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)

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: Diabetes is a disease that affects hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. We know that as the population ages and particularly as we become more sedentary, diabetes is affecting more and more British Columbians. An organization that does a lot to educate people and help people through diabetes is the Canadian Diabetes Association. They are with us in the precinct today. I know they will be meeting with some members over lunch.

Please join me in welcoming Jan Hux, who is the chief scientific adviser; Ellen Stensholt, who is the Vancouver Island regional chair; and Serge Corbeil, the government relations and advocacy point person for the Canadian Diabetes Association. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Native courtworkers play such an integral role in our justice system. We are honoured today to have four native courtworkers visiting us in the gallery: Mabel Peter and Georgia Colclough from Campbell River, Trish Pantell from Nanaimo and Boyd Gallic from Port Alberni.

Joining them also are two members of the BCGEU. That’s Cheryl Jones and Oliver Rohlfs. Would this House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

S. Sullivan: In the precinct today we have a young woman named Shelby Shipper. She was in fashion school when she discovered the women-in-trades program, and now she’s a boilermaker. She goes all over British Columbia making boilers or whatever boilermakers do.

With her is Brett Holmgren, who comes from Elko, with the minister for Kootenay East. He is now taking a master’s degree for environmental science. Please welcome them to the House.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a great honour here today to introduce some very special guests to the House, both on the floor and in the gallery. It’s my honour to recognize President Mitchell Stevens of the Nisga’a Lisims Government; executive chairperson Kevin McKay; secretary-treasurer Corrine McKay; chairperson of the council of elders Shirley Morven; and Dr. Joseph Gosnell, the chief negotiator for the Nisga’a treaty and a past president of the Nisga’a Lisims Government.

Also in the gallery today are Gingolx Chief Councillor Franklin Alexcee; Laxgalts’ap Chief Councillor Henry Moore; Gitwinksihlkw Chief Councillor Ron Nyce; and Nisga’a’s legal counsels Margaret Rosling, Chani Campbell, Marcus Bartley and Bruce Campbell; as well as Nisga’a’s communications director Edward Allen.

I also have the honour of welcoming our chief commissioner from the B.C. Treaty Commission, Sophie Pierre, and Sashia Leung from the B.C. Treaty Commission.

It’s wonderful to have these people here today to witness the conclusion of some important legislation and the work that we’ve been able to do together. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tributes

JOHN RICHARDSON

B. Ralston: I want to ask the House to mark the retirement of John Richardson. He has been the Shaw TV legislative bureau chief for the past 14 years and the producer of the award-winning Voice of B.C. since his arrival here in Victoria. He began his career in Vancouver’s west end with Rogers almost 35 years ago.

[1010]

Colleagues speak of the talent and wealth of knowledge that he has brought to the job of producer, and he’s made many improvements to the Shaw bureau and the programs produced there.

He and his wife are proud parents of two daughters, Camille and Alexai. I know they play soccer, because that’s one of the things I talk with John about when I’m over at the studio. He’s a keen cyclist and an avid photographer. We wish him well in whatever life may bring him next.

Thank you, John, for a job well done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: All of the members of this House know how important the administrative staff we have in our offices are to our ability to function. I’m delighted today to recognize two from my office: Sarah Blonde, who’s our administrative coordinator, and just recently joining us is Lia Robbins. I would ask the House to thank them and make them welcome.

D. Routley: I’d seek the Speaker’s indulgence in allowing me to introduce someone who isn’t actually in the precinct. I am doing this because my friend Serge Vaillancourt, who suffers from ALS, cannot be here, but I know he’s watching.

I want to say that all members in this House are well familiar with everyday heroes. They are that way because every day at least one of them comes through the doors of our offices — people who struggle with challenges, both visible and invisible; people who work on behalf of
[ Page 5632 ]
others for benefits that they will never enjoy themselves. Serge is exactly that kind of person.

Serge was born in Montreal in 1948. He lived there with his two older brothers and sisters until the age of ten, when they moved to Los Angeles, California. In 1975, wanting to come back to Canada, Serge went to the closest border, found work with the logging industry and worked there until he retired. He worked up in Port McNeill for 30 years with Canadian Forest Products and went on many jobs, including on their railway, operating heavy equipment in their dryland sort.

Serge and his wife, Nicky, have been married 24 years and have two children, Myles and Ashley. Serge has another son, Matthew, from a previous relationship. They have two grandkids, Sam and Joy.

Serge is dedicated to making positive impacts in his community. Nine years ago he had a liver transplant and has spent the next decade now working to increase awareness of organ donation. Now suffering from ALS, he has an inventive idea that I promised Serge I would mention and that I would work with colleagues on both sides of the House to pursue. That is that when people suffering from illnesses like ALS, as my father did, have to sell their homes and move in order to accommodate their illness, the property transfer tax not be another burden on families facing so many challenges.

Serge, I promised to mention that. With the indulgence of the Speaker, I’ve been able to do that. I have sent a letter to the hon. Minister of Finance. I’m sure that members on both sides of the House have other heroes in their lives who inspire them just as much, but for me, it’s you, Serge. Thank you very much.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am proud today to welcome to the House Russ Ovans and his wife, Meghan. Russ is the owner of the Barkerville Brewing Co. in Quesnel. This new business opened in February and has made a tremendous impact on our community. They won a silver medal at this year’s Canadian Brewing Awards and are nominated for a Small Business B.C. community impact award.

The brewery employs five people in Quesnel and three more in other parts of B.C. Their products are available and, through their innovative labelling and branding of the beer, tell an important story of our heritage in the Cariboo — that of the gold rush and, of course, Barkerville.

Thank you for choosing Quesnel as your base for operations, and I wish you continued success. Would the House please welcome Quesnel Brewing.

Tributes

RON THOMPSON

J. Horgan: I rise to recognize and pay tribute to Ron Thompson. Ron passed away on November 22 at the age of 72. He’s survived by his wife, Penelope, of 39 years, two children and three grandchildren.

[1015]

Ron will be known to many in this place. He patrolled the halls with a camera on his shoulder from 1961 to the turn of the century, starting with CBC, later with CHEK and then on to BCTV at the end of his career. Ron was one of the nicer guys you’re going to ever find. As you all know, the camera people are the ones you want to spend quality time with, and Ron was the starter of that trend.

I would hope that all members of this House would take the opportunity, through you, hon. Speaker, to pass on our sincerest condolences to the Thompson family and hope that Ron is taking some spectacular video right now from wherever he may be.

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I think that many of us in this place are very blessed by having a young and energetic staff that are around us and support us and help us in the work that we do, and I am joined today by a number of them. I want to recognize Lindsay Gardner, who is here with us today. She worked with us until she got engaged and then decided she wanted to be closer to her fiancé than us. Can you imagine that? She’s joined by her mother today. She always did a spectacular job.

I want to also recognize Nikki Walker, who is the person who keeps making sure planes are going and that I’m in the right place at the right time. She does an exceptional job every day, and I just can’t say how much of a pleasure it is to work with her.

I also want to welcome Jordan Mason, who is new to our team but already making a contribution.

I, like many in this place, am grateful for the young men and women who serve and support us so incredibly well every day. Welcome to the Legislature today.

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I wish happy birthday to my granddaughter Maggie Reaugh, who turned nine. Thank you very much, and I hope you will help me in sending hugs and kisses. I wish I was with you.

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the House my constituent Ann Lodge from Port Moody. Anne is here with relatives — John McElroy from Edmonton and Peter DuManoir and Chum DuManoir from Cobourg, Ontario. They’re going to the Grey Cup on Sunday. Chum is doing a school project and has chosen to do it on his visit to the Legislature. Would the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.
[ Page 5633 ]

Tributes

AMRIK PRIHAR

Hon. D. McRae: It was just 12 days ago that we had municipal and trustee elections across the province. I was checking online to see if my friend Amrik Prihar was successful in his bid for re-election as a Cowichan Valley school trustee. You can imagine my shock when it was not a story of his election success I found but rather a story of his passing just days before the election date.

Amrik was an educational leader in British Columbia. He worked in numerous school districts over a 30-year career. He was awarded teaching excellence awards at both the provincial and the national level. According to his son, Malik, his goal was that every kid go to post-secondary school and prepare themselves for a bright future. That was his legacy.

Amrik was only 68 years old when he died. He was passionate about his family, about education, his community and his friends. He is survived by his wife, Harjeet; his son, Malik; daughter, Monica; and two lovely grandchildren. He left the province and he left B.C.’s education system a better place because of his efforts.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: I just wanted to briefly greet the Nisga’a delegation here today. As a young, naive economist, I worked for the Nisga’a on the fisheries component of their treaty. I do recall the words of Dr. Gosnell’s brother James Gosnell, who stated decades ago that the Nisga’a owned their lands lock, stock and barrel, and as a result of legislation to be passed today they not only own the barrel, but they’ll be able to tax it.

Thank you very much, and welcome to the Nisga’a.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M214 — BRITISH COLUMBIA
OPEN MINING ACT, 2014

N. Macdonald presented a bill intituled British Columbia Open Mining Act, 2014.

N. Macdonald: I rise to move first reading of a bill intituled British Columbia Open Mining Act, 2014, standing in my name on the order paper.

Motion approved.

N. Macdonald: The British Columbia Open Mining Act is introduced to help re-establish public confidence in mining here in British Columbia. Mining is an essential part of the B.C. economy and provides thousands of family-supporting jobs throughout rural British Columbia.

[1020]

The failure at Mount Polley has led many in the public to lose confidence in the ability of this government to ensure that mines operate in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, and I obviously share that view. My experience has been that despite government failure, mining here in British Columbia is generally done very well.

We in the NDP know that the government’s lack of openness has fed public skepticism. Hiding documents and restricting the availability of information breeds distrust. The opposition’s continued inability to have access to even the most basic information from the government over this session is part of a much larger government effort to limit political damage, which I believe is ultimately detrimental to mining.

This bill amends section 10 of the Mines Act to ensure mining reports and notices are publicly filed in a manner that is easily available to everyone. This public posting of mining reports and permits is common practice in many other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States and is an important first step in securing public confidence needed to strengthen mining in B.C. As well, workers, First Nations and rural communities have the right to know what is going on in their back country. This bill addresses that right in a straightforward and cost-effective manner.

This is a commonsense bill. With that, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting from today.

Bill M214, British Columbia Open Mining 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.

Ministerial Statements

JIM SINCLAIR

Hon. C. Clark: On this last day of the fall legislative session I do want to just take a moment to recognize Jim Sinclair, who has decided not to seek re-election at his post at the B.C. Federation of Labour, and to pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of working women and men all across our province for four decades. It’s an incredible, long pull on behalf of working people in British Columbia.

Jim and I did not always agree on…. In fact, we didn’t agree on almost anything for the entire time that we would sit across from each other in debates, in negotiation and sometimes across the table when I was in broadcasting and radio. But the thing about Jim that I
[ Page 5634 ]
think everybody would agree with is that his word was his bond. When Jim Sinclair said that he was going to do something, he always did his level best to deliver on that. There are few people in the world with that kind of character, who you can count on to always say what they mean.

I think Jim’s habit of being so frank often meant that there was more clarity about the differences that we had between us. Despite that, Jim and I found ways to work together — in particular, in settling the Port Metro truckers dispute. Jim was absolutely crucial in making that happen. More broadly, working together on LNG, sitting with us at a table, bringing the labour movement with him — in particular, private sector unions — to talk about how we could work together to grow the economy.

What Jim understood when we were at that table was that if we don’t create more jobs and grow the economy, there will not be more jobs for his members. I recognize that very same thing. We all need to work together to make sure that we’re making this economy grow and go.

I understand that working together with me has perhaps created some reputational damage for Jim Sinclair, as he decides not to seek re-election. I won’t apologize to him for that.

I also, though, want to pay tribute to the fact that Jim’s willingness to reach out, to put aside politics, to work even with people with whom he had profound disagreements was the mark of real leadership — a real, fearless leadership and a willingness to do what was right for the men and the women that he represented.

Jim, as you go off on to the next stage of your life, I know that everybody in this Legislature absolutely wishes you the best. I’m sure that we’ll see him on the other side of some negotiating table not too far in the future. But I do know this. In leaving as the head of the B.C. Fed, he will leave some very, very big workboots for someone else to fill.

Thank you, Jim.

[1025]

J. Horgan: Although I made a two-minute statement about Jim earlier in the week, I do appreciate the flexibility of ministerial statements. It gives me more of an opportunity to speak candidly about someone I’ve known for coming on 25 years. I first met Jim when I was much, much younger than I am today, working in Ottawa on Parliament Hill.

Jim would come with the delegation from the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union annually to Ottawa to make representations to government about stronger communities on the coast, about protecting a vital and vibrant, at that time, fishing industry and, most importantly, a sustainable fishery on the west coast of Canada.

Jim was tireless in his advocacy for people and passionate about collective action and cooperation. I was struck by that the first time I met him, and I am struck today, 25 years later, to know him as a man who was unrelenting in his passion and commitment to people, working people and, most importantly, their health and safety. In recent years, unable to get access to government, Jim focused on health and safety when issues emerged.

Two tragedies come to my mind, and I know that members of this place will remember them quite vividly. There was just a horrific accident in Abbotsford where farmworkers were crammed into a van, more than should have been in the van. As a result of that horrific accident and the advocacy of Jim Sinclair and the B.C. Federation of Labour, legislation was changed, regulations were improved, and I’m hopeful we are safer today as a result of the work of Jim Sinclair.

A second tragedy was the tragic deaths of three individuals and the permanent injury of two others at a mushroom farm in Langley. Again, for Jim, public health and safety for working people, whether they were in unions or not, was absolutely paramount in his mind. He didn’t just walk the walk; he also delivered. He didn’t just advocate; he helped out.

Michael Phan is permanently disabled as a result of the Langley mushroom disaster. Jim, quietly and without fanfare, set up a scholarship for his daughter Tracey. She’s now at university, a vibrant, vivacious woman, who has opportunity because Jim Sinclair quietly, without a press release, without a photo opportunity, just tried to help out a family that was in distress.

I’m thinking, after listening to the Premier’s remarks: what better tribute to Jim Sinclair than to perhaps put him in charge of a public inquiry into the disasters at Babine and Lakeland — someone who is passionate, someone who can put politics aside, someone who really, really cares about working people. I think that would be an absolutely honourable tribute to Mr. Sinclair and his 40 years of advocacy for working people in British Columbia.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ANDREW THOMPSON AWARD
RECIPIENT GLEN WILLIAMS

D. Donaldson: Um jabt, Simogyet Malii. Um jabt. That is “good job” in Gitsenimx to Gitanyow Hereditary Chief “Malii” Glen Williams, who earlier this month was the co-winner of the 2014 Andrew Thompson Award from the West Coast Environmental Law society.

I first met Glen more than 20 years ago, when he was an integral member of the team building the Delgamuukw case on jurisdiction, authority and ownership, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. That decision on the existence of aboriginal title based on the adawx, the oral histories, and ayookw, the laws, laid the groundwork for the recent Tsilhqot’in decision that recognized aborig-
[ Page 5635 ]
inal title on the ground. But like all hereditary chiefs in Stikine, Simogyet Malii prefers good-faith negotiation over litigation.

In his role as chief negotiator for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, he has displayed great skill and determination. I’m sure that many provincial bureaucrats and numerous Ministers of Aboriginal Relations can attest to that. Under his leadership, the Gitanyow Lax’yip land use plan was codified by the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, grounded in their adawx and their ayookw, and informed by Canadian constitutional law and western science.

It has recently been used as an essential planning and ground-truthing tool in discussions with companies proposing natural gas pipelines across Gitanyow territory and in dealings with the provincial government on jurisdiction issues.

Amongst many other attributes, the Lax’yip land use plan allows for consideration of cumulative effects not only from those projects located on Gitanyow territories but ones which will have a direct impact from further afield. A case in point is the proposed liquid natural gas facility at Lelu Island at the mouth of the Skeena River and the danger it poses to eelgrass beds essential for salmon smolts that return to Gitanyow territories as adult salmon.

[1030]

To Simogyet Malii for winning this prestigious award and for the work he doing on the long-term protection of the Gitanyow lax’yip I say, “Um jabt. Lugul um” — good job, the very best. Congratulations to my friend Glen Williams.

WILLIAMS LAKE

D. Barnett: Nestled in a beautiful valley on Highway 97 in the heart of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the city of Williams Lake has rural charm intrinsic to its ranching culture, gold rush history, cowboy heritage, First Nations culture and miles and miles of untouched nature.

With access to a selection of outdoor experiences — such as freshwater fishing; exquisite birdwatching; adventurous horseback riding; hiking; staying at luxurious resorts to ice fish and ski; and, of course, snowmobiling — the land that we all share provides a high quality of life for both residents and visitors alike.

Home to the inspiring Man in Motion, Rick Hansen, and the training centre to Carey Price, our Olympic gold-medal hockey winner, Williams Lake is not only a wonderful place to live but also a breathtaking destination to visit as a tourist. With a regular scheduled airport and improvements on our world-class highways, visitors flock to the area to watch wranglers at work during the famous Williams Lake Stampede, which has become one of the largest rodeos in western Canada.

What really makes Williams Lake what it is today are the people, hard-working people. With the issues around the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the devastation of Mount Polley, these people have made Williams Lake a greater place to live.

SHARE THE WARMTH CAMPAIGN
FOR HOMELESS IN VANCOUVER

G. Heyman: On any given night there are roughly 3,700 homeless people in Metro Vancouver, a large population compared to other regions of Canada. As we head into the winter season, many of our community neighbours seek out shelter from cold temperatures, snow and rain.

The Lookout Emergency Aid Society operates shelters across Metro Vancouver, including Vancouver-Fairview’s Yukon Shelter. In past years Lookout, one of Vancouver’s largest providers of shelter beds, has been forced to turn people away over 10,000 times due to a shortage of beds, forcing them to seek shelter elsewhere or to brave the elements on their own.

This winter, Lookout is asking people to share the warmth by donating essential survival items to be handed out at shelters across Metro Vancouver. This campaign is collecting blankets, sleeping bags, wool socks and other warm items for those unable to find beds.

These donations not only serve to keep people warm and healthier during cold and wet winter conditions; they’re also a gesture that offers and answers the hope that other people care with something tangible. These gestures also encourage homeless people and people in challenging circumstances to maintain contact with Lookout workers, who help to connect them to services and supports.

The Share the Warmth campaign also intends to educate the public on homeless populations in our communities and get people focused on solutions.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of joining other interested community members to tour the Yukon Shelter and other facilities run by Lookout. I was impressed by the staff, the facilities, the programs and the residents who were rebuilding their lives. Lookout operates transitional housing and provides a variety of supports and outreach.

I urge us all to share the warmth this winter and donate to Lookout and other local organizations which are on the front line addressing the homeless crisis in our communities.

SHUSWAP TRAIL ALLIANCE

G. Kyllo: The Shuswap is a paradise for anyone who loves the great outdoors. A four-season playground, the Shuswap is home to beautiful landscapes, pristine lakes and rivers, snow-capped mountains and countless amenities available for anyone to get outside and live a healthy, active lifestyle.

[1035]

One group in my constituency that is helping people enjoy the outdoors and connect with nature is the Shuswap Trail Alliance. Since 2005 this alliance has been working with a number of stakeholders to create an internationally recognized natural trail and waterway network throughout the Shuswap, from Salmon Arm to Enderby and Sicamous. all the way to Seymour Arm. Each trail offers users a wide variety of unique environments to explore, whether it be on foot, bike, horseback or, more appropriately as the snow starts to fly, on cross-country skis or snowshoes.

You don’t need to be an expert to enjoy the amazing trail system of the Shuswap. Many have an “easy” rating and are located only minutes from town, while others are more difficult but will lead you out to the beautiful back country.

The alliance is also engaged with First Nations communities in developing trails to raise the profile, cultural and heritage, of the Secwepemc peoples. Currently they are working with several partners, with hopes to transform the former CP Rail line between Sicamous and Armstrong to a multi-use continuous greenway, along with developing even more trails throughout our region.

May the House please join me to thank Phil McIntyre-Paul, executive director, along with Lori Schneider Wood, Veda Roberge and staff and along with the executive and their amazing volunteers of the Shuswap trail lines for their hard work in providing such an amazing opportunity for residents and visitors to experience the natural beauty of the Shuswap.

UNIVERSAL WORD FESTIVAL
IN SURREY

B. Ralston: Former Premier Campbell once pledged to make British Columbia the most literate jurisdiction in North America. As part of the ongoing effort to promote youth literacy, Terrance Evans, along with the ACME Arts Society, a non-profit agency for young people involved in the arts, staged the Universal Word Festival to unite our community in support of literacy. The festival took place this year at the new Surrey city hall’s Centre Stage and atrium on the evening of Thursday, November 16.

Participants performed poetry, spoken-word pieces, raps and played music. The Minister of Education was there, and so was I. Terrance Evans had earlier challenged me to perform, and when I read the newspaper article promoting the event, apparently I had agreed.

If you don’t mind, Madame Speaker, I will reprise some of the highlights from my rap.

My name is Bruce,

and I like to keep it loose.

And when it’s time to chill,

I find a book to give a thrill.

I find what I need

is something good to read.

Sometimes you have to slow down, Surrey.

You can’t always be in a hurry.

You’ve got to spend the time

to read and re-read a line.

You’ve got to spend the time

to read and re-read a line.

I read to open doors.

I read to escape the bores.

I read to learn a skill.

I read to avoid a spill.

I read to open my eyes.

I read to tell truth from lies.

If you start reading,

pretty soon you’ll be leading.

So that’s what I’ve got to say.

I’m ending it there today.

No blame,

no shame.

Just want to get you into the reading game.

Thanks, Madame Speaker, for not giving me the hook.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN
MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS

D. Bing: I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the many candidates who ran for office in the recent municipal elections. Although many candidates were unsuccessful in their election campaigns, I know that each one cared about their community and had the best interests of their community at heart. Each individual who ran for office deserves much praise for putting their name forward and for being part of our democratic process.

In Maple Ridge I would like to congratulate mayor-elect Nicole Read and newly elected and returning councillors Corisa Bell, Kiersten Duncan, Bob Masse, Gordy Robson, Tyler Shymkiw and Craig Speirs. Many thanks to the departing mayor, Ernie Daykin, and councillors Cheryl Ashlie, Judy Dueck, Mike Morden and Al Hogarth.

In Pitt Meadows I’d like to congratulate mayor-elect John Becker and newly elected and returning council members Bruce Bell, Bill Dingwall, Janis Elkerton, Tracy Miyashita, David Murray and Mike Stark. Many thanks to Mayor Deb Walters and Councillor O’Connell for their outstanding public service.

I would also like to congratulate the new and returning members of the board of education, Mike Murray, Ken Clarkson, Korleen Carreras, Susan Carr, Lisa Beare, Eleanor Palis and Dave Rempel. I’d like to thank retiring trustees Kathy Marshall and Sarah Nelson for their outstanding service.

I’d like to wish all newly elected members of our local government the best of luck as they start their new terms. I wish to thank all of those leaving office for your outstanding public service to our communities, and I wish you well as you begin your new lives.

[1040]

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S RESPONSE TO
ADVANCED EDUCATION MINISTER HANDLING
OF KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY ISSUES

J. Horgan: Well, let me say to the Premier: we’re so glad you’re back. You’re not going to believe what these folks got up to while you were away.

On Monday the Advanced Education Minister told us that he had cooperated fully with the investigation into his scheme to circumvent PSEC rules and then cover that up from PSEC. We learned through e-mails obtained from Kwantlen College on that day that not only did he help craft the circumvention of those PSEC rules, but he also had suggestions about how they could get around it.

So let me ask the Premier: if the Minister of Advanced Education was in fact being reviewed by the Minister of Finance and it was discovered that he did not be comprehensive with the facts, I think would be a way to say it, isn’t it appropriate that he be removed from cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear. I’m sure the member didn’t intend this, but if there was any suggestion that I, in this session, would intentionally avoid question period after the performance we’ve seen from the NDP this session, I want to tell him that is absolutely untrue.

To the question, I’ll say this. I have absolute confidence in the work that the minister is doing. I’ll tell you why. The matters that the member is talking about are matters that became public months ago. The member admitted that he made a mistake. He has apologized for making that mistake in the work that he did as a volunteer member of that board.

In the meantime, he has worked incredibly hard and devoted himself to the task of re-engineering our post-secondary education system, which is vital, absolutely vital, if we want to be able to grow our economy. If we want to ensure that British Columbians are in a position to take advantage of the jobs that are coming through LNG, through new mines and through a forestry industry that is thriving, we have to make sure that people have those skills.

Re-engineering the system is a crucial part of that, and the Minister of Advanced Education has done a sterling job in meeting that task.

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

J. Horgan: Again, it’s striking that the Premier doesn’t seem to catch the gravity of the situation here. It’s three strikes and you’re out in most jurisdictions that I’m aware of.

He started out as the vice-chair, at that time, of the human resources board. The minister hatched a plan to circumvent the rules and find ways to cover it up. Strike 1.

Then as a minister — not as a volunteer board member but a minister of the Crown, someone that has, I would suggest, a pretty high obligation to integrity in most jurisdictions in the world — the minister claims that any suggestions are absolutely outlandish. A review is done. “Troubling and disturbing,” said the Minister of Finance. I call that strike 2.

Then, presented with evidence from his own computer — well, the RCMP’s computer — that he not only was complicit but was directing the play from the bench, he claimed to not have any knowledge of that. I would suggest that would be strike 3.

If someone was being investigated — and there should be some experience in this area with the Premier’s office — surely to goodness they would inform themselves of their behaviour.

Again to the Premier: how is it possible that it’s acceptable to you to have the member for Tynehead in your cabinet?

[1045]

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. C. Clark: So 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013 — if it was three strikes and you’re out, this member wouldn’t still be here, Madame Speaker, and neither would many of the members across the way.

I will say this. When the minister…. He certainly admitted his mistake, and he apologized for it, in the work that he did as a member of the volunteer board at KPU. I believe I accept that he is sincere when he says that he did not remember the e-mail that had been sent to his e-mail at his former work address, to which he no longer had access.

In terms of the work that he has done for British Columbians since he was appointed minister, it has been a sterling task that he has taken on, ensuring that we are re-engineering our post-secondary education system to meet the needs of a growing economy so that every single British Columbian has the tools they need to take advantage of the jobs that are coming.

We believe in economic development. On this side of the House we believe in saying yes to growth, and on this side of the House we accept our responsibility for ensuring that British Columbians are in a position to take advantage of those jobs very seriously. The Minister of Advanced Education has fulfilled those duties exceptionally well.

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

J. Horgan: Again, I’m having difficulty understanding why the Premier doesn’t grasp the gravity of the situation.

Again, in most jurisdictions in the known universe integrity is a high priority to enter into the cabinet of
[ Page 5638 ]
the government of any jurisdiction that you happen to be living in. I would expect that someone with a law enforcement background would have more regard for the law, more regard for the rules, more regard for being upfront and understanding the consequence of his actions.

The member for Surrey–White Rock did nothing wrong. Someone else did something wrong, but he resigned. He understood that if you’re going to have “honourable” in your title, you have to be honourable.

I guess the Premier just doesn’t get it. She just doesn’t get that integrity is important. Talking points are good, the media cycle is good, but integrity is important in this place. Perhaps more frequent visitations would maybe have more impact on the Premier, because it matters to people on this side of the House and it matters, I would argue, to many people on that side of the House as well.

I don’t want the children of British Columbia to look to the Minister of Advanced Education as a role model for good behaviour. It’s inappropriate. He should step down. If he doesn’t have the jam to do that, surely to goodness the Premier should ask him to do that today.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, the member suggests that I somehow like to avoid question period. I want to assure him that I take every opportunity to be present at question period. I find it to be one of the most enjoyable half-hours you can get any day of the week, and I know that people who watch it on TV will agree with me on that. You won’t find me stepping out of question period when my car is in the parking lot.

I will say this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said, I believe the minister is absolutely sincere when he says he did not remember having been a party to that e-mail that he received when he was at KPU 3½ years ago as a volunteer member of the board.

[1050]

He is doing extremely good work now.

I know that the opposition is not interested in debating economic issues. They are not interested in debating the issues with respect to education and how we’re going to ensure British Columbians have the tools that they need to take those jobs. They aren’t interested in talking about how we can grow mining, how we can grow forestry, how we can grow the natural gas industry in British Columbia.

They aren’t interested in talking about the economy, because the fact is this: they don’t care about those issues. They aren’t interested in discussing those things that will mean that British Columbians can build a better future for themselves. On this side of the House we are focused on that every single day. We’re going to continue to be focused on that, because we really do want to make sure we build a prosperous future for British Columbia and for all Canadians.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, before we proceed, I’m drawing everyone’s attention to Standing Order 40(2): “No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of this House.” As members know, the proceedings in this House are based on centuries of tradition of mutual respect and integrity.

I would caution all members.

K. Corrigan: Young people are not supposed to grow up just for jobs. They’re supposed to grow up to be ethical citizens as well. The minister didn’t disclose all relevant information to the government investigation, and his defence is that Mr. Mingay didn’t ask him for any records. His defence is that Mr. Mingay didn’t ask him what he knew about Kwantlen’s efforts to violate PSEC compensation rules. The minister had a clear ethical obligation to disclose all he knew to Mr. Mingay. That did not happen.

To the Premier, why is the Minister of Advanced Education still in her cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: I am certain that I cannot be the only one in this Legislature, or outside of it, who scratches her head when she hears the NDP lecture people on ethics in government. My goodness. After the train wreck of ethical lapses under the previous NDP government, which this member supported, it is astonishing to hear her stand up and offer this lecture today.

Having said that, though, and to the question, the minister has said he did tell Mr. Mingay everything that he knew and everything that he remembered. As I said, I accept as sincere his comment that he didn’t remember an e-mail that he was a part of 3½ years ago as a volunteer member of that board. I accept that. I look forward to the continuing work that he is going to do to ensure that every British Columbian has the skills they need to be first in line for the jobs that are coming.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, when the Minister of Advanced Education was an RCMP officer, I am absolutely confident he never would have accepted such an explanation from somebody he was investigating. When the Premier fired Harry Bloy, she said: “Ministers do need to be accountable for their conduct…. You know, in our government we do expect both ministers and staff to behave honourably.” But when the Minister of Advanced Education hid the truth from a government investigation, the Premier sent the Minister of Finance into the House to defend him and say: “Oh, gee whiz, he works really hard.”

Aren’t there any standards of ethical conduct the Premier expects from members of her cabinet?

[1055]

Hon. C. Clark: I will resist drawing comparisons and I hope be able to resist for the rest of question period speaking in detail about some of the ethical lapses of the NDP and that member’s role in supporting some of those who committed those ethical lapses.

I will say this. The minister made a mistake. He’s admitted that, and he’s apologized for doing that. In the meantime, he has continued to do excellent work on behalf of the people of British Columbia. He continues to enjoy my full confidence in doing that, and we look forward to getting on with the work of ensuring that British Columbia leads Canada — no less than leads Canada — in economic growth when we are done with the B.C. jobs plan.

D. Eby: It’s fascinating to hear the Premier talk about the minister taking responsibility, because I remember when I stood in this place and asked the minister about this. He called my comments outlandish. He said I was on a fishing expedition.

It’s interesting that she talks about his lapse of memory — that she believes that. Because when I stood in this place on April 9 and asked him about his RCMP e-mails and whether he would proactively disclose those e-mails to the Auditor General, the Minister of Finance stood up, and he pledged that the government would cooperate — the whole government would cooperate, including the Minister of Advanced Education — with the investigation. But those e-mails were not disclosed.

Can the Premier please tell this House why he is still sitting in her cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member must know, and I think everybody in this Legislature knows by now that the member didn’t have access to the e-mails from his previous employer’s account. I think that is well known to every member of this Legislature, so I wonder why the member asked that question.

The minister certainly did turn over all the e-mails to which he had access, and Mr. Mingay now also has access to the other e-mails which the minister nor the government had access to at the time, and he’ll certainly be considering those.

The process continues, and in the meantime, so does the hard work of the government in making sure that we create an economy where British Columbians are first in line for jobs.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: There is a pattern here. The minister discloses when he’s caught. We disclosed e-mails that contradicted the minister saying our claims were outlandish, and then he said: “Oh, maybe.” We disclosed the RCMP e-mails, and he said oh, his memory was refreshed.

When the investigation was happening, though, he didn’t ask the RCMP to release his e-mails. He didn’t ask Kwantlen to produce documents. He didn’t say: “Mr. Mingay, maybe you should read Hansard.” He did nothing.

To the Premier: how can you tolerate behaviour like this in your cabinet? How can you excuse that?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said and as the member must well know, the minister did not have access to the e-mails from his previous employer. He simply did not, and neither did the government have access to all of those e-mails as well. The e-mails that the opposition has supplied are now in the possession of Mr. Mingay, and they’ll be part of his consideration.

I do want to say, on the minister’s behalf, that he certainly did pass along all the e-mails to which he had access. I don’t think that we can ask more than that. If he didn’t have access to the e-mails, he couldn’t have turned them over. In the meantime, though, I do want to say this. We are working very hard to make sure that we continue to grow our economy and….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Clark: The minister’s work, despite all of the work of the opposition to try and tear it apart, has been exemplary. He has been a very important part of building our plan, making sure that the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint comes to life so that every British Columbian can be first in line for those jobs that are coming.

[1100]

LOCATION OF CORONER’S INQUEST
INTO BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

S. Simpson: Last week the Premier said that she’d like us to be asking questions about the tragedy at Babine Forest Products. The Premier may recall that on October 29 we asked a series of questions of her, and she chose at that time to not rise in her place and answer those questions, so maybe she’ll answer them today.

Since that time, since 2012, the workers and their families have been frustrated by attempts to get justice in this matter. They asked for a public inquiry, and the Liberal government said no. They asked for legal counsel to ensure their voices were heard, and as recently as November 19 the Premier said no. They’ve asked that the inquest be held in Burns Lake and not four hours away in Prince George so that they can attend, and the answer continues to be no.

Can the Premier explain why these workers and their families will have to travel four hours to Prince George from Burns Lake if they want to attend hearings into the deaths of their loved ones?
[ Page 5640 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The tragedies at Babine and Lakeland — the families involved, the families of the deceased, the families of the injured parties deserve answers. The communities deserve answers. These were terrible tragedies, and they must not happen again. That’s why the coroner is undertaking her independent inquest in Prince George to examine both of these tragedies.

She is very aware of the needs of the families. Through all her written statements and through all her public statements she’s extremely aware of the needs of the families, their needs to have their issues put forward. That’s why she has appointed an additional coroner. That’s why she has appointed an additional coroner’s counsel.

She’s also aware of the needs of the families to be able to travel to Prince George in order to attend the inquest and in order to be involved in it, and I gather that WorkSafe is making provisions so that the families can be there. Everyone involved in this inquest is determined to find the answers to these tragedies, to make sure they do not happen again and to ensure that the families are involved.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This Premier was more than ready to use that mill explosion as a photo op in the campaign. She doesn’t have enough respect for those families to stand and speak today in this House. It’s outrageous. It’s embarrassing to the justice system in this province. It’s embarrassing that the Premier will not stand and speak for those families that she made promises to after that explosion and has ignored every single day since — every single day.

It’s been three years since this tragedy occurred. The need for sympathy has passed. It’s time for some justice, and the Premier can deliver that justice today. They want that hearing, that inquest to be held in their hometown so that they can participate.

The Premier could make that commitment today. Once, just once, when the cameras aren’t on for the photo op, will she do something that respects those families? Tell them they’re going to get their inquest.

Hon. S. Anton: As I have discussed in this House a number of times and as the coroner has said herself publicly and by correspondence a number of times, she is most determined to find out the cause of these tragedies to make sure that they do not happen again.

The families’ involvement and their interest in this issue is critical. That is why she has written to the families. She has said: “We are committed to ensuring that the concerns, issues and questions of you and your family members are acknowledged and addressed throughout the inquest process and during the hearing.”

She has appointed a second coroner and a second coroner’s counsel. She says: “Given the breadth of the issues to be reviewed and the extensive material to be examined, in support of our commitment to maintain ongoing important communications with the families, I will be engaging another lawyer to assist.”

[1105]

The families are being helped in terms of travel to Prince George. There is a single inquest due to the similarity, or what appears to be a similarity, between the two explosions. The independent Coroners Service is having an extensive inquest. She is determined to make sure that accidents like this do not happen again, and she is determined that the families be involved in that inquest.

SURGICAL SERVICES AT DELTA HOSPITAL

V. Huntington: Delta Hospital receives 1 percent of Fraser Health’s surgical program budget. Delta, on the other hand, has 6 percent of FHA’s population, well over 100,000 souls. The 2011 Canada census indicates that every jurisdiction in British Columbia with a population over 60,000 has full surgical care at their local hospital — every jurisdiction except Delta. We have the largest container port in the country, the largest ferry terminal, two industrial parks, four major highways and over 100,000 people. And we can’t get acute surgery after hours.

On October 31 ten of Delta’s doctors had a meeting with FHA, and that meeting included the acting CEO. I notice the minister smiling there. Our doctors were told that within a year four short-stay surgical beds would be established at Delta Hospital. Five days later, after the CEO left office, Fraser Health reversed its course.

Can the minister explain why Fraser Health broke its commitment to Delta’s doctors?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question and the opportunity to talk about Delta Hospital. I had a chance recently to visit Delta Hospital. Great people are working at that facility, as we have all around the province. They’re looking forward to a proposed expansion of their diagnostic imaging and laboratory services.

They do provide excellent surgical care — day surgery. It is one of the hospitals that has actually scored some of the best post-surgical outcomes across the country in the national surgical quality improvement program.

Fraser Health has assured me that Delta Hospital has not experienced a reduction in surgical services, and they are reaffirming their commitment to maintain those day surgery services as well as establishing a pre-admission clinic and an orthopedic services clinic in a very good community hospital in Delta.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I want to assure the minister that we know Delta Hospital is a good hospital. But we want to
[ Page 5641 ]
make up for surgical services that were taken away by this government over ten years ago.

On October 24 a constituent of mine took her son to Delta Hospital with severe stomach pain. It was diagnosed as appendicitis. The hospital’s operating rooms were closed, and he was transferred to Surrey Memorial. He waited in agony for seven hours, and his appendix burst before he was taken into surgery.

This case is just one example of a critical problem. On October 20 the minister received a letter from 31 Delta doctors — and the number has grown substantially since — that told him a nearly identical story. Since that letter there have been two more cases of appendicitis at Delta Hospital, where the lack of acute after-hours surgery forced a transfer of patients, and in both cases they waited over six hours for treatment. To quote my constituent: “Maybe somebody has to go through another traumatic experience or maybe even death for it to be considered important.”

The professional opinion of Delta’s doctors needs to be heard.

Madame Speaker: Question, Member.

V. Huntington: Madame Speaker, I’m asking the minister: will he please meet with Delta’s doctors and listen to their professional concerns about service levels at Delta Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: The people that perform services at Delta, as the member well recognizes, are superb. But we can’t have all services provided in every community. It makes sense from a regional perspective to have high-level services concentrated in certain hospitals.

[1110]

In this case Delta has a great day-surgery program and will continue to have a great day-surgery program, but they do not have a postoperative surgical unit or a critical care unit. It does not serve patients well to provide a higher level of surgery service when those ancillary services are not there.

That is why it is best to take patients that require that level of service to Surrey Memorial, which has had a huge investment, part of the $12 billion that we have put into hospitals around this province. We need to ensure that patients are well looked after. Fraser Health is doing that.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, Distinguishing Between Government Program and Partisan Political Advertising: An Update to Our 1996 Report.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. N. Letnick: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

Reports from Committees

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present a report by the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to make a few comments before moving adoption. This report contains the results of the committee’s consultations on youth mental health in British Columbia. The consultations were held as part of the first phase in our special project to examine youth mental health which I announced in this House earlier in May.

The consultations took place over an approximately four-month period over the spring and summer. They included two meetings with expert witnesses and stakeholders. We also held a special private meeting with youth and family witnesses. In addition, the committee invited written submissions from the public.

Overall, we had a very positive response and received over 160 oral and written submissions. This report summarizes key themes from that input, what we heard, and identifies a number of areas warranting attention and further investigation. The committee will be undertaking this work as soon as possible in the next phase of the special project. It will culminate with the release of a final report with recommendations to the House.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to everyone who participated in the consultations. We heard a lot of moving stories from youth themselves and families with firsthand personal experience touched by mental health. We also received a number of excellent and insightful submissions from expert witnesses and stakeholders groups, including teachers, counsellors, doctors and other professionals.

In closing, I would like to recognize the hard work of all the committee members, particularly the Deputy Chair, the member for Stikine, as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. As Chair, I’m pleased that we all have been able to work collaboratively as a group on this important issue affecting
[ Page 5642 ]
all British Columbians.

I look forward to our continued work as we embark on the next phase in this special project.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

D. Donaldson: I rise as Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to address the tabling of Interim Report: Youth Mental Health in British Columbia. I’d like to add a few comments in support of the comments the Chair has just spoken to.

First and foremost, I want to thank the participants — the professionals, the families and the youth — who in person and in writing contributed to our deliberations and had a profound effect on committee members.

We acknowledge in the report that although there are pockets where youth mental health services are working well in the province, in large part we heard about a disjointed and fragmented service delivery system.

[1115]

I wanted to quote from the report. “Committee members agreed that immediate and concerted actions on the part of government are needed to improve youth mental health services.” I’m very proud that this is a bipartisan recommendation from the committee. It is an area that needs urgent action, as the report points out, in the area of inadequate resources, in the area of coordination, in the area of education.

Finally, I just want to say to families and those children seeking to get healthier: this report is not the end. Your struggles will be honoured as we use your testimony to move forward in what I hope is an urgent manner.

Motion approved.

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present petitions.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have petitions and letters from thousands of British Columbians asking that this government address a great inequality. Aboriginal court workers are paid $10,000 per year less than other workers doing comparable work. The petitions are asking the Minister of Justice to act today to end this blatantly discriminatory and unjust policy.

D. Eby: I rise to table a petition with 468 signatures in support of community health clinics in Vancouver, including the Pine Free Clinic, and asking for a dedicated youth health care clinic in Vancouver. This is in addition to the petitions that have already been tabled on this.

J. Rice: I rise to table a petition from every member of the community of Dodge Cove living on Digby Island. The people of Dodge Cove feel that the Aurora-Nexen LNG project, which is proposed to be situated half a kilometre from their homes, will alter their lives and community irreparably.

N. Simons: I have a petition from quite a number of people around the province, bringing the total to 6,984 names, asking the government to prohibit the introduction of the Arctic apple.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I call orders of the day, staff will ask me to remind all members to take whatever personal belongings are within your desks. The Youth Parliament is likely to sit between now and when this place reconvenes in the spring. So please clean out your desks, as they say at school.

Then, importantly, the first order of business. I call third reading of Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, read a third time and passed.

[Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I now call third reading on Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2014

Hon. M. Polak: I move the bill be now read a third time.

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Now I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 6.

[1120]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
INCOME TAX ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; D. Horne in the chair.
[ Page 5643 ]

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

The Chair: It has been brought to my attention that section 63 was not carried.

Section 63 approved.

On section 83 (continued).

The Chair: Could I ask those that are still in the House….

B. Ralston: I think they’re still discussing my rap, Mr. Chair.

There has been some agreement among members of the opposition. I believe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head wanted to move to section 122, which, given the time left until adjournment, I am agreeable to. That is in part 8, the closure tax credit. I think he’s in his place now, so perhaps I could turn to him.

Sections 83 to 121 inclusive approved.

On section 122.

A. Weaver: I’m just wondering why the government is introducing a tax credit to cover the costs of restoration, reclamation or remediation at the end as opposed to requiring this as a cost of doing business. This is not the polluter-pay model. This is the polluter-gets-paid model. It strikes me as inconsistent with the kind of general premise in society that people want the polluter to pay, not get paid.

Could the minister please clarify why this was done after the fact and not up front through the issuing of a bond or some other process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first point I would make in response to the member’s question — and hopefully he will accept this — is that nothing in this section of the act diminishes the responsibility that the taxpayer has for assuming responsibility for the costs of decommissioning a facility that has come to the end of its life.

[1125]

The construct for the act with respect to this new tax — the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act — is that there would be recognition given to the capital cost associated with the construction of that facility. We have, as a matter of policy, chosen to recognize that those capital cost obligations extend right through to the end of the life of that facility, including the proper and legally obligated costs associated with decommissioning the facility.

That’s the rationale. The member may have observations about the advisability of that rationale, but that’s the rationale around which the section is drafted.

Section 122 approved on division.

The Chair: Shall sections 123 through 130 pass?

On section 129.

B. Ralston: On section 129, the natural gas tax credit, this is a section which…. A company that “has a permanent establishment in British Columbia” has the opportunity to earn a reduction in corporate income tax. I believe the minister had protested that this section hadn’t been given the attention that he thought it deserved. I do want to discuss it.

The minister and the committee will be aware that during the course of our discussions, it’s clear that the ambit of this particular tax intends to tax companies that do not have a permanent establishment in British Columbia, although that’s sometimes frowned upon in international tax treaties.

Nonetheless, the minister publicly explained the intent of this section as being a device to attract companies, particularly energy companies, who ordinarily, given practice and given the cluster of companies in Calgary, locate their head offices in Calgary. The intention was to draw companies back to British Columbia.

Perhaps the minister can explain what his intention is in this particular section and what the implications might be for companies establishing permanent establishments here in British Columbia as opposed to in Calgary, Alberta.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I don’t mean this to be a criticism, because I think it has been reported in this way as well. I think there has been a little bit of confusion around the distinction between the attraction of a head office, the establishment of a corporate head office within the jurisdiction, and the other feature, which is probably more relevant.

Now, I say that, but I also want to emphasize that as always in this sector of the economy, as in others, the province is interested and the government is interested in attracting a larger corporate presence.

[1130]

We are certainly encouraging agencies to establish offices and head offices in British Columbia right across the economic spectrum. But in this case, the opportunity to take advantage of the credit being proposed here is not contingent upon the relocation of a head office. It is contingent upon establishing a presence and allocating income to British Columbia for corporate income tax purposes.

I hope the member understands the distinction that I’m drawing. It is not a prerequisite, for taking advantage of this credit, to move a head office to British Columbia.

It is necessary for an operator — a domestic operator within Canada or a non-resident Canadian, a
[ Page 5644 ]
non-resident operator, a non-resident in Canada — to establish a presence for the purpose of allocating income for the payment of corporate income tax, separate as distinguished from LNG income tax.

That lies at the root of what is occurring here. I hope I have offered some assistance in distinguishing between the allocation of income versus the relocation of a corporate head office.

B. Ralston: Much depends, then, on the definition of a “permanent establishment.” I gather the minister is making it clear that that is not synonymous with “headquarters.”

I understand that “permanent establishment” is a term that’s defined in the Canadian Income Tax Act, although when I looked it up in sections 248 and 249, I couldn’t locate it.

Perhaps the minister could define, because the term is used in “qualifying corporation”: “(b) has a permanent establishment in British Columbia at any time during the taxation year.”

The definition of “permanent establishment” seems to be key to eligibility for receiving this credit. The minister is announcing a distinction between that and “headquarters.” Could he clearly define what “permanent establishment” means in this context?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll attempt to answer, in the first instance, by offering this very abbreviated definition — the concept of a “permanent establishment” being a fixed place of doing business — and then, hopefully, point the member in the direction of where the authoritative definition lies in the regulations to the federal Income Tax Act.

Section 400 includes definitions in sub (2) around “permanent establishment” that goes on at some length. In my copy of the act, at page 1,678 — if the member has the same consolidated version of the act that I do — there is a lengthy interpretation section that considers the term “permanent establishment.”

B. Ralston: The minister will know that one of the points of discussion of this policy when it emerged publicly was that under TILMA — that is the agreement with Alberta — there was intended that there be a reciprocal agreement. Indeed, that is the agreement, that if one had headquarters in Alberta, you weren’t required to open headquarters in British Columbia, which British Columbia has honoured.

Yet, Alberta has refused to recognize the fact that if a company has headquarters in British Columbia for tax purposes, they’re still required to open an office in Alberta.

[1135]

During the discussion of this, the freedom-of-information request was made. The government of British Columbia has been negotiating, I suppose, or at least discussing the matter with the government of Alberta since TILMA was signed in 2006, with no movement by the government of Alberta.

In other words, despite some of the grand rhetoric about removing administrative barriers and cutting red tape and all the usual things that are said on these occasions, the government of Alberta has steadfastly refused to make that recognition and relieve companies of the obligation to open offices in Alberta.

Can the minister advise what bearing that policy, that roadblock or that stalemate between British Columbia and Alberta has upon the likely or possible success of this policy?

I would think that offshore companies wouldn’t particularly want to open a permanent establishment in British Columbia and to attract a tax in British Columbia if they wouldn’t otherwise have to pay it. The deduction from an amount that they wouldn’t have to pay would probably not be to their advantage.

It seems focused on companies that would ordinarily want to establish themselves in Alberta and in an effort to draw them to British Columbia. Can the minister explain the practical inhibition to success of this section, given the stalemate between B.C. and Alberta on the TILMA agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I can deal with the question and the observation in the reverse order that they were presented. I was very quickly advised, when the member made his comments and observations about where, practically, the interests might lie, that in fact offshore non-resident entities are very much interested in this.

I think that probably has to do with the manner in which, again, their operation is structured and the realization that, through this mechanism, up to 3 percent reduction in their corporate income tax obligations represents a very significant benefit.

That is not to quarrel and suggest that we know, authoritatively, who is going to take advantage and who isn’t. It is merely to suggest that officials, at least, who have been somewhat involved tell me there is wider spread interest than the member may have thought on the part of offshore agencies.

Now, to the first and main part of the member’s suggestion. It is clear to me that, in the intervening eight years, much progress has been made in reducing and eliminating some of the barriers that have existed to the movement of people and goods between British Columbia, Alberta and now Saskatchewan. That is the objective that we set out to achieve.

Although I think — and I say this not to be argumentative — as I recall, at the time the opposition of the day was very skeptical about the purposes behind TILMA and the objectives behind TILMA. It has since attracted positive attention from across the country, where others are seeking to model similar types of interjurisdictional agreements.

All that I offer in defence of the proposition that this has
[ Page 5645 ]
been a very worthwhile endeavour and that it has secured very real and tangible results. I will stop short of suggesting that we are all the way there and that we have successfully removed all of the barriers that exist or that all of the objectives behind the original agreement have been met.

There is clearly more work to be done. It will continue. The principles around which TILMA and the new west partnership have been formed and founded, though, in my view, remain important, remain valid and the benefits that accrue from achieving them, very real.

Personal Statement

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

C. Trevena: I wish to withdraw a statement I made in question period.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

[1140]

Debate Continued

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned offshore companies wishing to set up a permanent establishment here in British Columbia. Most of those offshore companies reside legally in jurisdictions where there are tax treaties with Canada.

One of the basic principles of a tax treaty is to avoid double taxation. Perhaps the minister can explain — I don’t purport to be an expert in this area — why a company would choose to pay tax here when it could pay a tax in its home jurisdiction, perhaps, at more favourable terms than here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is the attraction would exist if it was a lower rate of tax.

B. Ralston: I know there was a study done for the International Financial Centre now called Advantage B.C., which claimed that the rate of corporate tax in British Columbia was lower than that in the People’s Republic of China, in Malaysia, in Japan and Korea. Is that what the minister is referring to?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am aware of the report. I wasn’t referring specifically to it. I think, as I cast my mind back, that report tended to focus more on the financial services sector.

The concept or the principle that the member, I think, is enunciating around corporations being attracted to low-tax jurisdictions is very valid.

A. Weaver: With respect to the definition of “permanent residents,” it’s left up to federal regulations, under section 400 (2), to define it. In some sense, when I read through the definition, it seems relatively broad.

My question is this: can a company just set up an office with one employee and call that a permanent residence for the sake of getting all of these tax benefits? Or is there some kind of size that the government imagines? It strikes me that this is a very, very open definition in the federal legislation that the province has actually passed jurisdiction to through this legislation before us.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think when the member said permanent residence, I think the term he’s referring to is “permanent establishment.”

I’m not aware of a threshold that must be met to qualify as a permanent establishment. Where the question of magnitude of operation probably has some relevance is internationally, in the rules around income allocation. I’m advised it’s less relevant domestically within Canada. But internationally the size of the operation, the size of the presence, would be relevant for the question of determining income allocation.

A. Weaver: With apologies, I did mean “permanent establishment.”

A final question on this section would be: where did the number “half-percent” come from? It strikes me that it just came out of nowhere, this section 4 of our part 13 in the act. What’s the rationale? What’s the justification? Did it kind of come as a little final gift to the industry to try to make them say, perhaps: “Maybe, yes — some day, one day”?

There really needs to be a rationale for it. If the minister would be able to provide that, I’d be very grateful.

[1145]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question.

The number, of course — ultimately, through the formula — drives the amount of the credit. One of the reasons I was taking some extra time…. I think it’s a very relevant question. Officials have tried to settle on a rate that was significant enough to achieve, within a reasonable time, the objective behind the public policy, which is to afford operators a mechanism by which they could take their corporate income tax rate from 11 percent down to as low as 8 percent. That influences the multiplier, if you will.

In changing circumstances, though, I think an equally relevant question — and one the member might have been considering — is whether or not the statute is the appropriate place for that multiplier or regulation insofar as market conditions change. That’s something that I have thought about and we are thinking about. But that’s the rationale for the 0.5 rate that’s there now.

Sections 123 to 130 inclusive approved.
[ Page 5646 ]

B. Ralston: I’d like to move at this point a proposed amendment — a new section 131 which refers to LNG project development agreements. There was a further subsection (3) which sets out four conditions that ought to be included in project development agreements.

[Bill (No. 6) intituled: Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act

to amend as follows:

The following section is added:

LNG project development agreement

Section 131

(1) In this section, “LNG project development agreement” means

(a) an agreement between the Province of British Columbia and a person or partnership who has ownership or control of property within British Columbia which is used or intended to be used for liquefaction activities;

and must include

(b) express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians.

(2) If the government enters into an LNG project development agreement, it must include provisions set out in subsection (1).

(3) In signing one or more LNG project development agreements, the government must develop and implement a strategy with the goal of making BC’s LNG industry built and run 100% by British Columbians. The strategy must ensure that BC’s LNG industry:

(a) Includes express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians;

(b) Provides a fair return for our resource;

(c) Respects and make partners of First Nations; and

(d) Protects our air, land and water with science-based safeguards, including living up to our climate commitments.]

The minister, in debate yesterday, has referred to the ongoing process of a negotiation with proponents in establishing these LNG project development agreements. They seem integrally tied to the operation of this particular statute.

I’m therefore recommending that the House consider this, particularly the provision that these agreements should require proponents to not express best efforts to hire British Columbians but that there be express negotiated jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians guaranteed in those agreements with proponents.

The Chair: I thank the member. I have reviewed the amendment, and it is out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1150]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
INCOME TAX ACT

A. Weaver: At third reading here, I would like to move an amendment, please. The amendment is as follows:

[that the motion for third reading on Bill 6, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substitute the words “the bill be not now read a third time, that the order for third reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper and the subject matter referred to the Select Standing Committee for Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.”]

I have five signed copies here for you, hon. Speaker.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the spirit with which the member tables the proposed amendment at this third reading stage. The government is not supportive of the amendment and proposes that we proceed with the vote.

A. Weaver: I wish to speak to the amendment and the reason why I brought it forward. Through this committee stage, a number of issues have been clarified. There have been questions that would benefit exploration at committee stage. In particular, there are questions on revenue projections, the modelling, the assumptions into the modelling that have not been forthcoming and transparent in terms of us as a legislature being able to assess this legislation.

There’s section 32(c). There are issues that came up there with respect to a loophole for earned credits that could be sold by a company, the income from that not being claimed as taxable, yet the person purchasing it can claim the income as a deduction.

There are questions in section 46 with respect to the rate being left out. We haven’t got some guidance as to what that rate is in the formula there.

There are questions with respect to section 47 regarding a potential LNG loophole for tax avoidance through capital acquisitions and leaving the 1.5 percent net LNG tax rate for significant times.

There are questions on section 122 with respect to the polluter-gets-paid as a polluter-pay model. And there are questions on section 172 that we did not have as much time as I would have wished to explore, in particular the one-half percent natural gas tax credit.

I would think that such an important piece of legislation that a government believes is outlining a direction for this province for years ahead would benefit from a more thoughtful analysis at committee stage, at which point third parties could be brought in for consultation, including the public, including First Nations and including the companies involved, so that all in this Legislature
[ Page 5647 ]
are able to see the negotiations and the input that is required for such legislation to move forward.

This is the reason I brought this amendment forward now, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much for your time.

[1155-1200]

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is on the amendment put forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Bill 6, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, read a third time and passed on division.

Madame Speaker: I am advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. I would ask members to please retain their seats.

[1205]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act

Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014

Container Trucking Act

Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act

Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014

Terry Fox Day Act

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 40th parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Joyeux Noël, happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, till we meet again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Please travel safely to your ridings. This House stands adjourned.

The House adjourned at 12:10 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