas in British Columbia and the environmental temperatures that will reduce the energy costs during the production of liquefied natural gas again contribute to the protection of our environment.

I know that many people in this province are asking the question: is this a real opportunity? It absolutely is. It is a time-sensitive opportunity that we need to take advantage of as quickly as we can, but not at the expense — not at the expense — of our environment or the protection of the rights and the needs of the people of British Columbia.

The emission benchmark and the flexible options that have been built into the legislation that was previously introduced in this House are going to ensure that the revenues that flow from this industry will be put to good use, either through the offsets that may be necessary or the contributions to the technology fund that are going to help to develop this industry and help other jurisdictions as we move forward.

It’s clear to me that liquefied natural gas is indeed a fuel of choice for the future for many countries. The demands around the world are going to continue to grow, and the opportunity for British Columbia to benefit by being in that industry, ensuring that we do what we need to do, is to ensure that we are going to have a strong and healthy economy, that we’re going to continue to balance our budget year after year and that we’re going to be able to invest in the future of British Columbians in all of the sectors that we speak about so often in this House, including education, health care and other public services.

I totally support this bill. I totally support our government’s initiative to be there, to be there in a timely fashion and to recognize how we can set a standard in the world that will be second to none.

L. Krog: I want to preface my remarks about Bill 6 by saying that I was much moved by the remarks of the independent member for Delta South, who I think reflects the growing unease felt by British Columbians around the whole concept of how we’re going to maintain an energy-driven society. By what methods are we going to heat our homes and transport our goods and supply our electricity, whatever the case may be?

It is something to remember and keep in the back of our minds constantly, because if there is one thing that I’m conscious of, it is certainly that generation born in the ’30s and thereafter and those generations that have followed that have enjoyed the greatest economic benefit of any generation or generations in history.

One can’t help but reflect on the fact, as I’ve pointed out many times, that in British Columbia in particular that wealth and that benefit and those great opportunities were largely a result of the exploitation of our God-given natural resources. When one goes out into the rotunda, as I’ve pointed out many times, and you look up, you will see the great industries of this province, the great economic basics of this province — agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing.

When my wife and I were driving down-Island from Black Creek yesterday and we drove past what used to be known as northwest bay camp — just literally south of Parksville, on the edge — I pointed out to my wife that in its heyday, when MacMillan Bloedel was running at full steam, there were over 600 people employed at that site alone, all to do with the extraction of resources — in that case, timber.

[1455]

One can argue that like liquid natural gas, which presents a significant opportunity for British Columbians…. Nevertheless, the province diversified over time, and things have improved. There are now great numbers of people employed in the service sector. There are people employed in the technological sector. There are people employed in communications. There are people doing cartoons in Vancouver that get seen around the world.

One would, I think, be able to find a message in that, and that is that the economic basis of the province has somewhat shifted. Yet here we have a Premier and a government around liquid natural gas, which puts me in mind of that expression that Andrew Carnegie, who was the founder of U.S. Steel and the man who had a monopoly on it, said so wisely once: “Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.”

Well, that’s good when you have a monopoly, but the problem with liquid natural gas is we have anything but a monopoly. We know that there are countries around the world that are discovering quantities of natural gas that they didn’t think they even had. I won’t exaggerate — because that seems to have become the language of B.C. politics so much — and say it’s every day, but it is sincerely very clear that we’re not the only player in the
[ Page 5529 ]
field when it comes to liquid natural gas.

With the opposition, I think it has been accused of being a naysayer around the development and exploitation of liquid natural gas. I see one of the members over there nodding his head sagely — unless he’s actually speaking to his electronic device — indicating agreement with what I’ve just had to say.

In developing liquid natural gas, surely it is appropriate to ensure that the four conditions the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Juan de Fuca, has so carefully and wisely expressed should be foremost in our minds around liquefied natural gas and the tax regime that flows from it. In order for it to move ahead, it should include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians; provide a fair return for our resource; include benefits for First Nations, who have been shut out of the economic pie in this province ever since first contact, to a large extent; and protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments.

You know, at least when we were cutting down the forest with wild abandon, there was significant employment — the kind of employment I referred to earlier at northwest bay. That was just one camp — one camp, 600 jobs. Those were union jobs. Those were jobs that existed in a day when a single, employed, adult member of a family could support a family.

The suggestion is that somehow liquid natural gas is going to give us all of that again. Well, I think it’s pretty clear from the evidence that there will be a significant construction boom of a limited variety. The member for Delta South again wisely pointed out that there’s some suggestion now we’re not even going to see the construction jobs of the facilities themselves in British Columbia. We’re essentially going to see the puzzle shipped over here. We get to put it together, but we don’t get to make the puzzle.

Why is the opposition going to support this bill? Because firstly, we, too, have faith in liquid natural gas. But, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

L. Krog: We are? No, we’re not going to support it. I knew that the members would jump up.

What’s the problem with the bill? It is the government’s own action around this in the last few months. We’ve gone from a tax regime at 7 percent, and now we’re down to 3½.

I almost feel we should rush this bill through the Legislature lest we end up with a situation where we actually have to drop the tax to 1¾. It’s dropping by a half every once in a while.

What’s the reason for the promotion of liquid natural gas? Well, it is, I think, the fight between politics versus public policy. When it comes to public policy, what do we know? We know that the Premier herself has promised a debt-free B.C. Oh my goodness, if you want to go over the top, there’s one.

According to the B.C. budget, B.C.’s debt is scheduled to reach — wait for it — $68.9 billion by March 31, 2017.

[1500]

That’s not a generation away. That’s not a decade away. That’s less than 2½ years.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Now, I know I’ve got the members chirping now, and I’m always pleased when the members opposite actually pay some attention to the opposition.

The member who wants to be Attorney General chirps up, wanting to get into the front rows again. Surely the member is not suggesting that it’s being in the gutter to move into the Office of the Attorney General. I’m sure that’s not what he meant to say.

Now he’s even questioning my dress. I’m shocked and hurt. The member for one of the Fraser Valley ridings only earlier liked my tie. But that’s another day.

What’s driving this? I’ll tell you what’s driving this. It is not necessarily public policy, which is what should be the driver behind it. It is the tawdry thing that many of us have to acknowledge, and that is good old politics, raw B.C. politics. “We made the big promise. We won an election. We’ve got to deliver.” [Applause.]

My goodness. If that was enthusiasm for liquid natural gas, I must say the future of liquid natural gas doesn’t look too promising in British Columbia.

What’s the problem? The problem, as I said, is political. We have a government that has made commitments around liquid natural gas that it probably can’t fulfil. We have promises of plants that may never be built. We have promises of investment that have yet to come to fruition.

As we have already dropped, as I said, from 7 percent to 3½ percent in terms of the liquid natural gas tax rate, you could argue that perhaps the government has even sold us out for their politics again, instead of relying on public policy.

It’s rather amusing. The explanation for it is — and I attributed the change — that it’s due to “economic conditions changing.” I understand the economy. I know the members opposite think nobody over here does. We understand the economy. But when the tax is profit-based, it’s really not the changing economic conditions that cause that problem. It’s kind of odd. It’s like the B.C. Liberals don’t understand how the tax works: if you don’t make a profit, you don’t pay tax.

In my experience, most of the business people I have dealt with in my community over time — and there have been many — have always been more interested in their revenue issues than they are in their taxation issues. There is nothing sweeter than to have to go to an accountant at the end of the year and try and figure out
[ Page 5530 ]
every possible deduction you can manage in order to reduce the income tax you’re going to be paying. But nobody can rush out at the end of the year, unless you’re a happy retailer, and solve the revenue problem.

Market conditions. We know they’re always changing. Does that mean the tax, as I suggested earlier, is going to drop now from 3½ to 1¾? Is it going to get worse? I mean, is the end in sight, where we’ll actually, at some point, if things continue to decline in the Liberal world view, have to pay someone to take our gas? Is that how far it’s going to go?

It’s only this government’s incredible political promises that have put us into this place. It’s only the incredible political promises. Instead of talking about good public policy, we’re still talking politics. That is one of the problems. We have inflated the expectations of British Columbians, and not just the happy generation who have enjoyed the prosperity that follows the postwar boom in the western world, generally.

We’ve inflated, unreasonably, the hopes and aspirations of all those young people, firstly, who are still waiting to get trained by a government that hasn’t bothered to put in place the kind of training regime that it should have in order to ensure you have the workers in the first place. We have inflated the expectations of their parents — that those kids won’t be part of the boomerang generation, that they’ll actually have good employment and decent jobs, that they’ll be able to participate fully in the economy and enjoy the same kinds of benefits their parents’ generation did.

[1505]

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that that isn’t the case. That is simply not the case. We on this side of the House are asking that the government try and be realistic about what liquid natural gas can do.

I think one of the members earlier today used the term “transformational.” It seems to me I recall a Premier — wasn’t it? — who used the term “transformational change.” Wasn’t that somewhere in a throne speech or something? I am looking to our House Leader for a little guidance and assistance here.

M. Farnworth: Several throne speeches.

L. Krog: Several throne speeches: transformational change. What is that French expression? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Here we are, once again, being promised this bright future around one resource, and yet all of the evidence would indicate that in order to succeed in the modern economy, in the modern world, in any economy going up against the problems of globalization…. Going back to Andrew Carnegie, putting all those eggs in one basket just doesn’t make sense anymore.

Indeed, that’s one of the problems with the Liberal’s emphasis on liquid natural gas. They have put their political eggs in one basket. They don’t know what else to do. They don’t appear to have any significant ability to address the increasing provincial debt.

I remember, happily, back in the ’90s, when the provincial debt was being increased to create significant infrastructure around the province — whether it be the building of the inland Island highway or other things — and how the Liberals were screaming that the end was near. You thought the world was going to collapse and British Columbia would disappear as an economic power — that things would get so bad.

We on this side have no problem with infrastructure and no problem with exploiting public resources in a sensible and reasonable way. But the expectations that have been inflated around this are so significant and so unrealistic, all it will ultimately do is lead to a further destruction of public confidence in the political process, because at some point the voters of B.C. are going to wake up and think to themselves that they got sold a bill of goods again.

We have seen the rushes in the province’s history, whether it’s the gold rush, or the rush to exploit furs, or timber, or fish. Whatever the case may be, it’s been over and over again….

M. Farnworth: Water licences.

L. Krog: Water licences. Yes, we’ve seen that gold rush too. The gold rushes on our rivers. You don’t have to go very far. You can trot up to the library. Any of the members opposite can go read George Bowering’s book about British Columbia’s history, Bowering’s B.C.: A Swashbuckling History.

The attitudes have not changed. Everybody gets excited. We think we’re involved in another gold rush, and away we go. Surely, at some stage the political discourse in this province will have to start to resolve itself around the concept of facts and some credibility and some honesty and good public policy.

If this government could deliver all these gas plants…. It’s just like I said to the Minister of Housing once: if he’d put the housing unit up in my community, I would thank him publicly and personally. And I did. If this government can deliver on all those plants in the time frame they’ve indicated, I think we’d all be quite excited, assuming they would remain operational and British Columbians would be employed, not temporary foreign workers.

If that young generation following us could see a future, if the government would retrieve the resource revenues that they believe they are entitled to, obviously — that we need and we all want to have…. After all, when the liquid natural gas is gone, there goes that revenue source.

Interjection.
[ Page 5531 ]

L. Krog: That’s the problem with it. The member says 150 years. Goodness gracious. If we’ve got 150 years, probably someone in Russia has 150 years, and someone else someplace else has 150 years.

I know that member prides himself on being an intellectual, so I know he’s aware that the government of China is sending a great deal of its fleet into the China Sea. There are significant oil and gas finds there that they want to get their political hands on, quite appropriately. What we’re conscious of is that, unlike some of the doomsayers of a decade or two ago, there appears to be more oil and more liquid natural gas available than we ever thought.

[1510]

On one hand, you can say, “That’s wonderful,” but the implications are that the market for it, therefore, is much diminished — that it will not be the great boon that the B.C. Liberals and the Premier herself have promised over and over again. It will not deliver the kinds of revenues. What it will clearly not deliver is the debt-free B.C. that we were promised.

I mean, even the Minister of Finance has taken some time now and used very careful words to talk about…. Perhaps the time at which the debt will disappear may be somewhat longer than what we’d anticipated. There’s a little blush off that rose, and one can understand that. It’s always good for somebody on the opposite side to inject just a tiny note of realism into the government’s expectations around liquid natural gas. Again, I come back to it: good public policy versus bad public policy.

Good public policy means that this government would have been moving forward with this some time ago, would have realized changing market conditions, would not have inflated expectations and would have had this tax regime or any regime in place much sooner so that just maybe we might have caught this last wave of investment.

We know that these international investment companies — these international oil and gas companies — are looking for opportunities all around the planet. They will check out all kinds of regimes. As much as we are close to the Pacific Rim, China signed — what was it? — a $400 billion deal with Russia — May 2014, a 30-year deal, $400 billion U.S. I don’t know where this government comes from, but I’ve got to tell you, back home in dear old Nanaimo $400 billion is a pretty big number, and a 30-year deal indicates a pretty significant commitment.

China’s already secured that with Russia. If China is able to exercise sovereignty over the South China Sea, settles its issues with Vietnam and, perhaps, the Philippines, they will have another source, a significant source, of the very thing which the member for Delta South talked about — that is, the realization that we have to shift our sources of energy from the traditional carbon-based in order to literally save the planet.

We’ve tied our horse with this government to something which the world recognizes they should be using less of, which are carbon-based fuels, and said that we have to move into the use of liquid natural gas because it creates less pollution — instead of, I would argue, this government’s opportunity to significantly invest in the kind of technological change, the kind of research and the kind of development of bright young minds to find alternate sources of energy that do not have the significant environmental impact that has occurred over the previous decades, literally since the 19th century, when we started to use oil in a significant way.

They’ve had that opportunity, but they’ve chosen not to exploit it for whatever reason.

What we do know is that the government is losing ground on this one. We may well have missed the boat, and the government will have to deal with the political fallout that flows from it.

I hear the Minister of Energy and Mines. I’m always pleased to hear from him. He’s very gracious. I noticed today he didn’t take the opportunity when I talked about the ’90s. He chose not to use his favourite phrase now that he’s become so well known for when he refers to it as being in the last century, unless, of course, you’re talking about the NDP. Then, of course, I guess it’s the dismal decade as opposed to last century.

What we do know is this. The government made a promise. The government made a commitment. The government inflated expectations. The government has raised the bar, and the government’s got to deliver. I just don’t sincerely believe they can.

[1515]

It’s unfortunate because in the days when there were higher rates of unionization in this province, when there were of tens of thousands of people employed in the resource industry, able to support their families and support their communities, it was, in a sense, a golden era. The B.C. Federation of Labour represented that golden era — all of those decent, good-paying jobs created as a result of the hard work of unions across this province and leaders in every community trying to do the best for the workers.

I can’t close today without making reference to Jim Sinclair, who will leave office this week after a distinguished career as head of the B.C. Federation of Labour. And I do have to pay my compliments to the members opposite, who clapped with as much enthusiasm as the members on this side of the House did, extolling his virtues.

I don’t mean to be too cheeky and no disrespect to Jim Sinclair, who’s a friend and a person I admire and who knows my feelings about him and his incredible contribution. It puts me in mind of the story about Tommy Douglas. He was being toured around….

Interjection.

L. Krog: If the member will just be quiet, I’ll tell the story. But I know the member loves to hear his own voice,
[ Page 5532 ]
so perhaps he should go into a closet somewhere and talk to himself.

He was being toured around a university in Scotland by, of course, the local establishment. There was a statue of this long-dead radical leader, and they were all admiring it. Douglas was looking up, being welcomed home to his native country. Of course, he turned to those assembled and said, looking at the establishment around him: “There’s nothing the establishment so loves as a dead socialist.”

Well, what I’m suggesting is that the enthusiasm for Mr. Sinclair may reflect the fact that he’s going to be out of office shortly and not able to help lead the fight against this government. And that is too bad.

By way of coming back to my remarks about liquid natural gas and the importance of decent, union-paying jobs, Jim Sinclair would be leading that fight to find decent jobs. That’s what the opposition wants out of liquid natural gas. We want decent jobs for British Columbians. We want our share for our families and our children and our grandchildren. We want to ensure that it’s developed responsibly. We want to ensure that we get that return which we deserve.

I’ve still got the pencil — a 1972 NDP pencil. The line on it says: “You’ll pay more for this pencil than B.C. gets for royalties on a ton of coal.” It’s one of the reasons W.A.C. Bennett lost the ’72 election — because British Columbians sensed, finally, that they were being sold out. They were being sold out in terms of their patrimony and the wealth of this province.

That’s why we’re asking: has the government struck the deal with this bill? Are we getting the return we deserve on our resources and, in particular, natural gas generally — not necessarily liquefied natural gas? Are we getting that return?

More importantly, are the First Nations of this province — the original occupiers of the land, the people who have occupied the land since time immemorial — going to get the benefit that they so richly deserve, let alone for their current compensation but as some form of compensation for all of that which has been taken from them?

For our children and our grandchildren, are we going to protect our air and our land and our water and live up to our climate commitments? We saw with a previous bill this session that the commitment to climate change and the good work that Gordon Campbell undertook when he was Premier seems to have become shocking….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh well, the member says it’s the first time he’d heard it. I’m sure that if he reads Hansard, he can see my remarks.

The good work that was done to move this province forward in acknowledging what the president of the United States now and even the president of China are acknowledging — even the president of China…. The good work that was done is now being shunted aside as this government does its best to try and exploit the last card it has to play, which is liquid natural gas.

As I said, I’d be delighted if they’d build all the plants and if the employment would be generated the way it has been promised. But — what is it? — Missouri is the Show Me State. So show me.

[1520]

We’ve got two and a half years to the next election. Show me that all the promises that were made in 2013 are going to come to pass, that all of the jobs that have been promised are going to be created, that all of the revenue that’s been promised is going to start to flow, that all of the bright future promises that have been made about British Columbia and what it’s going to be like will be fulfilled.

It’s rather like my grandson. I have two. The five-year-old told grandma he wants a trail bike for Christmas. Now, I must tell the House that grandma and grandpa are not going to buy him a trail bike.

Interjections.

L. Krog: No, and Santa isn’t either. As the members well know, firstly, it would be illegal for a child to ride a vehicle of that type at that age. But he’s got to be realistic about his expectations for Christmas.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Not that mean. I promise to send the chirpy member opposite a bag of coal for Christmas so he can keep warm.

He’s got to be realistic; this government has to be realistic. I look forward to seeing how that dose of realism actually is taken in by this government. Let’s just see 2½ years from now who’s still promoting a debt-free B.C. and liquid natural gas as the great saviour of this province. I look forward to it. I’m delighted by the concept that this government has wrapped itself in that flag, has tied itself to that wagon — every cliché and excuse you can use. Let’s just see how far we get with it. Let’s just see how far we get.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s always impressive to note how the member opposite, and the members opposite more generally, can turn a generational opportunity into bad news. The members opposite seem to have no faith in the abilities of our people to work in highly sophisticated environments to attract capital and to attract employment. That’s why we are here, and to be blunt, that’s why this party got elected in the last election.

The member opposite laments the involvement or lack thereof, in his mind, of First Nations. He apparently hasn’t spoken with Mr. Ross Ellis, chief of the Haisla First Nation, who speaks at every opportunity and will be in Toronto talking to an international conference put on
[ Page 5533 ]
by The Economist in about two weeks about the opportunities in British Columbia related to natural gas, and how deeply and thoroughly involved his First Nation is in this opportunity.

Now, the members opposite also seem to think that the world is full of bad market opportunities, that we have all our eggs in one basket, that we have no confidence in our own people, that pessimism should rule the day. In fact, the markets are prime for this opportunity.

Liquid natural gas, as I said earlier, is a generational opportunity. It means that British Columbians can unlock a resource that was previously very difficult to extract and is now entirely feasible for extraction and export. All of us know, through common sense, common knowledge and reading the newspapers, that the North American markets for natural gas will be saturated in the next decades. And so we have the obligation, if we can, to serve the public interest by exporting our gas in liquefied form to the active markets in Asia.

This is truly a generational opportunity, again, recognized in The Economist last week in its special insert section on the economy of Pacific Ocean countries.

The Canadian natural gas opportunity is amongst the best in the world. That is not really in doubt anywhere except on the opposite side of this House. The introduction of the LNG income tax gives proponents the certainty they’ll need to make decisions. They have to put together their entire capital model to find the financing and to put together projects that will actually be viable in the marketplace. This is not a simple task, and this government has been entirely cooperative by putting our cards on the table.

[1525]

This bill is probably one of the last cards to be put on the table so that decisions can be made, so that those important capital investments can come to the decision point. These decisions are being made all over the world. It’s not like they’re being made in Victoria or Vancouver. They’re being made in the Hague and in Malaysia and in other capitals around the world, because energy markets are global.

The members opposite don’t want to hear that. They think that we can determine the market locally, that we are vulnerable to foreigners and outsiders coming and stealing our resources and that we don’t have the skills here to extract and process those resources ourselves. They are entirely wrong in those propositions.

We’ve been consulting with industry on a new revenue framework that will deliver long-term benefits to British Columbians and provide industry with a certainty it requires to be successful, to make those final investment decisions. Our government is confident that British Columbia will be a highly competitive, attractive jurisdiction for billions of dollars of investment from multinationals all around the world who are the ones most active in energy markets.

We’re looking at a potential 18 LNG projects in British Columbia. That speaks for itself. It’s almost impossible to get a hotel room in Terrace. It’s almost impossible to charter a helicopter anywhere in northern British Columbia because there is so much activity going on by all of these proponents in determining their prospects in this space.

Do we expect 18 LNG plants to materialize? No. But we do expect a good number of those to materialize, along with the feeder pipelines in the gas fields of northeastern British Columbia and the delivery pipelines that will traverse northern British Columbia to the coast.

This will generate enormous opportunities for British Columbians and for the people of the entire province through the tax revenues, through the employment opportunities, through the training opportunities and all of the benefits that arise from massive investments in highly sophisticated industries.

That level of capital investment, of course, generates training and employment opportunities. British Columbians will and can become leaders in this field, just as Albertans are leaders worldwide in oil field services, just as mining development is based primarily in the city of Vancouver on a worldwide market basis. The talent is here, the skills are here, and they will be deployed and developed right here in British Columbia.

We have another great advantage, and that is the rule of law. It’s not just large reserves of natural gas. It’s not just a skilled workforce. It’s not just our robust infrastructure. It’s not the fact that we are in the right climatic zone to deliver cool gas for liquefication rather than the hot gas found in most markets in the world. The rule of law gives us a distinct advantage. We are not Mozambique or Tanzania.

The member opposite suggests that Russia somehow has the leap on us by signing a deal with China for $400 billion worth of natural gas over about 40 years. That would amount to about 1 percent of the energy supply for China if — and it’s a big if — Russia is actually prepared to deliver it on a reliable basis. I don’t think any of us would be rushing to invest in a Russian gas pipeline. Yet we have investors from around the world interested and enthusiastic to invest right here in British Columbia.

The LNG tax framework that is the subject of this bill applies to net income derived from liquefaction activities at LNG facilities in B.C. This, of course, is in addition to all the property taxes, in addition to the income taxes from the individuals who’ll be employed in the field.

The tax rate on net income from those liquefaction activities will be 3.5 percent, effective for taxation years beginning after January 1, 2017. This is a reasonable tax level that responds to market forces, that guarantees a return for British Columbians. In 2037 the tax rate on net income will increase to 5 percent.

This is a response to market forces, something this government fully respects and understands and that the
[ Page 5534 ]
members opposite should perhaps take a few courses in so they can bring themselves up to speed.

This government is also notable, as is all of Canada, for respect for property. If an investor purchases property, as a number of the multinational energy companies have purchased gas rights in northeastern British Columbia, those are ironclad rights. They will not be taken away by government in a capricious act of the sort that may happen on the east coast of Africa or in Russia. This gives us a huge advantage in the world energy markets because all large investors seek, above all else, stability and certainty. We offer both.

[1530]

These are large capital investments that require financing, and the lenders require stability and certainty. That is what we offer.

That, of course, trickles down through billions of dollars of capital investment to provide the kind of prosperity that our communities benefit from. Terrace and Kitimat are going through booms in terms of employment, in terms of hotel spaces being built, in terms of aircraft charters and in terms of infrastructure. Prince Rupert is on the edge of a similar boom.

This also, of course, benefits not just the local communities along Highway 16 in the north but also our very own technology sector. We have the talent. We have the ideas. We have the companies that can deliver on clean tech remedies and solutions for these investors and also on the massive infrastructure and data management demands that they place upon the systems.

We have an opportunity, as well, to provide a much more extensive fibre optic connection in the north because these linear corridors will be being built. Dropping some fibre optics in with those pipelines costs next to nothing and provides critical environmental monitoring opportunities and a sophisticated and high-volume data channel for the rest of the province to use, in addition to the investors themselves.

In short, this is a generational opportunity that this bill will provide the necessary certainty for so that we can all proceed toward a brighter future with heavy capital investment, with employment, with skills development and a brighter future for all of British Columbia — and, for that matter, for all of Canada, because we are Canada’s Pacific province, and the future lies on this ocean.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 6, the LNG tax framework bill. It’s an important piece of legislation before the House — one that has been awaited with considerable anticipation for many, many months now.

I’ve been listening with interest to the comments from my colleague across the way. The thing that has struck me…. In his remarks, he used the term “generational opportunity.” Well, all I can say is yes, it’s an opportunity. But the generational thing? It’s a generational spin opportunity from the government, the way that they have been trying to sell LNG to the people of the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I see the Minister of Energy made some comment. The issue is not the fact that LNG is going to take place. We hope LNG succeeds. The reality is the hype and the hyperbole that has taken place around the issue of LNG in the province of British Columbia.

I see the Attorney General applauding.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, she says: “Applauding the hope.” Well, I think what would be better than applauding the hope and pinning your economic policy on hope is, rather, being realistic and upfront with people in the province of British Columbia.

That’s what the people of this province want. They want government to be straight up with them on the facts — on the opportunity, the costs and the benefits, as well as the impacts. We have yet to see that from this government.

What we have seen, as I said a moment ago, is generational spin in action. We saw it prior to the election, where the Premier went around, along with the Attorney General and others on that side of the House, saying: “The debt will be paid off in 15 years if we get LNG going in British Columbia. The province’s debt will be paid off in 15 years.” Starting in 2017, we found out afterwards — which is further down the road.

“It’s going to be paid off in 15 years. Oh, and then we can get rid of the provincial sales tax, and we can pay off B.C. Hydro’s debt.” All these incredible things were going to happen with LNG, and a $100 billion prosperity fund. Talk about spin on a generational opportunity level. I’ve never seen anything quite like it from any government in this province — all of those things that were promised prior to the election.

Then after the election we were told that, oh, we would see a framework in place by the end of last year. Well, the end of last year came and went, and we didn’t see a framework.

[1535]

We were told in the spring, in the throne speech: “Well, it’ll be in the budget. We will start to see the numbers that this government is going to…. The revenue that we can expect, the tax rate that these companies that are going to invest here are going to be paying, and exactly…. Those of you who doubt our intent, you will see.”

The budget was tabled, and it was 7 percent. Okay, 7 percent was the rate of return that this government was going to expect on after-tax profits on LNG plants that were to be built in the province of British Columbia. And
[ Page 5535 ]
as the minister himself said a few moments ago: “There are 18 under consideration.” It’s grown over time. There are 18 under consideration. This is what we can expect, and this is how we’re going to pay off the debt in 15 years, because if the tax rate is 7 percent, you’re able to do that.

When you calculate it, it comes out to…. Just over $6 billion a year would have to go just on the debt itself to be able to achieve that goal. That means no money going to health care, no money going to education, no money going into a prosperity fund. That’s just $6 billion a year additional going onto the debt in order to achieve that goal in the time frame that the government said, and that was at a tax rate of 7 percent on net profits.

That was pointed out at the time on this side of the House and outside this House, in other jurisdictions that have much more experience on the petroleum and gas side of things than this government does — that, you know, the government is being a bit unrealistic. It needs to kind of bring its expectations down to earth.

Well, over the last number of months the government has said that they’ve been engaged in negotiations. They’ve had lots of press releases, and they have lots of announcements saying a memo of understanding here, a commitment here, a commitment there. But they’ve always waffled and said: “No, you’re just going to have to wait and see what it is that the province is going to be receiving.”

We had two bills tabled this session, one dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and which, as my colleague from Nanaimo pointed out, undoes the work that was done by the previous Premier, Mr. Campbell. But this particular piece of legislation also showed, then, exactly what was going to be the government’s final position in terms of the tax rate that it was expecting, the tax rate that it was going to achieve for the resource that British Columbians own — and that British Columbians expect the vast majority of those benefits to be here in our province.

It wasn’t 7 percent. It wasn’t 6 percent. It wasn’t 5 percent, which many had speculated the government would drop it to. There was considerable expectation that 5 percent would be the number that the government would come in at. No. Instead, the government came in at the number 3½ percent. That is what they said market conditions would bear.

Well, it’s really particularly interesting when you start to look at that — what happened between February’s budget and this point in the calendar in terms of market conditions.

We hear from the members opposite, and we heard from the minister a moment ago, about the changes that have taken place, that it is global market conditions. Everybody knows it’s global market conditions. People outside this province and on this side of the House have said there are global forces at work, whether it is in Russia, whether it is in Qatar, whether it is in Mozambique, whether it is in Australia, whether it’s in the United States, whether it’s even in Europe.

The minister, in his previous remarks, said we have a 150-year supply. Yeah, we do. So does the United Kingdom, who last year raised their reserves to 150 years. So does Russia. In fact, they probably have 300 or 400 years. So does Qatar. They already have enormous reserves which they want to send to India. Australia — huge reserves that have increased dramatically worldwide. Yet that was never an issue when the government first made its announcement, but it has since that time.

All those facts were known back in February when the 7 percent was tabled. The changes in market conditions have been taking place for quite some time. Those things have been in place.

[1540]

The issue around the change in the demand supply within North America…. With the emergence of significant shale gas resources in the United States, there is less of a need for the resources that we have here in British Columbia.

This side of the House has been well aware of those market conditions. The question and the criticism that we have of the government is their reliance on the hype. We’ve watched over the last several months as you no longer hear now the Premier wanting to talk about paying off the debt in 15 years. In fact, if you were to take that same formula of paying it off in 15 years on the new tax rate, it would be more than 30 years. How’s that for keeping a promise?

Like I said, it comes back to: LNG is an opportunity for this province that we want to make sure we benefit from, but it has clearly been a generational spin opportunity for the government side of the House. I think that has been one of the major concerns.

In terms of the government being able to meet the financial promises and the commitments that it said would be achieved by LNG, this tax rate is not going to be able to do all those things that the government said it would. And that’s unfortunate.

There’s another aspect to LNG and the success of LNG in British Columbia that British Columbians are looking towards. That is ensuring that the employment opportunities, the training opportunities, the skills opportunities are here in British Columbia — that they’re not for temporary foreign workers. They’re for British Columbians and for Canadians. Again, the government has been out saying: “Oh, we have the people. We have the skills. We have the training. We have all those things.”

The Minister of Technology said: “Oh, the opposition doesn’t have faith in the people of British Columbia.” No, we do have faith in the people of British Columbia if they have the opportunity to get the skills and the training — which, unfortunately, under this government for the last decade has not been taking place in the way that it should have.
[ Page 5536 ]

In fact, back in 2003 they were warned. They were warned about the lack of skills training taking place in this province, and they failed to do anything about it until last year, when they said: “Oh my God, there are these projects, but there are labour shortages, potentially. We’ve got to do something about it.” Now they’re trying to play catch-up on an issue that they were warned about and warned about and warned about some ten years ago. I don’t see the Attorney General applauding that. Mind you, it’s not a record I think is deserving of applauding.

Again, the public have real concerns when it comes to the development of LNG in this province. We’re already seeing…. Again, it comes back to…. The government said market forces and market conditions are all global. Of course they are. This is a globally traded commodity, but it requires labour and skilled people to get it out of the ground and to build the pipelines for us to take maximum opportunity of it here in British Columbia.

Yet we are faced with global pressures and global challenges from companies outside British Columbia who come to North America, who come to Canada, who come to British Columbia. They want the lowest price possible, and you can’t blame them for that. That’s their job. That is what they want to do — to get the product they need at the lowest possible price. We all recognize that. I mean, the government went out there like someone walking into a bazaar, seeing something and going: “Oh, I like. I like. I like. I like.” Automatically sending out signals that, well, guess what. They want it so bad, they’re going to be prepared to not bargain as hard as they might think.

[1545]

I’m reminded of the comments the Premier said several months ago when she was told that there’s going to be downward pressure on the price that other nations, that other companies are prepared to pay for LNG in British Columbia. Her comments were very typical. It was: “I am not worried about that one bit. I will put our negotiators up against the ‘price-takers’ in Asia any day of the week. We’ve got nothing to worry about.” Well, it was 7 percent in February; it’s 3½ percent now.

Those companies who made it clear that the tax rate was not good at 7 percent and needed to come down significantly are now making more demands that are also concerning people in this province. You’re seeing it next door in Alberta where a number of energy companies out of Asia are saying that they find — they’re complaining to the federal government — that Canadian workers are too expensive, that Canadian managers are too expensive, that they don’t want to pay the going rate here in Canada for skilled professionals.

They’re wanting to bring workers from their own countries here to do jobs that are already being done by Canadians or should be being done by Canadians who would get training. It’s happening in Alberta. Given this government’s record of lack of training over the last decade, I will not be surprised one bit to see it start to happen here. We already saw it with HD Mining.

If the opportunity of LNG is to be real for the people of this province, they need to understand and need to know and have faith that government has their best interests. That means, one, the protecting of our environment. It means, two, ensuring First Nations participation. It means, three, getting a fair rate of financial return. But for most people, if you were to ask them, it’s that the employment opportunities are here in this province for the people who live in this province, for the people who built this province, for the people who pay taxes in this province and for Canadians — that they should be first in line.

When we see the approach that has been taken over the last ten years and their willingness to say…. In fact, the Premier is standing up and basically saying that if you’re against temporary foreign workers, you’re against immigrants, and trying to use some specious, nonsense argument about temporary foreign workers being halfway to citizenship — which they’re not, and she knows that they’re not.

We have a good, strong immigration policy in this country that is based on being able to come into this country, for people who have skills and who have education and/or skills training, where you don’t surrender your passport when you come into this country and you have the same rights and responsibilities as a landed immigrant, with the exception of voting, as every other Canadian. That’s the pathway to citizenship, not temporary foreign workers. That’s what people are concerned about, and so far that has not been seen.

Instead, we continue to get the hype. Again, the minister stands and he says: “Oh, the companies are spending all this money in exploration, and they’re doing all these great things in Terrace and Kitimat.” You know what? They are spending a lot of money, they are evaluating the opportunity here in British Columbia, and they will spend a lot of money. That’s the nature of the business. But when they make their decision, they make it knowing that they’ve spent that much money, and they’re spending money like that in all those other jurisdictions as well. They’re doing their assessments, and then they’ll make their final investment decisions.

We have lots of advantages and lots of strengths. No one is disputing that. But there is a responsibility on the part of government, I think, to say: “Yeah, we have lots of strengths and lots of advantages, but there is a lot of competition.” The reality is if we get one or we get two, that’s going to be great. That’s a positive.

[1550]

This constant hype that we have seen in terms of paying off the debts, giving people unrealistic expectations in terms of just what LNG will generate, does the push for LNG a disservice. It does people a disservice. That’s not what should be happening.

Interjection.
[ Page 5537 ]

M. Farnworth: I hear my colleague from Surrey saying: “So you’re voting for it.” Well, you’ll find out when we have the vote.

What I’ve said — and I think what all of us have said — is that LNG is an opportunity for this province. I’d like to see it succeed. But what concerns me is this hyperinflation of expectation for people. One only has to look at it from when what was tabled in February, at 7 percent, is now 3½ percent and all the pressures that are still going to come on the province before any agreements are finalized, any final investments are made, any plants are built and the province receives any revenue.

With that, I think I’ve made my points that I want to make. I look forward to the member for Surrey-Panorama participating in the debate. I know there are other members who will be speaking. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill 6. You know, I want to start off by saying that what Bill 6 does and what we have been doing with the legislation this fall in a lot of the debate is to help to provide certainty for the investment community and help, also, to show the stability that we have in our province.

I’ve listened to the member for Port Coquitlam intensely as he talked about the thought that isn’t a generational opportunity. I find that interesting, in that we have a window of time to attract…. Just think: one project would be $36 billion. That’s Petronas, potentially. A second project, for example, Shell — I think they’ve put their numbers out — is going to be close to $40 billion. There are 18 possible projects. Do the math. There has never been another opportunity in British Columbia like the one we have today, and it is up to us to seize it and to have that certainty for that industry — not for the members opposite to get up and just dismiss it as if it was something just in the passing.

Creating certainty is what is also critical, as I mentioned from the beginning. The LNG tax. This bill, Bill 6, lays out what companies need to do within the province in terms of a taxation regime. The previous bill that we had debate on here, which the opposition voted against and voted to delay, lays the certainty around the environment and what we need to do in this province.

What the opposition seems to want to do is just to say that, yes, they support LNG but that, no, they don’t want it to happen. They want delays. Yes, they support the idea of LNG, but no, they don’t want to extract the gas. They don’t want to use fracking. “Yes, we want to see LNG.” But then they call it a pipedream. That is not certainty, that kind of talk. All that kind of talk does is show to investors, should they have had the fortune to be in government, that they can’t do business in B.C.

It’s not wrong to think about what you can do, to think about what the future could possibly be, to try to lay a path that will see prosperity for people in British Columbia. Yet the members opposite seem to think we shouldn’t even talk about that — that it shouldn’t even be something that is considered. It’s no wonder why they’re sitting on that side of the House.

The member for Port Coquitlam talked about training and what we need to do to create the potential here. We’ve more than tripled the number of people that have been in training in trades. That’s what we have done since 2001 in British Columbia. Do we need to do more? Yes.

[1555]

That is what our jobs plan is all about, which is what we’ve laid out. We’ve taken great strides. The member opposite would have you believe that nothing has happened in this province. The benefits of liquefied natural gas to British Columbia are clear: literally, the potential for hundreds of billions of dollars from investment; it will create thousands upon thousands of jobs; and it will open up communities in the northwest that have struggled for many, many decades now, and open up potential for them to see real growth and meaningful growth.

I think about what is going on in Kitimat — the training opportunities, the unemployment level drop, the demand for housing, the prosperity that’s happening in that community. The member for Skeena, when he got up and talked about this in his throne speech response, talked about that as a problem. This isn’t a problem. This is an opportunity. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that will transform communities, especially for First Nations.

First Nations want LNG to happen. They want to be able to see the benefits. We want to make sure that First Nations can build wealthy and healthy communities that have the potential to fully participate in this opportunity.

When the members opposite stand up and want to delay the project…. They come out and say things like “Government’s moving too fast” but then “Government’s not moving fast enough” or “It’s disastrous if it takes off” but “We must exploit this opportunity.” When they send those mixed messages, what are they saying? They’re saying to First Nations communities and to all of British Columbians that they seem to care less if this opportunity was there.

This is an opportunity that, for example, the Haisla have seized, along with the other things that are going on in the Kitimat area…. It has literally transformed their community. They’ve gone from 65 percent unemployment to somewhere around 15 percent unemployment. The amount of training and opportunities that have been involved for that nation is phenomenal.

We were just down here last week celebrating Nisga’a entering into an agreement with the province and previously having entered into an agreement with TransCanada Pipelines. What that will do for that treaty nation is phenomenal. It creates revenue streams. It creates strength. It creates opportunities for entrepreneurialism. It literally transform lives. That’s a generational opportunity, if I’ve ever seen one. The members opposite just pooh-poohed….
[ Page 5538 ]

When I look at other communities up and down the line for the pipes and when I look at what’s going on in Prince Rupert and the potential for Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams and when I look at what’s going on up in the northeast and the opportunity for First Nations there, it is absolutely remarkable what this will do.

We need to seize this opportunity. We need to be out promoting it. We need to be out talking about it. We need to attract investment. We need to make sure that when those companies make the decisions on where they’re going to spend the billions upon billions of dollars, British Columbia is right up near the top.

We also, of course, want to make sure that when we do this, we can leave an environmental legacy. It’s why we announced the LNG environmental stewardship initiative, working with First Nations on environmental stewardship projects that can help meet many of the things that First Nations would like to achieve on the land base. We can do that through the potential investment that we’re going to get from liquefied natural gas.

We’ve been out talking with First Nations about training — how we want to make sure that the training opportunity is there in advance of these projects so that they can take full advantage of the work that is coming. We’re out working with communities all across the north, non–First Nations communities, talking about how this will change and how we can work with them in support of the various projects as they come down the pipe.

This is a time to be bold. This is a time, as one legislature, to be able stand up and support a direction in liquefied natural gas that will be the generational opportunity that we talk about.

[1600]

This is the time to stand up, to vote and say: “Yes, we want liquefied natural gas in B.C. We want to support the natural gas industry. We want to support the environmental standards that are going to make it successful. We want those jobs that are going to be created to be there for British Columbians, for Canadians.”

We also want to welcome new Canadians. We don’t want to be anti-immigration. We want workers from all around the world to be able to come to British Columbia and to become Canadians and help to build the fabric of our society, just like we have for generations.

This opportunity — the opposition, I think, quite frankly would like to see it fail. That is a real shame. When you look at all of their comments, the types of things that they say: “It will never create jobs” or “LNG is dangerous” — all of these quotes coming from opposition members — or “Embracing this opportunity is equal to insanity” and “LNG is a fantasy….”

Interjections.

Hon. J. Rustad: I can give you all the dates and times of the words that you guys said in this Legislature and other places, if you’d like. For example, “Embracing LNG opportunity equals insanity” was said by one of the members from Victoria on April 3, on Gen Why Media video, of 2013.

“LNG is a fantasy” was said by a member from the Tri-Cities on February 14, 2014. I could go on and on and give you dates from all of those quotes. But the reality is simple. This Legislature should show all British Columbians that we need to be strong and bold in support of the creation of an LNG industry. That’s why I felt it important to stand up and support Bill 6, as I have stood up in support of the other bills around LNG.

That’s why I think it’s important we send this message in a timely way, so when industry makes their decisions, they know that they have a stable government in British Columbia, that they have a welcoming environment in British Columbia, that we can provide them with the certainty and we can provide them with that potential so that they will bring those dollars here and create those jobs and create that future.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

With that, I just want to say to all members of the House: embrace this. Stand up and support it. Stand up and support what this will do for all British Columbians. Quit being wishy-washy about all aspects of this. Let’s get on with building liquefied natural gas in British Columbia and all the potential it can bring.

J. Kwan: I speak to Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act.

I can’t help but comment on some of the remarks that the government members have made around this bill in relation to what the opposition’s point of views are. Let me just put it on the record very clearly, for everyone, so that there is no confusion whatsoever in terms of the opposition’s point of view on the natural gas industry.

The opposition has always taken this perspective: that is, to say that liquefied natural gas industry is far too important for us to get wrong in terms of how we proceed, how to move forward and what the promises are from the government.

We’ve always said that there are four essential principles that we want incorporated into the development of this industry. That is to ensure that there would be guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. That’s what we’ve always said — as opposed to the government’s first order of business, which is to turn to an alternative source for jobs and training. Primarily, they have been very much focused on foreign temporary workers.

The opposition has always said that we wanted a fair return for our resources, much like for all of our natural resources. We don’t actually stem away from that basic core principle: that is to say, these resources belong to all
[ Page 5539 ]
of us. Every single British Columbian has ownership of that resource, and we want a fair return of that resource back to British Columbians.

[1605]

The opposition has had a long history and continues to take leadership on this issue: that is, to respect the First Nations community, respecting them and recognizing them. In this instance, it’s not any different. What we’ve always said is that the LNG industry needs to include benefits for the aboriginal community, for the First Peoples of this land.

Last but not least, we’ve always said, as well, that doing all of this work is always a balance. As a core principle, we need to protect our land, our air and our water, including living up to climate commitments.

Those were the four principles that we’ve put on the record about the LNG industry. Contrary to what the government members want to portray to be the reality, those are the four core principles.

Now, I just want to set that aside for a minute as we debate Bill 6 to talk about what we know and what the government has said and what this bill actually shows and how that matches up with what the government and, more particularly, what the Premier has said around their commitments around the LNG industry.

We will all remember the grandiose promises that the Premier had made during the election campaign. We’ll all remember the 100,000 jobs that were going to land. The “Debt-free B.C.” bus — you’ll never forget the image of that “Debt-free B.C.” bus and how the LNG was going to wipe out the debt. It was going to create the prosperity fund. What was it? A hundred billion dollars that was going to be created for the prosperity fund?

Then, of course, we just finished debating Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, where the government touts that the LNG industry was going to be the cleanest in the world. We just finished debating Bill 2, and it shows very clearly it’s going to be anything but the cleanest LNG in the world. The government decided — in their way, right? — to actually not include upstream emissions in terms of accounting for that for environmental purposes.

Now, in Bill 6 what have we got? We have the development of the LNG industry. The Minister of Technology, I think, said earlier that we have no faith in “the people.” That’s what he said — according to the Minister of Technology. Let me be clear. It’s not that we have no faith in the people. What we don’t have faith in is in the government. That’s what we don’t have faith in. Particularly, we don’t have faith in this Premier and her grandiose promises and this government’s false commitments that they’ve made with respect to the LNG industry.

Why do I say that? You’re wondering: “Well, why is she saying that?” Well, let’s just go back and review for a minute the Premier’s record on the issue. As recent as back in February the government was touting an LNG tax rate of 7 percent. That was actually part of the government’s budget. Seven percent was what they said.

And what have we got here? Bill 6 does not talk about 7 percent. It actually talks about 3½ percent, at best. The LNG tax rate has been reduced by half. That’s really what we’re talking about. The government says one thing, and they turn right around and do another — really true to the Premier’s pattern of behaviour, exactly what she does with pretty well everything.

The government says that they had to do this, though. They always have a justification for things like this. They said they had to do this because of changing market conditions. Well, interestingly, the market conditions actually didn’t change all that much. That’s the truth and the reality of it.

[1610]

It’s not the opposition who’s been saying this. There have always been strong warnings from experts who said that high prices in Asia wouldn’t always last. Experts were warning that Japan’s nuclear industry wouldn’t always be shut down and that the Asian buyers would seek to negotiate lower prices through long-term contracts. They have always said that B.C. would have to compete with new supply from the U.S., from Australia, from Russia, from the Middle East and so on. Experts have always predicted that labour costs would rise if B.C. sought to develop multiple projects simultaneously.

Now, all of those warnings the government already knew. It was on the government’s radar. It wasn’t as if those things just popped up out of nowhere. I think what happened is that the government chose to ignore those warnings.

Very interesting, actually, if you go back to look at all of this information. Back in September 2012 the Macquarie Bank wrote a report in which they doubted that even four LNG plants would be built in B.C. They were predicting that B.C. would not become an LNG exporter until 2020. That’s actually a prediction from the banks, but that didn’t stop the Premier in making her grandiose promises during the election campaign. The report also says that the delays, the cost overruns and the emerging markets are all real threats that could undermine the economics of the projects.

This was actually on the public record back in September of 2012. The government had access to this information, the Premier had access to this information, the minister of gas had access to this information, so it’s not news to them. Then, of course, in February of 2013 the government came out with the predictions for the prosperity fund, which had mentioned — we’ve all heard this — 100,000 jobs, right? The prosperity fund was supposed to have — what was it? — $100 billion in the fund to retire the debt.

Now, with this bill, I’m not quite sure, actually, when that’s going to become reality. I’m not even sure if the bill actually talks about the prosperity fund. What’s happened to that grandiose promise?
[ Page 5540 ]

It’s not like government didn’t know it; they knew it. I guess it’s this Premier’s pattern, right? Go and say whatever you want about pretty well anything and then not worry about whether or not you could actually deliver on those promises. I think that’s the pattern of behaviour from this Premier.

Then in April of 2013, at an LNG conference in Vancouver, global energy experts doubted the credibility of the Premier’s optimism. They said that Asian buyers won’t be paying the windfall prices that have been in place since Japan shut down 48 of its 50 nuclear power stations after the Fukushima disaster, that Asian buyers would seek to decouple the prices of gas from the price of oil and that B.C. will face stiff competition over prices, with new supply coming from Africa, the U.S. and Australia.

The government knew this information, had this information, but still they persisted with their empty promises to British Columbians. Then, of course, going forward to May 2013, Citigroup warned that we would face increased supply competition, after the U.S. Department of Energy approved 26 LNG export facility applications in Texas on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

[1615]

This information ought to be, I would argue, on the government’s radar before they make the promises. Is it really possible that the Premier would actually go and make all these grandiose promises without actually doing her homework? Is that really possible for someone who’s running the province of British Columbia — would actually go about doing that work, making these promises without actually doing their homework?

I sometimes think that is just not at all possible. But here we are. We have proved yet again that that is exactly how the Premier conducts herself and how she does her business.

The export information does not stop there. Of course, in October 2013, Canada West Foundation wrote a report titled Managing Expectations assessing B.C.’s LNG industry. They said that Asia may soon have more than enough natural gas of its own and that B.C. will face competition from domestic production in China and from the pipeline imports to China. The minister of gas responded to the report by saying: “I don’t mind being accused of being optimistic.”

Well, here we are. The net result of that is that Bill 6, instead of having the 7 percent tax regime that the government claimed they were going to have, now has a reduced tax return at 3½ percent to British Columbians. But that doesn’t stop there. Even at 3½ percent, there are major loopholes in this bill, major loopholes that would actually see that 3½ percent diminish. In fact, one of those loopholes would be the corporate income tax credit which could reduce the corporate income tax paid by companies by up to 3 percent, offsetting the 3½ percent LNG income tax. That reduces it by another 3 percent, with the corporate income tax credit.

But that doesn’t stop there either, because there’s another major loophole. That other major loophole is the investment allowance, which means that the LNG companies get to earn a guaranteed profit that is exempt from the LNG tax. That is a guaranteed profit before the LNG tax is even applied. Even at 3½ percent, which was reduced from 7 percent, you still see a further reduction of that, according to Bill 6, through these giant loopholes that are contained in this document, in this bill, which is some 87 pages long.

The bill, maybe in this sense, in some ways, should be called, perhaps, the surplus profit tax because, really, at the end of the day, that’s what we’re talking about. The companies, by the way, according to this bill, would not actually have to pay the taxes unless they’ve recouped all of their capital costs. So we’re a very, very long way from actually seeing the revenue come in to do this so-called tax-free B.C., to reach this “Debt-free B.C.” agenda that the Premier had promised.

I should say that this prosperity fund…. I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I fear that we may never see this prosperity fund, most certainly not in the next few years, I would project.

[1620]

There’s no indication of how that would come about, actually, based on the government’s own projections now, the reduced projections that, in actual fact, maybe the Premier should have been saying right from the start so that British Columbians would actually know what they can expect from government in terms of the LNG industry, as opposed to these grandiose promises that the Premier had made during the election campaign.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is absolutely right. It is something that we’ve always known and that this bill, by the way, clearly outlines as well — that there are no revenue projections. There are no revenue projections whatsoever from Bill 6.

Hence, back to my former prediction — that is to say, the Premier’s promise on the prosperity fund and whether or not, in reality, it would actually materialize. At this rate, I would project we won’t see it coming to fruition, I don’t think — most certainly not in the next few years. I’m not even sure, at this rate, what would actually become reality at all. Even the government themselves, at this point, is not making these projections in terms of actual revenues, in that sense.

The troubling thing about all of these bills, of course, is that Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act; Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act; and everything that the government said prior to the election…. Now that we’re back in the Legislature, none of what they said is actually becoming reality, not by the government’s own admission by way of legislation that they have brought forward.
[ Page 5541 ]

Now, the government might say: “Oh, the opposition is just being naysayers.” The opposition is not being naysayers. What we’re doing is calling the government out on what they said they would deliver versus reality on what is happening.

The government, obviously, does not like that. They don’t appreciate that. So they try to make up attacks on the opposition or on anybody who might otherwise tout their line. If anybody will stand up and just correct the government on the record in any way, shape or form, somehow then they are deemed to be against the industry.

For us, as I said, what we’ve wanted, and what we’ve always said we wanted, is that we wanted to see guaranteed jobs and training for British Columbians first and foremost. We wanted to see the resources to benefit British Columbians. We wanted to see a fair return of those resources back to British Columbians. We wanted to see those benefits go to the First Nations community, the very first people of this land. And we wanted to make sure that we protect our air, our land and our water, including living up to the climate commitments.

These are important goals for all of us not just for today but for generations to come. I heard the ministers and members say, about the LNG industry, that it was going to bring generational changes to British Columbians. I believe that the LNG industry can and will bring generational changes.

That’s why it is so critically important that we do it right. That’s why it is so critically important that we actually get the experts’ opinions and thoughts and put those forward. That’s why it is so critically important that we tell British Columbians the truth of what’s going on. That’s why we don’t make grand projections and create an environment where there is a tremendous amount of distrust in the eyes of British Columbians about this industry.

[1625]

I think we have a responsibility to do that. We have a responsibility, and we owe it to future generations, to ensure that we do this right. For the opposition, it means those four conditions, four principles, that I have advanced and put forward.

S. Hammell: It gives me great pleasure to rise again in this House to join the debate on Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. I’ve enjoyed the debate in this House to date, and I’ve listened carefully to the comments from the members of the executive council, the members who support the government and members from the official opposition.

All I can say is “Wow.” This is a tale of two points of view. It’s not a dispute over whether the glass is half-full or half-empty but a dispute over a description of a glass that was once described by the government as overflowing.

This glass was overflowing with a $260 million prosperity fund, and that allowed B.C. to pay down its debt. That glass was overflowing with 16 to 17 LNG plants just on the horizon. That glass was overflowing with 100,000 jobs — 75,000 jobs here, 39,000 jobs over there — and trillions of dollars of economic activity.

Wow. Like, what a showstopper, $100 billion of economic activity. I mean, why wouldn’t we all stop and look? Of course, in that glass was unicorns and pixie dust galore. This was just before an election — surprise, surprise.

That was only a short year and a bit ago. There was water sloshing out of the glass, dripping onto everything as the prosperity overflowed — water dripping onto everything and everyone. Money for schools, money for education and services training. There would be more services for all of us, and we would breathe in that warm glow of prosperity from these promises.

Now, a year and a half later, what we hear from the other side is that we’re negative. I can’t believe it. We are negative. Everyone who has a brief on this, a watching brief on this show, has said that the promises were wild, exaggerated and that it will not come to fruition. Most of the water in the glass is gone, evaporated into thin air.

Don’t call us the naysayers. You’re sitting in an environment that’s saying this isn’t going to happen to the extent that you promised. Gone are now, even from you, the wild, exaggerated promises contrived to grasp and hold onto power for one more term.

Gone is the prosperity fund. Nobody talks about it anymore. The trillion dollars of predicted economic activity is also gone. Gone are the 12 to 17 LNG plants, gone is the first one opening up in 2015, and gone are the three to five done by 2020.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Gone is — sorry, I almost missed that — eliminating the debt in 15 years, gone is eliminating the sales tax, and gone are the 100,000 jobs. My gosh. We’re being negative? This is what you promised, and this is what is not being delivered. The dreams of unicorns and pixie dust are fading and drying up with the exaggerated promises.

Make no mistake. The members on this side of the House believe in a vibrant LNG industry, but they also believe in a vibrant forest industry, agriculture, high-tech, mining, tourism, manufacturing, research — a robust, well-rounded economy.

[1630]

That is what delivers education and training for the kids in the future of our province, not a single-minded focus on LNG that puts the province at a disadvantage, is obsessive and leads to desperation — overpromising, being all in on one hand and putting your eggs in one basket.

Really, is this the best we can do in B.C.? I sure don’t think so.

When we have jobs in this industry and we support industry in this province, there should be guarantees for
[ Page 5542 ]
jobs for the men and women of this province — well-paying, family-supporting jobs. There should be a return on the resources to the people of B.C. The resources belong to the people of B.C., and through the Crown, we should get some of the value of those resources back to the people. First Nations should be recognized as partners and receive their recognition and fair share, in terms of this industry and the other industries of our province.

We must, of all things, protect our land, our water and the air which we breathe, as it not only sustains us but will sustain our future.

Be clear. People on this side support an LNG industry, a robust LNG industry, but we also support robust varied industries that will support, in the long term, this economy and our province.

R. Fleming: I just want to make a few remarks this afternoon about the bill before us at second reading here and maybe finish off where my colleague just concluded her remarks.

I think all of us here, and indeed throughout British Columbia, have learned that when the Premier says that we are on the road to El Dorado, that we are going to achieve possibly not just hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue but perhaps even trillions of dollars of new revenue and a prosperity fund….

When the government that brought in the HST in 2009 starts to talk about how the sales tax may disappear altogether, when they use an economic modelling around job projections that is ten times higher than the one that the U.S. bipartisan congressional office uses to establish multiplier effects of their natural gas industry…. When the government talks as if this is the greatest thing since men and mules came to British Columbia to find gold, you know that you cannot believe a single word from this government.

What a difference between now, in 2014 in the fall, from what we heard just before the election in the spring of 2013. I just recited the campaign slogans that came off the Premier’s lips at that time. The reality is that there is nobody — except 40-odd people that sit on that side of the House, but nobody else — in British Columbia….

Nobody who is a leader or a CEO in the business community, nobody who is a tradesperson living in whatever region of British Columbia, nobody who is a school teacher, a doctor, a health professional, nobody who has a family in British Columbia…. Nobody in British Columbia except a few dozen politicians who belong to the Liberal Party of British Columbia believes today what the Premier said back then.

You know what the proof of that is? The proof isn’t the speeches coming from the official opposition on this bill. The proof is the bill itself.

You look at Bill 6. Any analysis will tell you there’s not hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of revenue coming. There’s not a trillion dollars’ worth of revenue coming. There’s not hundreds of thousands of jobs coming. There’s not a prosperity fund in this legislation. None of that is true, and none of that is in Bill 6, and that is the proof in the pudding that British Columbians are seeing this afternoon.

So what is in this bill? A very, very modest, heavily, heavily discounted version of what we were told in days most recently gone by.

[1635]

In support of this bill, the only thing I can truly say is that we have an incredibly complex, diversified economy. The gross domestic product and wealth are created in all kinds of sectors and in different parts of the province — different businesses, different ideas, different patents. Manufacturing, tourism, agriculture, housing and real estate — all of those are important, to name but a few sectors of our economy that make up this pie that we enjoy in British Columbia.

We were told that LNG was going to transform British Columbia fundamentally. But now we’re told — if you listen between the lines, to the Energy Minister or anybody else in government — a much, much more modest, limited goal. The LNG industry, such that it will become in B.C., may just barely replace the exports that we’ve enjoyed to the United States for the last four or five decades — only just. And that is if we hurry to it and try and beat our competitors.

Whoops, there goes Alaska. Russia and China just concluded a massive deal. The nuclear power plants have been switched back up in Japan. Markets are disappearing faster than you can shake a stick at or than these people can back-pedal on.

That’s the reality and the context for Bill 6. Now, what this debate really is about is whether it’s better to get something rather than nothing, because we’re not going to get what was sold to us. That was ridiculous. It was never true. It was an absolute fairy tale.

Will there be benefits to British Columbia? Yes, there will be, but they have to be scrutinized properly. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined some pretty significant conditions that ought to be met. There ought to be a test for how we can maximize this limited and greatly diminishing opportunity that was overhyped from day one.

We do need to achieve some things for this resource that our province is blessed to have. One of those is around the construction phase, if and when we do get one or more pipelines in British Columbia to the coast, to a liquefaction plant. One or more — although except for the government, nobody in the real world, nobody in the business community, believes the estimates that the government may still stand behind. I’m not even sure if they do.

Whatever we get, we need to make sure that the jobs from construction, from supplier agreements, are there for British Columbians. Guess who said that’s the way it should be once upon a time, not when she was in India
[ Page 5543 ]
but when she was right here in British Columbia. The Premier said that British Columbians will be first in line to get the jobs, right? Yeah, if only it were true.

If only it were true, because there are a number of companies out there right now, those that haven’t bolted already from British Columbia, that are still working on investment decisions — those that haven’t deferred them or delayed them.

One of the things they’re looking at is how impossible it will be to make sure that British Columbians are first in line to get the jobs. They’re second-guessing whether the government even cares about that. The HR analysis being done by big companies — Chevron and others…. They’re looking at our education system here in B.C. They’re looking at northern British Columbia. They’re looking at certain school districts where the graduation rate is barely 50 percent. For aboriginal students, it’s even worse.

Are those students who aren’t even completing high school, who can’t transition to trades and apprenticeship programs, going to be first in line to get the jobs? I highly doubt it.

These natural gas companies are asking the right questions on this area of responsibility. They’re saying: “Where is government? Why does British Columbia, after 12 years of this government in power, have a 36 percent dismal completion rate in trades and apprenticeship programs in B.C. of those who enrol? Why does British Columbia, with a million more people than Alberta, graduate 50 percent fewer Red Seal trades apprentices every year? Why?”

For a government that says it aspires to help industrial development projects like a new LNG industry, why does that occur? And what does that do for us?

[1640]

We want to see, as the number one condition, that in fact there is a plan that British Columbians will get the lion’s share of jobs and training opportunities from an LNG industry, whatever that industry looks like.

The second test is about providing a fair return for our resource. We know that royalties have declined massively in British Columbia in recent years. Now we’re looking at a bill that creates a very much diminished so-called LNG tax — a diminishing return on the election hype, if you like. In this bill companies will achieve the ability to set all of their capital costs against profits for a very, very long time.

There’s a technology fund created in Bill 2, which is a complementary bill to Bill 6 in some ways, although much more flawed. It creates a technology fund to provide subsidies to industry — not revenues to hospitals and schools, which we were told LNG was all about in the election, but to create subsidies to industry in the event that they incur any penalties for not being the greenest LNG facilities in the world.

The third test that has to be met — this is probably the area that is most promising, although there’s a long way to go — is that the LNG industry, once Bill 6 becomes law and is no longer a bill, needs to include benefits for First Nations that are substantial, that meet the test of 21st-century social licence conditions for a sector of our society — the original inhabitants of this province, who were treated so badly in the 20th century when it comes to economic opportunities that they were absolutely shut out of. That cannot be allowed to happen again in British Columbia.

Now, I say this is the most promising area because a number of key First Nations communities right up and down the pipeline route, right out to the coast, are engaged with companies, are in discussions with them. They are looking to be an active partner in any proponent that eventually builds in this province.

The fourth condition that has to be met is around protecting our air, land and water, and that includes living up to our climate commitments. It was interesting that three weeks ago the United Nations IPCC climate report was updated and provided a very dire warning yet again to world leaders, including countries like Canada and jurisdictions within it like British Columbia.

It was interesting that last week, perhaps on a more hopeful note, the two largest-emitting countries in the world, China and the United States, signed a tentative climate agreement to lower emissions and to meet certain targets by certain years, to set the stage for an international comprehensive climate agreement.

But you have to set aside that positive development, as well as that urgent call to policy-makers from the IPCC report, against the actions of this government on LNG. We’re not building the greenest LNG industry in the world; we’re building one that may have emissions three times that of Australia’s industry. This is a giant greenwashing excuse that has been put upon the people of British Columbia by the government.

However, climate commitments and the absence of a climate agenda seen in this legislation and the other piece of legislation are something that can come later. It’s something that can be a responsibility that is met with policy and regulations by a different government that actually has a climate agenda and is a progressive government. That opportunity will come after 2017, after this bill, presumably, is law.

That gives me some optimism that a bad framework for LNG as advanced by this government at this point in time can be made significantly more responsible environmentally and can be made significantly more fair in terms of the return it gives to taxpayers, to First Nations and to northern communities, in particular.

[1645]

There will be the ability of government, for example, to no longer exempt massive amounts of emissions at the wellhead and throughout LNG activity before it meets the liquefaction plants and for the province to insist — by regulation, for example, as the United States
[ Page 5544 ]
Environmental Protection Agency now does in the fracking fields in most parts of the United States — and make sure that those greenhouse gas emissions are managed properly, are mitigated and don’t happen and that our industry actually does become much, much more significantly clean than the free pass it’s been given in many areas of the emissions content in this legislation.

This bill is reality crashing down on this government. This is so vastly different from what we heard from the Premier in the last election. Every time you hear the Premier talk about what the LNG industry will represent to British Columbia, you’d better shave off at least three zeros, because that’s what Bill 6 does — from the figures that she used in the last election campaign. We’re going to have something significantly different than what was promised by the government, whatever the LNG industry looks like in British Columbia. That is for sure.

If we want to have an LNG industry that we’re proud of and that is worthwhile in terms of an economic contribution to the province, we’re going to have to make sure that we get the most that we can in terms of employment opportunities for First Nations, for young people, for northern communities. We’re going to have to insist that there’s a fair return on the natural gas deposits in British Columbia for generations to come. We’re going to have to insist that First Nations be an active partner here in the 21st century, that industrial development is dependent upon First Nations’ active participation so that their economies become more and more self-reliant.

We’re going to have to ensure that British Columbia, just as we saw with China and the United States last week, is not a laggard on climate change but is back to becoming a leader on environmental responsibility and a willing partner, a leading partner, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that can have credibility in the world. Until that is met, until that day is met and those conditions are met, we’re going to have something very significantly different than what the Premier has told us.

It won’t be fairy tales. Reality is that British Columbians need to get on with the job of having an LNG industry and change government at their earliest opportunity to make sure that that industry delivers on the promises that British Columbians actually deserve.

Hon. B. Bennett: What’s a fairy tale is that the NDP would ever be positive and supportive of any sort of economic development or any sort of economic direction. We get what we always seem to get from them. “No, we’re afraid of it. No, we don’t want it. No, it won’t work because of this or because of that.” That is part of their brand. They’ve shown that to British Columbians for decades, and they’ve been rewarded by the position that they currently occupy in this Legislature, which is opposition.

When I was minister one of the last times I had this portfolio, in 2010, I was up in the northeast doing a tour with some of the energy companies there. I remember some officials from Encana telling me about what was happening in the gas industry. I think sometimes all of us forget how quickly the world has changed. Not that long ago we had secure markets in the United States for our natural gas. We knew we had plentiful natural gas. We knew that. We had good markets. They were reliable. They needed our gas, and they paid a fair price for it.

What these officials from this energy company told me at the time was that with the developing technologies around fracking — which, of course, the opposition is opposed to…. And of course, you can’t have an LNG industry if you can’t get the gas out of the ground. But aside from that, this group of officials gave me a heads-up, really. It was almost a warning that if B.C. didn’t begin to make plans to find different markets for its natural gas, it would be left as the owner of stranded assets — all of that gas in the northeast in the ground and no place to sell it.

[1650]

Since 2010 government has made a lot of progress in terms of developing an opportunity whereby we can take that gas to the west coast, liquefy it and ship it to Asia. Anyone who is unaware of this opportunity, and also of the challenge around lack of markets in North America for natural gas, doesn’t understand what the risk is to the province.

The risk to the province is that…. One of the most important sources of royalties that are paid to the provincial government comes from the extraction and sale of natural gas. I can remember many years…. I’ve been around long enough to have seen some ups and downs in the economy, and I remember many times seeing huge amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, flowing into the provincial treasury as companies acquired land on which they could explore and eventually develop these gas fields.

During those years in the mid-2000s the government was able to invest in tremendous infrastructure, like highways, bridges, airports, hospitals, K-to-12 schools, post-secondary education facilities. We, frankly, couldn’t have done that unless we’d had those revenues flowing in to the government from the natural gas industry in the northeast.

That is what is at risk today if we don’t find a way to get that gas from British Columbia to markets that want it. Those markets that want it, frankly, are not in the United States of America but in Asia. That’s the business case for LNG.

Now, with respect to some of the comments about promises and about the impact of an LNG industry on debt and all the things…. I’m not in the House all the time, but I’m in here enough to get the flavour of the day from the opposition.

In fact, if this opportunity is not realized, B.C. will be in a situation where we’re going to have to rely on the natural resources that we have in play, like mining and forestry. We’ll have to rely on our high-tech industry —
[ Page 5545 ]
which is a good industry, a great industry. It’s growing. We’ll have to rely on tourism, which is another fantastic industry. But it will be difficult to pay down the debt, and it will be difficult to find the capital investments that we need to move the province forward in all those areas that I mentioned a minute ago.

So our aspiration…. This is an aspiration for this side of the House. We’re not ashamed of the fact that we set goals on this side of the House. We talk about them, and we share those goals with the public. And apparently, the majority of people in the province believe in our government trying to achieve those goals. Those goals are around developing — or, let’s say, facilitating — as many LNG facilities as we can.

On the west coast there are currently 18 projects in play. I don’t think anybody thinks that there will be 18 LNG facilities on the west coast of British Columbia, and I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how many would be enough, but as many as can be facilitated, certainly. We believe that there are going to be, without a doubt, at least a few.

Each one of those investments is going to be larger than anything that we have ever seen in this province. Just one LNG facility — when you look at the capital cost of building the facility, you look at the capital cost of building the pipeline and you look at the upstream investment required to get the gas out of the ground just to supply one LNG facility — even one would be a significant, major development for British Columbia.

I think we’re going to get more than one. I hope that we get more than a few. But however many of these LNG….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[1655]

Hon. B. Bennett: However many of these LNG facilities we are able to facilitate in British Columbia, the revenues that we collect….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: As I said, hon. Speaker, they have a hard time being positive.

All of the revenues that will come through this legislation will be used for the benefit of British Columbians. That’s really what this is all about. It’s all about our government trying to facilitate economic development so that we can achieve the jobs, first of all, the family-supporting jobs, to support the communities that will be adjacent to these developments. And all of the province, of course, will benefit from this.

I think, importantly, First Nations are going to have tremendous opportunity to benefit from the LNG facility construction, the operation of these facilities and the pipelines. That’s why you see people like Chief Ellis Ross who was so supportive. He sees this as a generational opportunity for his people to actually benefit from the extraction of the resources and the use of the land that his people have occupied from time immemorial. Many First Nations are seeing that same opportunity. I think that on this side of the House we have very positive meetings with those First Nations on, basically, a daily basis.

One of the aspects of this file that seems to get forgotten is…. Yes, we will achieve or we will realize considerable return through this LNG tax that we’re debating here today. But if even one or two or three or four LNG facilities are built — or more…. Our aspiration is to have as many built as possible.

For every one of those LNG facilities, when you talk to somebody from the northeast…. My colleague from Peace River North has told me many times how much more gas we will have to extract to satisfy the need of one LNG facility. It’s not just the LNG tax that will bring the royalties to the government of British Columbia; it’s all of the royalties that come from the actual extraction of that gas upstream.

We’re going to see a minimum of twice as much gas extracted. It’s probably going to be more like four or five times the amount of gas that will be extracted in the northeast. Yes, we’re going to have to manage that properly, because there are issues like cumulative impact. But the opportunity is there for people to be employed, for communities to benefit, for First Nations to benefit and for the province and the federal government to achieve royalties from this activity that we then turn around and use for the things that people want us to use it for, like schools and hospitals and roads and social services, etc.

I’m very optimistic about the LNG story. I believe we will have some LNG facilities. I believe that it’s going to happen sooner rather than later. I think British Columbia has proven itself to the world as a fiscally responsible jurisdiction that companies can rely upon. They will choose to come and do business here because there are so many jurisdictions elsewhere in the world that are not reliable, as we are here in British Columbia.

We have gas. I’ve heard other members talk about the advantages that we have in terms of the temperature of the gas as it comes out of the ground. It’s a competitive advantage for us. So all in all, I think that this is a generational opportunity, as one of the members from this side of the House said earlier.

I’m not surprised — I’m saddened, but I’m not surprised — that the opposition likes to deride this opportunity. It likes to pick holes in it and say why it wouldn’t work and if it does work, it won’t be done right — all the things that they typically say. What I would say: this is an opportunity for all of us to join in, in supporting something that will allow us the opportunity to actually improve the province. So I’m hopeful that they will reconsider their opposition to this bill and support it.

[1700]

J. Horgan: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act.

I’m proud to stand here following many thoughtful colleagues on both sides of the House who have offered up their point of view on what has become, certainly, a divisive issue, if we listen to the minister just completed and earlier presentations by other ministers of the Crown.

I’m proud to say that I lead a caucus that understands the challenge we have with respect to growing the economy and understands that we have to take our comparative advantages where we find them. I support liquefied natural gas in British Columbia, provided that we support workers in B.C. first, that we ensure that First Nations are completely dialled in…

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, we’ll get to the details, Minister. We’ll get to the details.

…that there’s a fair return to the province for the resource and, most importantly, that we protect our air, water and land.

Now, the challenge, of course, for government is that they don’t understand the role and function in the British parliamentary system of a vigorous opposition. Instead of taking thoughtful suggestions in a hope to improve legislation, as we did — with my colleague from Vancouver–West End — with Bill 2 and as we will do, I’m certain, at committee stage — my colleague from Surrey-Whalley — to try and improve this legislation as well, especially when we look back….

We’ve been hearing from all sides of the House about the promises that were made over the past number of years by the Premier, the member for — I think it’s Kelowna-Westside. Is that where the Premier is from? I think that’s the right one.

She said a number of things. Certainly, back in 2011 what stands in my mind was a whistle-stop tour she made to Kitimat, where she promised that there would be an operational LNG facility by 2015.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Well, I know that the Minister of Energy doesn’t want us to be negative. I don’t want to put a negative spin on a promise that was made to achieve something a month and a half from now that is just not going to happen. But, again, I think it’s the responsibility of the opposition on behalf of all British Columbians to highlight deficiencies in rhetoric, certainly, but also to highlight deficiencies in delivery by the government.

In 2013 the member for Kelowna-Westside said that the LNG industry in this province would be up and running full bore by 2020. The BG Group of companies, which had a very favourable location in Prince Rupert at Ridley Island, announced recently that they’re pausing any final investment decision they might make.

I don’t see how the 18 — I believe it’s 18 — companies we’re up to now, 18 proposals…. It’s down to one or two or three, maybe four, if you listen to the Minister of Energy, who I suppose would be an expert in the House on energy issues — or one would hope, in any event. He’s taken it from the 18 promised by the Premier down to one or two, three, maybe four. Again, I support that. I am encouraged by that, that there’s some realism on the other side of the House rather than just Pollyanna and awaiting the arrival of El Dorado, because it’s just not so.

I’ve been travelling around the northwest over the past couple of weeks, and I spoke with hereditary leaders of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. I heard the Minister of Aboriginal Relations make his intervention today, and he talked about uniform support. I’m sorry to rain on your parade, Minister, but based on my discussions with the Wet’suwet’en, that uniform support doesn’t exist at this time. I’m hopeful that we can all redouble our efforts to make sure that we live up to the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court and that we do achieve some sense of reconciliation and partnership with First Nations on this file.

We’re up and running by 2020 full bore — one trillion dollars in economic activity. I had to pause when the member for Victoria–Swan Lake reminded me of that number. I used to think that trillion was just a little bit past gajillion. You used to use terms like that when you were in grade 5. It wasn’t a realistic number. It was just something you pulled out of thin air, which reminds me very much of the Liberal campaign from 2013 and probably why we have, on Hansard, now recorded the $1 trillion figure in economic activity just right around the corner.

Of course, part and parcel of that would be our $100 billion prosperity fund. Now, the prosperity fund, trumpeted before the election…. By requirement you kind of have to talk about it in the first budget after the election and maybe even make reference to it in your first official throne speech as a re-elected government, so we did hear about it in February. But we had, as luck would have it, two throne speeches this year — double your chances to talk about prosperity funds.

[1705]

It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get to hear more about the prosperity fund at that time, but we did get to hear and compare over the past number of days the promises and commitments made by the Minister of Finance in budget documents, which, again, guide the questions around certainty and uncertainty that some members have talked about with respect to this sector. You need to have some certainty.

The sector looked at the government documents that were tabled by the minister. He said 7 percent. That will be familiar to many people here. That’s what we pay in sales tax and will continue to pay in sales tax, because the
[ Page 5547 ]
trillion dollars in economic activity apparently isn’t happening, and we’re not going to be doing away with the sales tax as a result of our prosperity fund. Let’s remember the 7 percent number, because it dropped when this legislation was tabled — by half.

Now, the Minister of Natural Gas has said some peculiar things over the past little while. I recall when BG Group said publicly that they were going to pause. He said: “Oh, I predicted that would happen.” I recall when China and Russia signed hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of agreements with respect to providing gas from one to the other. “Oh, that’s just a small play. Nothing to be concerned about.” A $400 billion deal. We’ve heard that it’s generational for us — but not, apparently, for the Russians and the Chinese. But there you go.

Another thing that I wanted to highlight, though, is that when the minister was confronted with the drop from seven to 3½, he said, “We don’t negotiate taxes” — funny that. “We consulted behind closed doors” is what he said. I don’t know. I’m just a simple country doctor from Juan de Fuca, but from where I come from, when you go in behind a closed door and you start at seven and you come out at 3½, there was probably a negotiation going on there. I don’t know who the minister is responsible to when he does this, but there you go.

He also said, when he was reminded of some of the failings of the targets and the benchmarks that were aspirationally set, it turns out now, rather than reality — goals, as the Minister of Energy has suggested…. Aspirational. We’re hopeful that sometime in the near future, I understand, we’ll be eliminating the debt — according to the minister’s revised figures, in 2043. For those backbenchers counting at home, that’s about seven elections from now. I’m hopeful that some of you will be here. I know the member for West Vancouver–Capilano most assuredly will be, and I will challenge him. We’re behind time in Kitimat, apparently.

Now, the minister talked about a chance meeting with some officials from Encana on a tour of the northeast. I was the Energy critic for many years on this side of the House, and I toured the northeast many times. I’ve spoke with all of the proponents. I’ve talked to them candidly about the markets, and they’ve talked candidly to me about the changing face of energy in North America — the minister touched upon that — and, in fact, around the world.

Gas is trading higher in Asia than it is in North America, and that’s the single chance we have. But the gas in Asia is tied to the price of oil. For those who haven’t looked at their business pages today, oil is trading below $80 a barrel and is expected to be below $80 a barrel into the foreseeable future. What does that do? That brings down the price of gas in Asia. What does that do? It makes us less competitive over time.

Now, that may be an inconvenient truth for the cheerleaders on the other side. I’m not being negative when I say this. I’m identifying for the people who elected us on this side of the House that all the good news that continues to come forward at every one of these government-sponsored conferences and government-sponsored press conferences where we put the LNG logos up on the wall as big as we can make them…. Even though the Premier has created an industry announcing things around LNG, the reality is that the market is changing, and it has been changing for some time.

I, again, want to reiterate that the challenge for the government is manyfold. They have to address the issues of the day. They have to raise revenues. Gas revenues, I’ll remind the Minister of Energy…. Maybe he’s not getting the briefings that he should be on these matters. The revenues we’re getting from natural gas have been dropping for some time, not just because of the price but because of a whole bunch of other factors — credits and so on.

[1710]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to a writer, Peter Tertzakian, who is a noted resource economist. He wrote a very, I think, thoughtful and also humorous — which is important to me — piece in the Globe and Mail on 19th of November of this year. He laid out a scenario whereby those who are here — whether it be Exxon, Petronas, Shell, BG, Woodfibre, all of those companies that are in British Columbia looking to make significant final investment decisions — are going to have to go back to their boards and get approval.

Mr. Tertzakian, an expert in this area, understands the challenges of certainty and uncertainty. So he created this scenario where someone would bring forward, “What’s the situation in British Columbia?” to their board.

He concludes as follows. He says, “Look at this. There’s no resolution on First Nations. Incomplete pipeline permits, incomplete environmental assessments, unknown federal fiscal terms, no clarity on municipal taxes, no transfer pricing agreement, poor visibility on labour supply, etc., etc.” Those are not market conditions. Those are conditions that the governments of British Columbia, Canada and the cities and communities around B.C. have to address. That’s uncertainty.

That the opposition stands and says the market is changing and says, “You were just making stuff up during the election campaign,” does not influence these final investment decisions. I would love it to be so. I know in the attack piece that the member for Nechako Lakes sent out with the good Liberal scribes in the basement here at the Legislature, that there was some hope that I could be blamed for single-handedly derailing LNG discussions in British Columbia. If I only had such power.

I can’t get appropriate ministers to take accountability here, in my day job, but somehow, in the dark of night, according to the member for Nechako Lakes, I’m going around, scurrying about, trying to dissuade board of directors of Shell, Chevron, Exxon and a whole host of others. I, personally and my colleagues on this side
[ Page 5548 ]
of the House are using our market power to discourage these final investment decisions? Nothing could be further from the truth.

I support this initiative, and I will be standing in support of this bill. It falls way short of what was promised. Way short. It falls way short of what I believe we could have accomplished, were we not consulting rather than negotiating our tax frameworks with the various companies that want to invest here. But that is that.

I know from my tours of the northeast and the northwest that there’s a desire for this activity to take place. There’s, by all means, debate. There are challenges ahead for the government and all British Columbians — whether they be First Nation or non–First Nation, whether they be opposed to natural gas development or where they want to have a better understanding of what the consequences of hydraulic fracturing are. These are issues, I would argue, that government should spend some time on.

Rather than going around saying, “The NDP hates LNG,” why don’t you go around explaining to the public why this is profoundly important that we proceed? Not just with pitches here in the Legislature and trumped-up conferences where you invite yourself to come and make presentations to yourself. Instead, go out and talk to the people of British Columbia. Explain to them in genuine, real terms why this is important, why we need jobs in the northwest.

I was in Kitimat last week. The modernization…. I met with Richard Prokopanko, who has been working for Rio Tinto Alcan for decades. He reminded me, in the briefing that my colleague from Skeena and I were given, that I have been working on that file for 20 years. He said he has documents that I had signed, going back to the 1990s, about trying to get that project off the ground. It took 20 years. I’m led to believe it’s one of the largest capital investments in this province to date, and it took 20 years. With an existing, established company and in a town that wanted them to be there, with all of the infrastructure in place already, it took 20 years.

When we stand on this side of the House and say your pipedream is coming unravelled, it’s not out of anger. It’s out of sadness and disappointment that you set the bar so ridiculously high that you can’t possibly meet it. How does that help the economy? How does that help reduce uncertainty? How does that help give confidence to the people of B.C. that you know what the heck you’re doing? It doesn’t. Our job on this side of the House is to continue to remind you on that side of the House that you’ve got a lot of work to do.

[1715]

Instead of going, as the Premier did, to Ottawa and lobby for more temporary foreign workers so we can realize our generational opportunity…. Instead of travelling to India and talking about training workers there to come and work in British Columbia — not as landed immigrants, not as those coming here with a pathway to citizenship, but as temporary foreign workers — why not instead, while you’re in the room, giving away 3½ percent of your tax room, say: “I want hard and fast commitments for training and jobs for British Columbians”? That makes a whole lot more sense than just….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: We can have expressed guarantees from various proponents for jobs here in British Columbia, for training opportunities here in British Columbia. Project labour agreements are very common practice in British Columbia. Certainly, with the right government selling these innovative proposals that…. I think it was W.A.C. Bennett, if I’m not mistaken, that started it, so the member for Westside-Kelowna might find something in the archive down at Socred HQ next time she’s driving by that would remind her that if you invest in people and if you put people first, you might get a better return than if you close the door with some of the biggest companies in the known universe and say: “What could we do for you?”

Instead, why don’t you open up the doors in this place and say: “What can we do for the people of B.C.?” Let’s protect our resource and ensure that we get an appropriate return to the Crown for the resource. Let’s make sure we have guarantees for British Columbians getting jobs, first and foremost, that training is in place.

Let’s live up to the requirements of the Supreme Court decision with respect to Tsilhqot’in and ensure that it’s not just the Haisla and the Nisga’a that are enthusiastic about this but the Wet’suwet’en and a whole host of other bands, from the Alberta border to tidewater. Let’s make sure that we’re actually working for partnerships, not just pandering.

Most importantly, let’s ensure that we’re protecting our air, water and land for this and future generations. You do that by realizing we have to live up to the climate commitments that we made in this Legislature in 2008. We have to realize somewhere along the line that when you say, “The greenest in the world, from wellhead to tidewater,” you’re actually going to achieve that. But that’s not what we got with Bill 2. I know we’re debating Bill 6, hon. Speaker, and I know I have some latitude just because I’m smiling at you.

But the fundamental challenge for the people of British Columbia who look at this industry is: “What are you going to do to protect us?” We see it at Burnaby Mountain right now, citizens saying: “What are you going to do to protect the lands, for us and for those who come after us?” These are fundamental questions that are skirted by in this government’s desire to say that the NDP is against everything. Well, you won’t be able to say that with Bill 6, because we’re going to stand side by side with you and vote in favour of it. As deficient as it may be, it does provide us with an opportunity to reduce some of the uncertainty that has been rampant on this file.
[ Page 5549 ]

I want to also, finally, say to those members on the opposite side who just like to make politics out of this stuff: if we’re genuinely, all of us, interested in growing the economy and making sure that British Columbians benefit from this resource, this opportunity that has benefited us for many decades and hopefully will continue to do so in the future, let’s put the politics aside just for five minutes, if the member for Westside-Kelowna could possibly do that. Instead of saying, “It’s all about us,” why don’t we say: “What about making it all about the people of British Columbia?” Why don’t we try that for a change? Why don’t we put the people at the front of the agenda rather than the politics?

Let’s have a real discussion. Petronas has serious issues with Lelu Island, with respect to salmon and with their Prince Rupert proposal. There are serious concerns in Kitimat about airshed issues. These can be overcome, but hard work is involved. And honesty is also involved — honesty with the public that, yes, we hear your concerns, and we’re going to take steps to alleviate them. We need to ensure that we have vibrant communities in the northeast and the northwest. I want to see liquefied natural gas produced in Prince Rupert. I want to see a facility in Kitimat and any other community that wants it here in British Columbia.

But let’s be honest about the consequences. It’s not all upside. Everybody in British Columbia knows, when they get up in the morning, it’s not all sunshine and roses — well, everyone but perhaps the member for Westside-Kelowna. But the rest of us, who live in the real world, understand that there are trade-offs and consequences and compromises that have to be made to achieve our goals long term.

On this side of the House we’ll support this bill, provided the four conditions that we’ve laid out are met. I’m hopeful that the government will listen to some of the issues that are raised during committee stage and try to make this bill a little bit better so that we can all achieve the aspirational goals that the Minister of Finance alluded to when he spoke at first reading.

[1720]

I’ll end my remarks by thanking those people here for their attention. It’s been rare that I’ve stood in this place without someone yelling at me. I want to thank those members on the other side for giving me the opportunity to stand, genuinely, and put forward how I feel about this very important issue. It is, I believe, important to the people in this room on this side of the House — and I think it’s important on that side as well — that you hear genuinely how we feel about this, unvarnished, without the aid of the partisan filters that we all carry here far too often.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: As I generally try to do at the conclusion of a second reading debate, I would like to thank all members for their contribution, for their submissions and their ideas, particularly in this case when the issue and the legislation before us is important, weighty, complex, technical. It provokes, one hopes, thoughtful consideration in terms of not just the operation of the legislation but its implications for the future of the province.

I was thinking — as I listened to much of the debate and, for that which I didn’t hear in person, read through some of the commentary — and I was asking myself: “What would be the proper way for a legislature to consider the legislation that is before us in Bill 6? What’s the measure?”

I do understand, for example, the role of an official opposition, having spent seven or eight years in that often thankless role. What is the role? What is the measuring stick, the yardstick, that you would apply in a thoughtful way to assessing whether or not this legislation is worthy of support?

I guess, what I came back to was what I, perhaps clumsily, tried to indicate to the House at the time of its introduction and maybe in other forums since then, which is the objective that the government is seeking to achieve with respect to this particular statutory instrument.

It’s the achievement of a balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that we secure a fair return for the owners of the resource — that is, British Columbians — for the ability we have to extract, to alter its state and then sell into offshore markets and derive a return for that, but to derive a return in part for the people of B.C. as the owners of the resource; and on the other hand, ensuring that we present as a competitive jurisdiction that will attract the — I was going to say, significant — by any measure, massive investment that will be necessary to ensure that takes place on the scale that the government and many others hope will take place in British Columbia.

I will say, parenthetically, that when people ask me about the prospects for this industry and ask me about the chances for it to succeed and how worthwhile this endeavour is…. Will it work? Will we see the results that we are looking for, the return that we are looking for, the opportunity, the jobs, the community development? I point out that the greatest indicator — barometer, if you will — for this industry is the fact that the investment we’re talking about derives from the private sector.

[1725]

Unlike other significant investments, some of which are before the government for consideration as we speak, this does not represent the allocation of public tax dollars — at least with respect to the main body of industrial infrastructure.

These are agencies that would come to Canada, would come to British Columbia and make this significant investment. They will do so, bluntly, if we present as a
[ Page 5550 ]
jurisdiction that is in their minds competitive. A statutory instrument is one piece, but a very important piece, of endeavouring to secure that balance and achieve that balance.

I was listening carefully through the second reading debate — particularly from the side of the House whose duty it is to critique, to assess and, ultimately, to render their version of judgment on what the government has done — for any sense of whether the opposition viewed this as a reasonable attempt at securing that balance.

Whilst I listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said and appreciate that he sought to present in a very candid way his views on the industry, I must say for you, to him and others, I didn’t hear a lot of specific analysis or criticism about the bill itself. I heard a lot of commentary about election campaigns, and the members may feel that was justified or necessary. But I didn’t hear a lot about — not the details — the essential components of a piece of taxation legislation.

I heard very little, for example, virtually nothing, about the natural gas tax credit — by any measure an important aspect, an important component of this bill. It would, for those who avail themselves of it, take a corporate income tax rate that is set today at 11 percent and reduce it to as much as 8 percent.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head reminds me that he touched on that specifically. Perhaps a few others did but not many.

In assessing the legislation and offering their comments, I heard a number of members…. In fact, I heard the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago offer this criticism, and I think it was meant to be a criticism about the retreat of the government from the 7 percent rate that was pledged and promised.

I think the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who made the same observation, know that they are incorrect, know that from the time this construct was first presented to the House in February of this year, the indication was a range where the LNG income tax, the second tier, would be up to 7 percent. There was never any attempt to suggest that it might not be less than that, that there would be ongoing discussions, that there would be an ongoing assessment of the market conditions.

In asking to be taken seriously…. And it is important that an official opposition and all members of the opposition be taken seriously. I can say this from experience, not all of it a happy experience. There is a requirement to deal with the facts and reflect the facts accurately. In that instance, many members of the opposition I think have purposely chosen not to reflect the facts accurately.

[1730]

I listened carefully as well, and particularly in the early stages of the debate, to learn what the ultimate position of the official opposition would be with respect to the bill.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up today and said, I think with a measure of pride and certainty, that the official opposition intends to support the legislation. I am grateful for that. Clearly, the government presents a piece of legislation and commends it to the House seeking support. To the extent that support is offered, one is inclined not to delve too further into the rationale behind that.

But I have to say this. As I listened to much of the debate, and much of the contribution to the debate from members of the opposition, it occurs to me that it is more than just offered, more than just grudgingly…. The official critic for this bill couldn’t bring himself to say that there would be support for this bill.

Others have said some very different things. The member for North Island described it….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member for North Island wants to hear what I have to say.

The member for North Island described the bill as a selloutof B.C. If she is to be believed, and if that is, indeed, her description and characterization of this legislation, one assumes that she will follow that with a vote accordingly. Unless….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Minister of Finance has the floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: We’ll see. We’ll see to what extent that is reflective of the true position. Maybe there is something else at play. Maybe there is a group sitting across who have begun to hear from British Columbians about their desire, British Columbians’ desire, to see economic development occur in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought that at some point this group would decide to stand and say to British Columbians: “In assessing taxation legislation, who comes to that topic with the greatest degree of credibility?”

An Hon. Member: HST.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, we know the hon. member’s position on that taxation instrument, as we do…
[ Page 5551 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …their position on another little taxation gem that the NDP introduced a few years ago called the corporate capital tax. Let’s talk….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Here I was endeavouring to provide a thoughtful dissertation on the opposition’s presentation.

[1735]

You mention something that goes to the heart of attracting investment into British Columbia, an instrument that that member and that member and that member and that member all supported, that drove investment out of British Columbia. That’s the group that says today: “No, British Columbians. When it comes to striking a balance between attracting investment and deriving a fair return for British Columbians, you should believe the NDP.” Well, British Columbians didn’t believe them then. They don’t believe them now. They don’t believe them now.

There’s another issue that is….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s interesting, isn’t it? When you begin to delve into the philosophical approach of the NDP to taxation policy, suddenly the room either gets very quiet or very loud.

We have a piece of legislation before us that the opposition has taken a number of days now to critique, to eviscerate, to challenge. But apparently they’re going to vote for it. I’m pleased about that. I’m sad that during the course of the debate they chose to ignore any of the features, any of the important components.

As we move into the committee stage of debate, I’m sure we’ll begin to hear, in more detail — perhaps we’ll hear in more detail — from the opposition their view on how this legislative instrument will work to help create the opportunities that we want in British Columbia.

I get the fact, also, that as we move this forward, there is a measure of discomfort on the opposition benches, because having an LNG industry of the sort that we envisage does actually require us to extract natural gas from the ground. Look, we understand there are and continue to be divisions on the opposition benches about the manner in which that occurs.

We understand that, for example, the member for Vancouver-Fairview has very specific views on whether or not we should be extracting natural gas in British Columbia and how we should do that. I predict we’re going to hear some more noise now from the opposition benches.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is this abiding sensitivity that reveals itself at times like this over and over and over again, because British Columbians understand there was but one group which was committed with a singular determination to take the steps necessary to attract a vibrant liquefied natural gas sector in British Columbia. All of the protestations, all of the lurching from position to position, all of the flip-flopping that we’ve heard and will continue to hear in the days ahead will not alter that fact.

[1740]

One lives in eternal hope that through the discourse that will take place in this chamber in the days ahead, through listening to British Columbians, members of the NDP, even those who are hesitant about even extracting gas in British Columbia, will come to understand the potential that exists and that ultimately we can work together to see that parts of British Columbia that have suffered from depopulation over a matter of decades will rise again and enjoy the benefits, receive the infrastructure that will be part of a vibrant, growing liquefied natural gas sector. Families in British Columbia will enjoy the benefits of jobs that will be part of the development of a liquefied natural gas sector in British Columbia.

It’s an exciting time. There is much work to be done. There is a great deal of work to be done. None of this is a given. None of this will happen by itself. All of it will require coordination between levels of government, including First Nations, who have shown and demonstrated an unprecedented level of involvement and engagement on this file. That is to their credit and the credit of the province as a whole.

We can do this. This is one piece. This is one piece of the regulatory and taxation puzzle that proponents and British Columbians want to see, need to see, now have before them and in the days ahead will be debated in detail in this chamber. I’m looking forward to that and, accordingly, move second reading.

[1745]

Second reading of Bill 6 approved on the following division:

Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head…. If he could stand and withdraw his last remark during the vote.

A. Weaver: So withdrawn.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 6, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued committee stage on Bill 4.

[1750]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:52 p.m.

On section 8 (continued).

R. Sultan: Thank you, hon. Chair, for this opportunity to conclude my remarks on the proposed amendments to the Police Act and to finally ask the minister a question.

To set the context, across this huge province we find highly differentiated policing structures, community by community, responding to different local environments, serving different crime environments and subject to differing fiscal capacities and differing inclinations to spend hard-earned tax dollars on public safety — which is by way of saying that in the government’s implementation of these amendments to the Police Act, the fiscal side will be ultra-important and ultrasensitive.

On the Lower Mainland, typically public safety consumes about half of the municipal budget. Within that half, policing can consume another half — in other words, about one-quarter of all municipal spending. It seems clear to me that if the province imposes new compulsory obligations to staff and pay for more ambitious cross-jurisdictional policing units — perhaps along the six lines I conjured up, or others — then revenue models will have to be adjusted to accommodate them.

By coincidence, the Province newspaper yesterday reported that Vancouver police department chief Jim Chu, responding to budget pressures, was forced to redeploy officers while doing everything possible to avoid layoffs. VPD management is recommending cuts to major crimes, marine, canine and crime scene investigation units, while adding to technological crime and Internet units. He is hoping that Vancouver city council will authorize new funding for additional street safety officers.

It’s interesting that some of the units being cut are in the very areas where the province could possibly seek expansion. In my own community of West Vancouver the question facing our civic administration is whether tax rates — already, by some measures, the highest in Metro — could go up further if the municipality is ordered to support more integrated task forces. They certainly could, unless we reduce police services elsewhere, just as Chief Constable Chu is doing in Vancouver.

[1755]

West Vancouver has a financial model for localized policing that our own police board supports and approves. When necessary, West Vancouver purchases specialized services from either Vancouver or the RCMP. West Vancouver also supports those bodies when requested to do so. It will not be easy to convince everyone that some other model works better for all, since we may be forced to reduce police programs and services elsewhere to fund the specialized integrated police services. I certainly would not be the one to propose the alternative of higher taxes.

West Vancouver mayor Michael Smith has been quoted as saying: “We attach a high value to policing because of the value of our properties and our citizens’ possessions. That’s what our citizens want.” Michael was responding to the mistaken impression abroad that West Vancouver spends far above average on policing. Our own Ministry of Justice 2012 police services B.C. report, which is really the bible on comparative statistics — and
[ Page 5553 ]
somewhat at variance with a more recent Fraser Institute report, which probably had some mistakes — shows West Vancouver spending $337 per capita on policing in 2012, compared to a significantly higher $366 for Vancouver and significantly less, $319, for Delta.

In Surrey, even adding in the 10 percent federal government subsidy for local RCMP policing, they spent a whole lot less — only $260 per capita. Maybe this variation is reflected in the local crime statistics. Maybe the reason crime is so high in some areas and so low in others has something to do with the number of police officers visibly on the street. In 2012 West Vancouver had the equivalent of 168 police officers for every 100,000 people, compared with 137 in Surrey.

One mayor of a municipality with its own police force went so far as to tell me, in the context of the amendment to the Police Act, that there was no way this mayor’s own higher-police-spending, low-crime community was going to raise its taxes 2 percent simply to send the money to help out lower-police-spending, higher-crime communities.

Thus faced with such feelings, it will be a challenge to govern from Victoria when payment for services is local. As I said, community-by-community existing service delivery, appetite to pay and capacity to pay vary a great deal.

Please don’t interpret my cautions and reservations as undermining my personal conclusion that common sense demands further integration of specialized police services. I have reluctantly, I admit, come to accept that aspect of this bill, and in many ways it is the core of the bill. But I would look forward to hearing from the Attorney how the government proposes to manage the challenging governance and taxation issues which are inherent in the proposed amendments to the Police Act.

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. Just to observe that this is enabling legislation. The proposed amendments…. It is proposed that government be provided the authority to require communities to participate in specialized policing services.

As to the governance, how the pieces are put together, that is set out in the next section. When we get to that next section, I won’t lose sight of the question and will come back to the governance and how the governance of a specialized service would be put together.

But the goal is to strengthen government’s authority for when a specialized policing service is deemed important and needed but to prevent one community from dropping out and others from dropping in — so that there’s a structure to the whole of the specialized policing.

Government does have an obligation, a responsibility — in fact, it falls to me, as minister — to ensure adequate and effective policing services are delivered and maintained throughout British Columbia. It falls to government to make sure that the tools are in place to enable all communities to benefit, when needed, from specialized policing skills.

Not all communities are able to develop those or have adequate resources to put all those specialized skills together themselves, but they all do need to be able to benefit from specialized policing. They need to benefit from technology and equipment that are increasingly necessary to combat modern criminal activities.

I’ll emphasize what I said the other day, which is that criminal activities now are different than they were some years ago, when crime was more localized. Now crime readily spreads across a community, across multiple communities, across the province and across countries.

I should emphasize that a number of communities have actually called upon government to mandate participation in specialized policing teams such as IHIT. For example, in May of 2013 Coquitlam city council passed a regional policing resolution, saying:

“That council endorse and convey to the province that a regional approach to certain policing services is supported where there are economies of scale such as the current integrated teams and that to ensure effective and efficient delivery of the regional components, participation of all municipalities be mandated by the province, based on a governance-oversight model acceptable to municipalities.”

That’s what this bill is aiming to do. These proposed changes are aiming for exactly that — to strengthen government’s ability to respond to such calls for action and to meet our responsibilities with respect to policing in this province.

Now, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano did ask about the funding formula. That is set out in the next section, and we can come back to that. Also, as to how the pieces are put together, how the structure of a specialized unit is put together — again, that is in the next section. I’ll be glad to come back to that. I will not lose sight of the question when we come back to that section.

M. Farnworth: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for his intervention. I think he raised a number of thoughtful, interesting points that we’re going to be canvassing under section 9. But I also think he raised some interesting points that I have yet to hear the answer to, here in section 8.

[1805]

I think it’s important, given the response from the minister with the letter she just read out from the municipality of Coquitlam for mandatory participation. She’s using that, in part, as justification for the legislation, and I understand that too. I understand she used the term “enabling.” I think it’s important for the minister to be clear with the House that when you have legislation that is enabling, the reason that you are enabling yourself or bringing it forward to be able to do this is because you intend to do something. If you weren’t intending to do
[ Page 5554 ]
something, you wouldn’t enable yourself with the powers that you thought you were missing.

What I’d like the minister to do, under this section, is to explain: what are the changes in section 8? What is the rationale in the sense of what’s different in this section from the existing section, and why are those changes taking place? Why the need to have enabling if you’re not intending to do anything? Or have you made a decision that you are intending to do something?

Hon. S. Anton: I would just like first of all to correct the record. The hon. member the other day put words into my mouth, assertions that I had made statements that this might not apply to certain municipalities. That is incorrect. Those assertions were never made by myself, and it is indeed the case that this legislation could apply to any municipality, should that be necessary.

The immediate question is: why the changes in section 4 as proposed by section 8 of the misc bill? Two significant changes. First of all, we are proposing to remove the words “necessary or desirable” in the previous section 4. That is because there was no test for that phrase in the section, and it was unclear or uncertain what the meaning of those two words was.

Secondly, we added the word “enhance” — so “may make regulations to enhance, provide or reorganize policing.” The reason to include the word “enhance” as an addition to this section is because it parallels the proposed amendments for specialized policing where specialized policing, throughout the next piece that we’ll be coming to, is there to enhance local police services.

[1810]

M. Farnworth: I’m really pleased to hear the minister’s comments, because that’s an issue I think we need to explore. Far be it for me to ever try and put words in a minister’s mouth. I would never do such a thing.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Minister, please, have some humour.

If not me, there are certain reports in the paper that clearly seem to indicate that this legislation would not apply to Delta. There are many people — my colleague from Delta South, for example — who are, on the minister’s response to that question, going: “Oh, the mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, came away feeling very confident that it was not going to apply to her.”

The point I want to make, Minister, is that there is confusion out there, confusion in comments that have been made. And I’m reading the same papers that others are. Here’s a good opportunity. Let’s get this on the record in a way that everybody fully understands and is completely clear about the intent of the legislation.

I’m more than happy if the minister says that this legislation will apply to Delta and to repeat word for word what the minister has said — that this legislation will apply to Delta, that the government will have the power to force Delta, which is adamantly opposed to participating in the regional teams, that they are in fact…. The minister says: “No, they will be — or they can be, if we so decide — into these integrated teams.” So I just want to get that on the record.

My question to the minister is this. I take it from reading her statements about Coquitlam and their resolution that she supports that position by Coquitlam, that she thinks they should be regionalized and, if Delta is under any illusion that they are exempt from this legislation or that they will not be covered by this legislation or if the minister decides to proceed with integration, that Delta would be a part of that move to requiring mandatory integration, that Delta will not have an exemption. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, this legislation can apply to any municipality, depending on the specialized policing service, and we’ll come back to that in a moment. How it applies and when it would apply — again, that’s in the next section, section 9. It depends on and it’s reliant on what makes sense for policing. What is an appropriate specialized service? What is the appropriate area for a specialized service?

Of course, as I have said many times, this is always going to be done with consultation and collaboration to make sure that we have the most effective form of policing and, if we need specialized services in an area, that we have the most effective form of specialized services that are needed. This would always be done by the collaborative approach, by working together with municipalities.

M. Farnworth: I’m glad to see that the minister is saying a collaborative approach, but I will address that later on in sections 10 and 11, where those sections give the hammer to the government to say: “This will take place.”

My specific question is…. Minister, there will be no exemption for Delta under this legislation. Is that correct?

[1815]

Hon. S. Anton: I believe I’ve answered the question, but I’ll add one more thing. When we get to section 9, 4.01(2), the minister may recommend that cabinet make regulations if “the minister considers that the regulations are necessary (i) to address the frequency or complexity of criminal activities or investigations, or (ii) to promote efficient or equitable delivery of policing and law enforcement services.”

The whole of the section goes on to talk about what kind of specialized service might be needed in an area, why it might be needed, who would participate and how the funding model would be put together. That’s all in the next section. And yes, it does apply to every municipality in British Columbia.
[ Page 5555 ]

But again, a specialized service may apply to a service area. The specialized service isn’t necessarily covering the whole province. It’s covering the service area which it is deemed to be required for.

M. Farnworth: The minister didn’t answer the question, and I’ll try again. It’s really simple. She’s brought specialized service areas into the mix. Let’s deal with it on this basis.

Regional policing in the Lower Mainland. The minister read out a letter from Coquitlam council saying that there should be mandatory participation. The minister has mentioned IHIT and said that IHIT is one of those specialized teams. It’s the one most commonly known by the public. It’s the one most commonly accessed by municipalities, in terms of when you think of regional specialized teams. That’s the one, okay?

Now, the minister is trying to say that we’ve got regulation coming in another section that will allow us to determine the specialized area that the service would apply to. Well, the question’s really simple. Delta currently does not participate, okay? There is some confusion out there.

The minister has said that I put words in her mouth. I don’t want to do that. If I have done that, then I want to be corrected. I want to know; I know the member from Delta wants to know; and I am sure the member for Delta North, who sat on Delta council and has worked with Lois Jackson, would like to know. And Lois Jackson would like to know, because she’s been in the paper, in the Province. She’s been happy, going: “It’s not going to apply to Delta.”

The question is really simple, direct, to the point. There is no exemption for Delta under this legislation or any intention by the minister to excuse Delta from having to participate in the regional specialized teams such as IHIT — IHIT being the main one, for example. Delta does not have an exemption. Is that correct?

[1820]

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll answer the question one more time. There are no exemptions. I will add one more piece, which is that if we have an existing specialized service — for instance, IHIT…. If it were to fall into this section — in other words, become part of a program under this new proposed section 9 — it would fall into all of the consultation under section 9, all of the pieces under section 9, whereby the whole specialized service was put together, the municipalities were consulted with.

Generally, you hope to get to agreement on that point. But yes, if that was a specialized service that was needed in a certain neighbourhood, a certain area…. If IHIT were to be brought into this, it would have to be brought within the purview of this section. Again, as I said, there would be consultation, working together with municipalities, but no municipalities would be exempt.

M. Farnworth: The answer I get from that is that if Lois Jackson as mayor of Delta thinks that somehow these changes aren’t going to apply to her, she is sadly mistaken. Would that be correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve answered the question about four times. I am not going to speculate or respond to what we might possibly think somebody else thinks.

M. Farnworth: I’m surprised that you wouldn’t be concerned about what somebody else thinks when that somebody else is the mayor of the municipality of Delta, of which one of your members sits on your side of the House and another sits as an independent. One would think, Minister, that you would be interested in their opinion of their local municipality’s position.

The mayor has made it quite clear that she has real concerns with the legislation. If that’s the minister’s position, then hey, who am I to say: “Whatever”? I’m quite sure the minister will hear from the mayor of Delta, if not her own colleague — and certainly, I have no doubt, in further sections from the member for Delta South.

Let me move on then to another municipality that has made clear — and I would like to make sure, just to make sure on the record — that they too, potentially, could be covered in a way that they’re not anticipating. That is the city of Vancouver. The Attorney’s own riding is in Vancouver, and I know the Attorney has had input from Police Chief Jim Chu, and the ministry certainly has. Chief Chu has also made clear his concerns about Vancouver’s specialized teams being formally integrated in a way far more than they are now. He has asked that that not happen.

Again, the impression that is certainly out there is that the minister is not intending to use these powers to apply to the city of Vancouver. My question to the minister: is she, or are they, contemplating applying those powers to the city of Vancouver? Or does the city of Vancouver have to go back and apply the comments around Delta to their position on this?

If the minister could answer that, I’d appreciate that.

Hon. S. Anton: Vancouver and Delta both participate in integrated units and work extremely cooperatively on policing generally.

I think that the member opposite might remember and consider where this came from. This came from a very serious place. This came from the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

[1825]

The commissioner, throughout his hearings and throughout his report, shows extraordinary concern for the problems that arose between police departments at that time, for the fact that they didn’t share information in the way that they might share information, for the fact that they didn’t work collaboratively or together in
[ Page 5556 ]
the way that they might. So much so, that the murders of women from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver went…. Any murder is too many, and the number of murders was absolutely horrifying to the community.

That’s why we had the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. That is why there was such a significant thought in the report as to how specialized policing should be improved in the province of British Columbia. That is the purpose of these amendments. That’s why we have this piece here.

It is the case that generally our police departments are quite…. I’ll finish up.

The Chair: Noting the hour as well.

Hon. S. Anton: I can see you’re anxious. Noting the hour, I’ll finish up.

It is certainly the case that since the late ’90s, when those terrible events were happening in Vancouver, police have changed. But it is also very clear that there was a very solid, strong recommendation that permeated that report, which was for government, if needed, to have the ability to form specialized policing and form specialized units in the province of British Columbia. This is a response to that. It is something that is generally very highly accepted by police departments in British Columbia.

As I said, it’s enabling legislation. The goal of it is to work cooperatively, but it does indeed cover all police departments, all municipalities in the province of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Noting the hour, I was going to move adjournment of the debate, but I do have to respond to that last statement.

Quite frankly, the minister knows full well that the recommendation in that report was about regionalization of police. That’s what it was. It was the regionalization of police, particularly in the Lower Mainland, and the minister knows that. It was not about specifically saying: “Let’s make some improvements around specialized teams and integration.” In fact, there have been a number of experts who gave expert testimony during the Oppal Inquiry who have said that what’s before us is not that recommendation.

One final comment. If the minister is so committed to that report, and saying that report, then I really look forward that before the end of the session the minister will have an announcement about a bus, which was a key recommendation in that report and has still not been implemented.

But noting the hour — and we will have more questions tomorrow — I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada